Care to Write Army Doctrine? With ID, Log On

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by msr, Aug 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    In July, in a sharp break from tradition, the Army began encouraging its personnel — from the privates to the generals — to go online and collaboratively rewrite seven of the field manuals that give instructions on all aspects of Army life.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/14army.html?_r=1

    msr
     
  2. British Army doctrine is written behind closed doors and without reference or collaboration from SMEs. Discuss.
     
  3. msr

    msr LE

    I suspect the US came to the same conclusions about theirs. Hence the wiki.

    msr
     
  4. dragstrip has made no attempt to inform the doctrine debate by submitting anything at all. Discuss
     
  5. Not sure that is true. Care to substantiate?

    whf
     
  6. One can only imagine the shock to system to find the author of the 2007 COIN doctrine manual was a 70 year old brigadier, commissioned in the Middlesex Regiment...first served in NI in 1969...nice chap, but, did anyone really expect him to be able to write the COIN manual in 2007?

    Hence the huge delay in this project.
     
  7. From what I saw in Upavon, then later at Warminster, this is close to the truth.
     
  8. Is this some private party for those who want or need to unwind and not therefore cause ripples in " What should the british army now adopt".

    According to the septics the UK armed forces failed badly in Basra, and now say they "the Brits" failed badly in afgoonistan.

    Coin or whatever money ancronim is todays "must speek" has obviously passed over the the UK generals and regimental bands. And the civil serpants are far too busy watering thier gardens to concern themselves with some peasky war "yet agian in afgoonistan" which will result in the army loosing badly and the Civil Service having to agree/discuss/etc some agreement which will look as if the British gobment have saved face.
     
  9. Don't know if it still holds true. In many ways we now have too much collaboration because the desire to involve SMEs is now adding to the process and ensuring that it takes longer to get doctrine into the field army. There is undoubtedly a balance between your perspective and what I see now.

    whf
     
  10. The US Army has a system of Field Manuals - Interim (FMIs) that are essentially doctrine in progress. These are put out into the field as soon as is practicable and comments are then invited from the end users, academics, military students etc. After a given period the new and updated FM is published. Quite why we don't adopt a similarly pragmatic approach to doctrine is beyond me.
     
  11. Don't know if it still holds true. In many ways we now have too much collaboration because the desire to involve SMEs is now adding to the process and ensuring that it takes longer to get doctrine into the field army. There is undoubtedly a balance between your perspective and what I see now.

    whf[/quote]

    Concur, and with the posting by Hairy Monster, as well. Doctrine does not require months and months of writing. With proper guidance, and minimal outside interference, good doctrine can be rapidly published. The huge obstacle are all the generals whom feel compelled to get into the process. Some are so think it is sad. I saw one 2 star at LAND whom had the intellectual capacity of a piece of burnt toast, and he had to meddle.

    CinC Land needs a few, a very few, smart officers, experienced Lt Cols and Cols whom are entrusted with getting doctrine from the author to the regiments for comment and back into the publishing loop, post haste.

    The Yanks do it, and do a damn good job. We, on the other hand, are not a fast.