Army Doctrine Reengineering and the Loss of Any Historical Perspective

[Klugzilla]

I'm sure they did do their homework, and a bright and committed men.

FM3 Chap 2

That is a set of opinions. None of the statements contained therein are historically accurate, or supported by military history. FM3 also fails to use the widely accepted historical definition of Irregular Warfare, "warfare against an irregular opponent." - eg: Small Wars.

How many more examples do you wish for?

While I might personally agree with you that the U.S. definition of IW may not be the right one, you are comparing your interpretation of military history with another. Any history is interpretation based on fact. Yours differs from DOD policy, joint doctrine, and Army doctrine, as FM 3-0 is built to be consistent with DOD policy and joint doctrine. If you want to attack the way irregular warfare is treated, you'll have to start at the top. 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.

[William F. Owen]

While I might personally agree with you that the U.S. definition of IW may not be the right one, you are comparing your interpretation of military history with another.

I'm not sure I am. I don't view Military history as a buffet bar to be raided selectively in support of doctrine. If it is, then that forgives all the stupidity you see in armies today! Military history does layout clear lessons, and the context of those lessons is critical. The US IW definition is not founded in any historical fact. It is a definition used to support doctrine, when it should be the opposite.

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.

An irregular opponent is one that is not part of a regular army. Regular armies have a defined set of legal, social and organisational characteristics, generally lacking in irregulars.
That the JOC rejected it, is not evidence that we should. The JOC came up with "hybrid," which is a clumsy forcing mechanisms to try and short cut real military education.

[Klugzilla]

I'm not sure I am. I don't view Military history as a buffet bar to be raided selectively in support of doctrine. If it is, then that forgives all the stupidity you see in armies today! Military history does layout clear lessons, and the context of those lessons is critical. The US IW definition is not founded in any historical fact. It is a definition used to support doctrine, when it should be the opposite.


An irregular opponent is one that is not part of a regular army. Regular armies have a defined set of legal, social and organisational characteristics, generally lacking in irregulars.
That the JOC rejected it, is not evidence that we should. The JOC came up with "hybrid," which is a clumsy forcing mechanisms to try and short cut real military education.

I don't view military history as a buffet, but you have to survey all of the appropriate facts and establish a hypothesis. The authors of the IW JOC surveyed the historical facts and established a hypothesis. While you may not agree with their hypothesis, and I’m not sure I’m completely sold either, there is historical fact that supports the current IW definition. And the definition for IW was first established in the JOC and then doctrine was written for that paradigm, not the other way around. From writing several recent doctrinal manuals, I can say that the manuals flow from theory and terminology. For example, how you define insurgency drives COIN doctrine.

Please elaborate on the defined set of legal, social, and organizational characteristics—that is the hard part. Although this material will not appear in the definition itself, it will have to be discussed in some detail in support of the definition. This discussion tends to quickly become mired in mirror imaging and cultural bias. And “generally lacking in irregulars” is circular.

[William F. Owen]

From writing several recent doctrinal manuals, I can say that the manuals flow from theory and terminology. For example, how you define insurgency drives COIN doctrine.

I beg to differ. I think the doctrine often drives the definitions. The very fact that you wanted to develop a "COIN Doctrine" instead of a broad guide to conduct of Irregular Warfare is symptomatic of that.

Please elaborate on the defined set of legal, social, and organisational characteristics—that is the hard part.

Not sure I understand the question. Define an irregular enemy? That depends on your define a regular.
Regular Forces are, trained, paid and organised as declared and defined instruments of state power - all others are irregular.

So for example, regular soldiers have pay books, ID papers etc, and thus even US Special Forces are very regular soldiers.

[Klugzilla]

I beg to differ. I think the doctrine often drives the definitions. The very fact that you wanted to develop a "COIN Doctrine" instead of a broad guide to conduct of Irregular Warfare is symptomatic of that.


Not sure I understand the question. Define an irregular enemy? That depends on your define a regular.
Regular Forces are, trained, paid and organised as declared and defined instruments of state power - all others are irregular.

So for example, regular soldiers have pay books, ID papers etc, and thus even US Special Forces are very regular soldiers.

I personally wanted to write an IW JP and have advocated writing an Army IW FM, so please don't assume that I personally just leaped to writing a COIN JP. Developing or not developing a joint publication is not one individual author's choice, although they certainly can make recommendations. Irregular warfare is covered in higher JPs, although I personally think it needs more detail and development, and the joint community wanted IW to permeate all joint doctrine rather have reside in one pub, so it was decided not to develop an IW pub.

