Stuff happens...
All sorts of stuff...Originally Posted by Pete
Seems to me that dissecting FM 3-24 would be totally consistent with your "address the small wars deficiency in U.S. military doctrine" comment...I thought it would be a place that sought to address the small wars deficiency in U.S. military doctrine. Instead, the U.S. Army's institutional response to the small wars situation, FM 3-24, has, along with the horse it rode in on, been thoroughly torn to pieces!
I for one said it was deficient in that it was too long, too esoteric and roamed into policy matters not the Armed forces business among other things. A number of suggestions for improvement have been offered by many.
Several here got involved in getting the Army to allow comments to several new manuals in open forum here. I don't recall your contributions to that effort, so could you remind if you partook or not?I think you missed a number of things.Now you guys are complaining about a 1980s version of FM 100-5, a manual that doesn't even exist anymore under the same name!
- This thread started last year with a link to a monograph published by internationally respected military thinkers 16 Sep 09. That's fairly current. In that monograph, the authors contend that the US Army lost the bubble by getting wrapped around 'the operational art.' A contention with which I agree. Whats' your opinion?
- That monograph was linked and comments were solicited. Some comments did indeed address the old 100-5 but in direct reference to the Monograph . Those all ceased last October with Comment #28. None of the 27 additional comments in the current sub-thread started by ChrisJM yesterday address FM 100-5 -- except yours...Well, we could discuss WW I in greater detail I guess...This place isn't reformist, it's reactionary, and really really reactionary at that, the way a discussion forum for exiled Tsarist officers would have been in the 1930s!
Neat thing is that participation is not mandatory.
Bookmarks