As to Wilf's mild and likely correct criticism, to me doctrine, strategy, tactics are kind of like the civilian vision/mission, goals, and outcomes. Your doctrine is how you want to see stuff come out in the end, the strategy is a series of goals to meet that overall vision, and your tactics are the discrete elements, tools, methods, or things you do to implement the goals (would be strategy). Not completely aligned but the security paradigm I work within is completely flipped anyways.

I also have never been a military trainer/educator. Other than those few ROTC or military members in my classes. My background is in education theory which is the ocean that the military dips their concepts from. The kind of education I do is applied studies. No wussy social sciences. Within my discipline we align education with desired outcomes that are inclusive of patterns of knowledge needed for continued growth of expertise. As such maybe I can bring up some ideas maybe I have nothing to add.

If there is an overall knowledge state and expertise level that a soldier/sailor/marine needs to acquire then you can create a syllabus to do that. Expertise as Ken White and I discussed previously is a fickle if understood quantity. We know the number to get to the end state, now we'll just quibble of the "good enough" number. What has to be identified are the general knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA's) and then the specialized set. They all should point back at the doctrine as that desired end state.

This kind of holistic education is nothing new. The military has used it in the past. The higher education system has used it in the past. The rush to expertise in the post WW2 culture has mistakenly washed that away. An interesting point is that in the economic turmoil that has beset higher education consolidation is occurring and in some cases students are much happier. The generalized knowledge between two near-fields in depth is often much more utilitarian than the specialized knowledge at the surface. I once read a great piece illustrating this principle. Four hours training in how to use a blade screw driver is better than an hour on a phillips, an hour on a torx an hour on a blade, and finally an hour on an allen key screwdriver. They all work pretty much the same.

Some tasks simply can't be generalized or conceptualized as a form of a model eliciting activity (MEA). There are specialized skills like avionics or similar. You identify those and plug them into your education plan and how they reflect back towards doctrine. This should also reflect that doctrine has to be solid and can't be messed with simply for political proclivity to touch things. Doctrine should be generational rather than turmoil. That way as members of the military are educated the systemic forces will create cohesion that strengthens capabilities rather than eroding under parasitic tensions of counter doctrinal actions.

Well perhaps.