{"id":32993,"date":"2017-07-20T14:30:03","date_gmt":"2017-07-20T04:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=32993"},"modified":"2017-07-19T19:51:19","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T09:51:19","slug":"fresh-thinking-deal-not-quite-wars-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/fresh-thinking-deal-not-quite-wars-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Fresh thinking to deal with \u2018not quite wars\u2019 (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"
If there\u2019s one topic that lends itself to pedantry, it\u2019s military doctrine. Add in a little strategy and cross-cultural thinking and you\u2019ve hit the trifecta required for heated dogmatic commentary. However, in the hope of creating some greater understanding, let\u2019s delve a bit into how doctrine captures the intellectual evolution of military thought, despite the veneer of what some consider unchanging military jargon. In the end, I think we\u2019ll find some illumination not just on military doctrine, but also on strategy and how both affect our military forces.<\/p>\n
Any military discussion requires genuflection to the past, so we\u2019ll begin with an apocryphal saying from the Cold War. Attributed to an anonymous Soviet officer frustrated by his attempts to figure out the Americans, it goes: \u2018A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine.\u2019 While enjoyable to relate, it\u2019s not true, at least not in the contemporary military. In fact, military members tend not only to use doctrine, but to abuse it shamelessly to sell their latest projects or ideas\u2014and to conform it to their conceptions of linear military campaigns.<\/p>\n
An example of that abuse is the doctrinaire approach to phasing in planning and execution depicted in Figure 1. That phased approach to planning was used for decades in joint doctrine. It was designed to depict how to think about<\/em> breaking up a military campaign into smaller chunks for planning. Instead, it became a checklist on which planning was based. It even crept into the defence vernacular, with steady-state operations becoming \u2018Phase 0\u2019, conventional war \u2018Phase 3\u2019, etc. Military leaders and planners began thinking in those arbitrary phases.<\/p>\n Figure 1: Phases of a notional operation plan versus level of military effort<\/strong><\/p>\n