As far as the COIN manual goes, there was a gap in joint doctrine with respect to COIN and the Army therefore proposed that we develop a COIN JP. This proposal had to be consistent with policy and approved by the voting members (Services, Joint Staff J-7, ALSA, GCCs, and FCCs). In this case, the members voted unanimously to develop a COIN JP. There are similar considerations for FMs.

[Bill Jakola]

I personally wanted to write an IW JP and have advocated writing an Army IW FM,

War is war. Participants may be regular or irregular or fall into any number of other catagories; but warfare is not definable in terms of a standard of regularity. For example, what is irregular war; and how is that different from any other form of war.

Major Bill Jakola

[William F. Owen]

War is war. Participants may be regular or irregular or fall into any number of other catagories; but warfare is not definable in terms of a standard of regularity. For example, what is irregular war; and how is that different from any other form of war.

War is War. Cannot argue with that. Welcome to the Dark Side of SWC!

I agree that you cannot have irregular War. - but I do think "Irregular Warfare" is a useful term, especially for training and force development.

[Fuchs]

An irregular opponent is one that is not part of a regular army. Regular armies have a defined set of legal, social and organisational characteristics, generally lacking in irregulars.

Emphasis on "generally". Much of the weakness of your statement is in that single word.

Examples:
* East India Companies
* European 15th-17th century mercs.
* Japanese warrior monks.
* Boers

It's also difficult to use "irregular" in context of mixed opposition (VC/NVA, Mercs among soldiers in Iraq/AFG, Palestina campaign 1917).

By the way; what's a "regular" army and what not? That's another weak spot of your definition.
Some armies of the world include(d) militias and even partisans. The Russians would likely field many para-military, non-regular "army" troops in a future conflict (troops of ministry of interior, KGB successor troops, border patrol).
Germany gives combatant status to its border police (meant for WW3), while much of France's police is (para)military Gendarmerie. About 10% of the German Eastern front army in 1942-1945 were ex-Soviet troops ("Hilfswillige", people willing to help) who were employed with rudimentary markings and unarmed. They weren't officially subject to martial courts and such. Were these men irregulars?
What about Soviet Red Army troops who were overrun and turned to partisan warfare? Regulars or irregulars?

A 95% definition is no useful definition.


edit: I forgot to add Austrian-Hungarian border settlers, Russian Cossacks, letter of marque,

[William F. Owen]

A 95% definition is no useful definition.

Well I strongly disagree. 95% is certainly good enough. No definition in warfare can be perfect. EG:
What is a Tank? CV-120? CVR-T?
Define a mortar, bearing in mind there are breach loading, rifled, direct fire mortar systems.

Some definitions of regular and irregular are going to be very context specific, so yes the context will provide a dimension so....

Examples:
* East India Companies - Regular in the context of whom they are contracted to, and used against
* European 15th-17th century mercs.- same as above
* Japanese warrior monks. - Serving the Emperor and fighting against whom?
* Boers - very definitely irregular.

Native Americans fighting Native Americans, is State v State Warfare or Nation v Nation. - context.

My definition is not to serve a general theory of war, but to provide the basis for teaching/discussion for Western/NATO armies in the early 21st century.

[Fuchs]

The Japanese warrior monks had "a defined set of legal, social and organisational characteristics".
Yet, they didn't serve a state, army, emperor or whatsoever. They were essentially sects that reached the proficiency and degree of organization of regular armies, albeit differently.

Your 95% definition doesn't tell for sure in any case whether a crowd is a regular or irregular force. Your exception ("generally lacking") is too unspecific.

[Steve Blair]

I'd also take issue with the Native Americans example, but now we're down to splitting hairs....

[Ursus horribilis toklat]

Klugzilla noted earlier

As I mentioned before, I too hate to see this happening; however, the actual appearance of quotes, vignettes, etc. does not necessarily mean that history does not underpin doctrine. That train has left the station". Also, we have yet to settle on a format for the ATTP, which is where vignettes may have the most impact. I think this ties into the Bob's World post."

Its not to late. The train hasn't gathered much speed yet. I think that historical underpinnings ought to be part and parcel of each published Service doctrinal manual, and that these underpinnings, whether in-text references or separate quotes and vignettes, should be extensively footnoted and/or source-note referenced. Peer review/audit ought to be an integral part of the coordination process (required not just requested) for draft manuals prior to their publication and public release.