Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
If we combine this idea with Wilf's point that doctrine is, rather literally, what is taught, then I think we must end up giving the nod to doctrine as driving strategy. This follows from claims that our language shapes our reality (or at least how we communication our perceptions of our reality) and that our language is taught to us--unlike the way Athena was born from Zeus, language does not spring from our heads fully-formed.
The idea that doctrine is what is taught, is not mine. It is what the word means.
Additionally, I would say that doctrine should be substantially why something is done, not how. That allows for the role of context. This is useful when applied to military operations. It is very much less useful, when you have something like the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine, which is actually not a doctrine at all, but a check list, based on a selective reading of history
BTW, if we want to follow Wilf's lead and identify the meaning of doctrine by reflection on its Latin origins (docere--to teach), perhaps we should do the same with strategy, which derives from the ancient Greek strategos.
I would strongly caution against anyone following me, but I would suggest having clear and shared understanding of the terms we are using.
Rob Thornton
I find myself thinking more and more about Marc's comments about how we form our perception of reality and how we often avoid challenging it, how we defend it, etc.
Well there is the crux of the matter. Most folk here do not challenge the messages they gain from, and stay clear of those who will challenge them.
It's extremely interesting that most of the well known names who post on Journal, stay clear of the discussions on the board.