You can find it here.
I think it says something that this is finally coming out eight years after the OEF began and over three years after FM 3-24. Better late than never, I guess, but IMO doctrine needs to be developed in a much more timely manner.
Printable View
You can find it here.
I think it says something that this is finally coming out eight years after the OEF began and over three years after FM 3-24. Better late than never, I guess, but IMO doctrine needs to be developed in a much more timely manner.
This is council member Klugzilla's labor of love. If you only knew ...
So has anybody seen this COIN Leader's Handbook I'd heard about a few years ago>>>:D
Haha. I would like to report a failure to make any progress after four years. However, Panera Bread did benefit from the daily patronage of its erstwhile author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw
In all honesty, once someone left it died its overdue death. It really wasn't anywhere beyond where you guys left it at - suprise suprise.
Entropy: I hear you on speed; however, you have to balance several factors, and each book is different. Doctrine turns slowly while other options, such as handbooks, are faster. More importantly, doctrine should be enduring...the operative word being "should." TTP and theater-specific TTP is a different story.
We wanted to begin development of the JP after gauging the community's reaction to FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5. From there, new Joint doctrine takes 18-24 months to complete. Subsequent updates will take much less time. In fact, there are several things we want to put into a change 1 after the next iteration of JP 5-0 comes out (specifically design).
I will say that the NATO COIN pub should be coming out next summer. We worked on that in parallel, and the NATO review process takes more time than the Army or Joint processes.
Klugzilla,
Thanks for your comments and your work on this big project. Hopefully the doctrine will be enduring or at least updated regularly. I look forward to reading through it over the next few days.
Seeing as this is Joint Doctrine, at what Schools and as part of what syllabus will it be actually taught?
As someone also in the doctrine game, I couldn't agree more - even with the most heavily resourced staff, a 2006/7 JP 3-24 couldn't have been much more than a joint clone of FM 3-24 which, in the current two landlocked major theatres, has probably been a more than adequate surrogate. After reviewing the options in late 07/early 08, we adopted FM 3-24 as our primary doctrine for Countering Irregular Activity (we consider COIN as a subset of CIA/CIT) but will probably wait for the NATO publication to adopt as our joint doctrine in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klugzilla
SJPONeill,Quote:
Originally Posted by SJPONeill
I would agree with you on FM 3-24; I think it more than filled the void until we could get other products out. I liked the CIA construct and got to work with it in ABCA and NATO (we did a pretty good ABCA report on CIA/IW), but the US would not adopt the title given its unfortunate shared acronym with one of our agencies. We incorporated some of CIA/CIT in the NATO COIN AJP. It some ways it is similar to FID when you are discussing FID in the largest sense (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic), not in its more narrow sense.
Cheers!