Army Doctrine Reengineering and the Loss of Any Historical Perspective

[William F. Owen]

And there you have the essence of what doctrine can and should be. Tactics, techniques and procedures provide the details.

Why can't all the Services have an upper tier of doctrine manuals (brief not limited to an arbitrary 200 pages, and replete with quotes from leaders past and present, and historical vignettes to provide context for the application of doctrinal principles), and a lower tier of tactics, techniques, and procedures manuals?

To me, Doctrine is simply "That which is taught" - nothing else. Doctrine should be the teaching of an armed force. What that covers is very debatable, but I am firmly of the belief that a great deal of doctrine fails the primary test of "Why".

IMO, a lot of what some consider doctrine are really evidence free articles of faith, akin to religious teaching and not really based in an empirical reality that gives anyone any confidence as to it's use.