Military #doctrine is not a substitute for the theory.
If you want to discuss Clausewitz (and you should), please read Clausewitz. Particularly in #PME
PS: I love doctrine, and US Marine Corps Warfighting (MCDP 1) is a prime example of a beautifully written doctrine.
#MilSky #CivMilSky
If you want to discuss Clausewitz (and you should), please read Clausewitz. Particularly in #PME
PS: I love doctrine, and US Marine Corps Warfighting (MCDP 1) is a prime example of a beautifully written doctrine.
#MilSky #CivMilSky
Comments
See: https://forskning.ruc.dk/en/publications/rethinking-clausewitzs-chameleon-is-it-time-for-western-militarie
https://bsky.app/profile/sorensjogren.bsky.social/post/3lbwpudof6s2q
This as he heads into finals week. 😂
"As if I have freaking time, Dad! Still, looks very sexy and soooo distracting when I'm under pressure."
Soren, Interesting did this PhD in the Department of Communications and Arts. I did doctrine work in my younger years and it was in the Department of War Studies. 🤔
The 🌶️: to a certain extend, war studies in Denmark has been taken over by political science (neo)realists. As a classically educated rather continental philosopher, that was not my cup of tea.
War has no fixed nature would be more accurate.
They (Chowder 2) understand war's nature. The actively serving Marines do not.
There are four components.
1. Essence (Wesen) -- this is the logic (e.g. 1.1.3-1.1.5)
2. Nature (Natur) -- these are Kantian glasses
3. Character (Charakter) -- socio/techno/political manifestation
4. Manner (Manier) -- how one does things, flair
I've seen Army Colonels tut tutting people for "confusing" the two.
I think it's because we don't treat it is as a philosophical text.
We are taught "words matter" but we don't read it as though those words might have come out of a deeply sophisticated intellectual milieu that is concerned with more than squares and skirmishers.
The more nerdy question is whether that context/milieu is Kantian or Hegelian. The distinction between real war and absolute or abstract could also be understood as a form of dialectic.
We read along in the German version and proceeded to write the article/chapter above.
Theory is on the leading edge (with budget, geopolitics, tech evolution, societal norms, etc) that inform future concepts. Those concepts drive CAPEDEV that “ends” with doctrine describing employment. 1/
I recognize I also have a US-centric view on this, so it’s interesting to hear an ally’s perspective.
However, it is more of a bureaucratic exercise in which alignment with already accepted ideas is paramount. Exceptions are strategic catalysts or individuals driving the process (e.g., writing MCDP-1).
Swedish case study, for instance:
The latter approach closes the mind and is utterly unscientific.
Less so in concepts and theory
Indeed compairing doctrine with (scientific) theory is off.
The two are produced with different ends in mind, through different processes, and has different quality standards.
Doctrine is meant to focus on the ordered arrangement of forces to accomplish a task. The recent pernicious sneak of other elements of the DOTMLPF into the doctrine is less about tactics and more about equities.
For instance, German (and Danish) land doctrine is more concise and abstract than FM 3-0.
These different approaches make writing NATO doctrine challenging.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2023.2251170#abstract
Instead, the consensus was that COIN was covered in FM 1's description of full spectrum operations and that success is 'anchored in the individual commander's level of abstraction'.
Finding a lot of similar ideas in this book coupled with the influence on domestic politics and military culture. Doctrine is a snapshot, but informed by the internal logic of the nation and external reality of that moment.
However, the cultural argument leads to tautology: People behave in ways (doctrine looks in ways) consistent with cultural traditions. How is the culture determined? By observing what cultural rules they follow.
Mapping and discussing those rules/differencies is a way forward.
NATO does not start with an empty Word document but a proposal or a scheduled review that starts the process.
The more bureaucratic the process, the less revolutionary the output.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/620a2f82d3bf7f4f06550094/AAP_47_with_UK_national_elements_Feb19_EdC-access.pdf