Some great reading from across the pond

Rather than start a new thread, I thought this would be a good place for this release

38th CMC's Planning Guidance for the USMC

https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/ 38th Commandant's Planning Guidance_2019.pdf?ver=2019-07-16-200152-700

If you think it's deserving of its own thread, or better in another forum I'll get it shifted

@jumpinjarhead
The new CMC was a young Lt. In my recce unit long ago. He enjoys a solid reputation throughout the USMC and beyond. Lots to digest in this document that is very timely and important as the USMC is in somewhat of a doctrinal re-evaluation period in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The new CMC was a young Lt. In my recce unit long ago. He enjoys a solid reputation throughout the USMC and beyond. Lots to digest in this document that is very timely and important as the USMC is in somewhat of a doctrinal re-evaluation period in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Awesome, any embarrasing stories for us? :twisted:
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
So where does one go for quality writing?
IISS. Better than RUSI (as related by someone in RUSI).

But I'd say both have the same qualities and problems, more or less.

In general though read US stuff rather than British. We don't seriously sponsor it either professionally or in academia, despite some laudable outliers. And, particularly, we don't sponsor doing it publicly. Which is absurd given how happy we are to jump on social media to deliver pre-packaged, transparently optimistic, untrusted PR fluff.
 
Last edited:
The new CMC was a young Lt. In my recce unit long ago. He enjoys a solid reputation throughout the USMC and beyond. Lots to digest in this document that is very timely and important as the USMC is in somewhat of a doctrinal re-evaluation period in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I thought their doctrine was to kill everyone

Eventually taking watch on yon Pearly gates

All joking aside PF Owens book on 2/6 To the Limit of Endurance is very good
 
IISS. Better than RUSI (as related by someone in RUSI).

But I'd say both have the same qualities and problems, more or less.

In general though read US stuff rather than British. We don't seriously sponsor it either professionally or in academia, despite some laudable outliers. And, particularly, we don't sponsor doing it publicly. Which is absurd given how happy we are to jump on social media to deliver pre-packaged, transparently optimistic, untrusted PR fluff.
I've recently submitted an academic article for a mildly niche publication regarding an area of inquiry that happened 15+ years ago.

After a massive kickoff from a single Service who branded it "politically toxic" (despite them actually being positively described) meant I got panned by DDC.

All for a journal that's read by low 5 figures and has never featured in the national press...
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I'm completely unsurprised, having seen the same kind of behaviour in 2010-2014, and that was a period where academic writing at least had high level top cover in FDT and CDS.

But (and I totally don't want to rehash this and will shut up after this post) - that's exactly my point in the systemic failure thread about why reporting is a problem. All those people having tantrums about perception in the SS and DDC report on people below them. Particularly in somewhere like DDC, how does someone junior bust through their 1 / 2 RO layer clearly not getting the basic concepts of academic writing and publication? Either they conform to above, or risk getting reported on poorly, despite being right.

Somewhere like DDC - a supposed centre for strategic thinking - having senior people who throw their toys of out the pram when someone publishes something unexpected, to me demonstrates perfectly the problem with a like-selects-like reporting structure. You need some kind of independent function other than the ROs opinion, because too many ROs are simply not up to the required standard.
 
DDC - defence directorate of communications. Headed by a vile CS 2* who would prefer it if none of us ever voiced an opinion. His personal mission is to make sure no military individual has a public voice. I have 1st hand knowledge of this on another topic.

DCDC - defence concepts and doctrine Centre. Wet towels over heads and hard thinking. Some good people thinking some decent thoughts. That then get pushed (or not) through Equipment Programme based agendas...
 
I've expressed frustration with the Pravda masquerading as PME that is also known as the Wavell Room elsewhere*, however this Prezi from Grounded Curiosity shows where the UK sits within 5 Eyes for PME.
Basically somewhere in the middle in terms of quantity, below average in terms of actual content - if you have a look at some of what the Ozzies produce in the Cove and Grounded Curiosity, there are some really good articles from junior commanders about how they have learnt on things like HAMEL 19.
having said that - these recent thoughts from the Monty's Batman/thewarrantofficer.org are cracking

can network.jpg


kiwi network.jpg


uk netwrok.jpg


Oz Network.jpg

US Network.jpg




*echo chamber for plumping WTE OJARs or genuine PME debating platform**? Discuss
** okay, maybe I was a little robust in saying exactly how crap their reservist piece was...
 

Latest Threads

Top