Army Doctrine Reengineering and the Loss of Any Historical Perspective

[Bob's World]

While I realize that "write doctrine" is arguably the principle task of the Regular force in peace; we need to ask who has the principle task of "read and employ doctrine," and tailor the doctrinal products to that audiance.

Mostly doctrine is for students and higher level staffs. While, as Ken points out, the bulk of the force is at BN and below; I doubt highly that that is the bulk of the doctrine audance.

What the guys and gals at that level need are usable products that convert doctrine to the environment that they will be expected to operate in. Pocket guides that help Platoon leaders and Squad leaders gain effectiveness through the experiences of others.

Could we use less doctrine? Undoubtedly.

Should we attempt to achieve this by stripping the life out of what is already dry reading to begin with, in some effort to make one size fit all? I think that would be a disaster.

Remember, the historic strength of the American warfighting force has always been that the warfighter himself was a draftee or volunteer brought on specifically to fight the war, and who had probably never been within 10 paces of a doctrinal manual. The regulars up at Division had those books and had taught them at places like Benning and Leavenworth. Doctrine shapes the operational construct, but it does not guide the fight.

[Ursus horribilis toklat]

Could we use less doctrine? Undoubtedly.

Should we attempt to achieve this by stripping the life out of what is already dry reading to begin with, in some effort to make one size fit all? I think that would be a disaster.

Remember, the historic strength of the American warfighting force has always been that the warfighter himself was a draftee or volunteer brought on specifically to fight the war, and who had probably never been within 10 paces of a doctrinal manual. The regulars up at Division had those books and had taught them at places like Benning and Leavenworth. Doctrine shapes the operational construct, but it does not guide the fight.

Amen. In a speech delivered to the conservative backbench Foreign affairs committee, House of Commons, March 1936, Winston S. Churchill said in part:

"Those who are possessed of a definitive body of doctrine and of deeply rooted convictions upon it will be in a much better position to deal with the shifts and surprises of daily affairs than those who are merely taking the short views, and indulging their natural implses as they are evoked by what they read from day to day. The first thing is to decide where you want to go."

[Klugzilla]

Amen. In a speech delivered to the conservative backbench Foreign affairs committee, House of Commons, March 1936, Winston S. Churchill said in part:

"Those who are possessed of a definitive body of doctrine and of deeply rooted convictions upon it will be in a much better position to deal with the shifts and surprises of daily affairs than those who are merely taking the short views, and indulging their natural implses as they are evoked by what they read from day to day. The first thing is to decide where you want to go."

I personally like this quotation:

I am tempted to say that whatever doctrine the armed forces are working on now, they have got it wrong. I am also tempted to declare that it does not matter…What does matter is their ability to get it right quickly, when the moment arrives.
—Sir Michael Howard

[jmm99]

Serious question from this:

from Klugzilla
Next fun question: what is an irregular opponent? I understand it, the group who did the analysis for the first IW JOC considered using this as the basis for IW, but rejected it.

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

[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.

[jmm99]

from Klugzilla
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.

If this hasn't been "threaded" before (need to check), should it go in "Doctrine & TTPs", "Training & Education" or elsewhere. It is not "Law Enforcement", since the primary importance is in things military (and its interfaces with diplomacy and policy).

Mike