View Single Post
Old 03-07-2010   #242
Ken White
Council Member
Ken White's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,060
Default Oh, I comprehend that -- and I comprehend that is the problem.

Originally Posted by Cole View Post
...Believe some miss the point that not every Soldier must read/study doctrine. But instructors/trainers at institutional level must study it to create lesson plans that are doctrinally-founded.
True -- but those instructors also appreciate a little clarity and concise thought.
Combat training centers O/Cs and other evaluators need some evaluation source based on more than opinion... and the threat may have differed substantially.
That was equally true back in the days when clarity and brevity were not goals but requirements. People fighting wars with high tempo operations do not have time to sort out the chaff.
Also believe many critical of the writing don't comprehend that it is often a team effort with multiple reviewers altering content to leave a hodgepodge of styles and substance by the time it is approved. It may not be pretty, but if it isn't done, you are left relying on opinions of how to do things based on historical experiences/perspectives of particular units/individuals that no longer apply.
Nothing wrong with all that -- BUT someone, not a committee, needs to be responsible and make some hard editorial decisions. These are military doctrinal publications, not high school textbooks; fluff and 'gee whiz' stuff is unnecessary and can be inimical to the doctrine promulgated.
Ken White is offline