Anytime the "Doctrine" becomes what is the important, you're stuffed. Doctrine has to be written and it has to have practical expression, but it is merely a tool. It is not something to be protected, but it is also not something to be needlessly and constantly challenged.
That would also accurately sum up my concern, as well as the nature of the narrative which has driven recent COIN development.Dogmatic doctrine can suppress the innovation at lower levels that is always required in wartime.
When doctrine is allowed to become dogma, then there's a problem. ISTM that Col. Gentile and others worry that our new FM-24-based COIN doctrine is heading down that road.
I would see that as more practical than dogmatic. The military instrument is pretty blunt, limited, and indescriminate. It works best at full power and that means the military contribution to strategy has to be understood in those terms.Wilf quoted Askenazi: "Don't ask my opinion. Tell me what you want and I will tell you if it is possible." Dogmatic doctrine will limit what one perceives is possible IMO. In that regard, I see doctrine as something more likely to limit strategic options than expand them. Therefore, I think doctrine (especially, official, published doctrine) should be be more wide-and-shallow than narrow-and-deep.
Bookmarks