Army Doctrine Reengineering and the Loss of Any Historical Perspective

[Ursus horribilis toklat]

Klugzilla noted earlier

As I mentioned before, I too hate to see this happening; however, the actual appearance of quotes, vignettes, etc. does not necessarily mean that history does not underpin doctrine. That train has left the station". Also, we have yet to settle on a format for the ATTP, which is where vignettes may have the most impact. I think this ties into the Bob's World post."

Its not to late. The train hasn't gathered much speed yet. I think that historical underpinnings ought to be part and parcel of each published Service doctrinal manual, and that these underpinnings, whether in-text references or separate quotes and vignettes, should be extensively footnoted and/or source-note referenced. Peer review/audit ought to be an integral part of the coordination process (required not just requested) for draft manuals prior to their publication and public release.

[Ursus horribilis toklat]

I suggest COMISAF's guidance for COIN is a good example of tight writing and appropriate use of vignettes to drive home a point. Alarmingly the current trend in draft revisions of Army doctrinal manuals is not to include such vignettes (see the posts on Army Doctrine Reengineering on the TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference thread). As you well know by now I think this is a mistake. In writing doctrine we should follow GEN McC's lead rather than sacrificing the inclusion of any historical perspective in doctrinal manuals on the altar of brevity (as we are apparently about to do).

[Sylvan]

The problem isn't the manuals or what is contained in them.
The problem is an officer corps that sees no reason to read professionally beyond what the immediate problem is.

We have lots of careerists, but professionals are hard to come by.