Army Doctrine Reengineering and the Loss of Any Historical Perspective

[Klugzilla]

Serious question from this:



What is your understanding of which you speak - the definition which was rejected ?

The reason for my question is that the distinction between regular and irregular combatants underlies the key issues (in LOAC); about which, I attempt to post with some semblence of professionalism.

This is a basic definition on which both military and legal have to occupy the same page.

Regards

Mike

Agreed. However, I was referring to the fact that the doctrinal definition of irregular warfare focuses on the population, not irregular combatants, formations, tactics, etc. This was established in the IW JOC and put into doctrine via JP 1 and FM 3-0.

There is a joint or Army definition of irregular forces, which isn't necessarily tied to irregular warfare (I personally see the disconnect). However, the definition is “Armed individuals or groups who are not members of the regular armed forces, police, or other internal security forces.” I would like to see that definition refined and expanded upon. As it reads, it essentially says they’re irregular forces because they’re not regular. And there is no definition of regular forces. The definition for paramilitary forces has similar problems. If you have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and potentially get them into doctrine. Do we all basically know the difference between regular, paramilitary, and irregular forces? Yes, but I would like to see the doctrinal definitions improved.