Doctrine is About the Future

General Robert Cone, Former Commanding General of
the Army's Training and Doctrine Command

A common myth about Army doctrine is that it is necessarily oriented around current as opposed to future operations. Doctrine, say those who think this way, is about what the Army is doing today, with today’s capabilities, not about what we intend to do tomorrow with capabilities we don’t yet have. The basis for this way of thinking, essentially, is that anything dealing with future operations is conceptual, and "concepts," states the regulation that governs Army doctrine, "are not doctrine." (emphasis mine).

It is unfortunate that TRADOC Regulation 25-36, seems to underpin this way of thinking, that doctrine is about today and concepts are about tomorrow. To add an air of authority to its dogmatic assertion that "concepts are not doctrine," and that "after a concept is validated, it may become a basis for doctrine and force planning” (emphasis mine) the regulation cites a joint staff publication (CJCSI 3010.02), which is the Joint Operations Concepts Development Process, and TRADOC Regulation 71-20, Concept Development, Capabilities Determination, and Capabilities Integration. Interestingly, however, neither of these cited publications say anything about concepts not being doctrine.[1]

A whole body of Army literature deals with conceptual stuff – Army concepts. The Training and Doctrine Command is responsible for developing this literature. TRADOC Regulation 71-20 is the governing publication. Concerning concepts, the regulation says that “Army concepts consist of future capabilities descriptions within a proposed structure of military operations for a period of 6-18 years in the future” [emphasis added].[2]

That leaves a question of what to do about the time frame from right now to approximately six years from now. That’s still the future, after all, and that’s where doctrine comes in. While it could have been a little more specific, the Army regulation that governs doctrine (TRADOC Regulation 25-36) at least offers a clue. It describes doctrine as “a systematic body of thought describing how Army forces intend to operate …” [emphasis added].[3] One contemporary writer has described doctrine as “The blueprint for forces in combat.”[4] A blueprint, of course, is a plan for how a builder intends to construct something. The blueprint comes first. In reference to the blueprint, actual construction occurs in the future. 

When the Army published the latest revision to its capstone doctrinal publication, ADP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, an article about it appeared in the influential magazine, Military Review. "Army Doctrine Publication 3-0,” wrote its authors “… provide[s] direction for how the Army will operate in the future" [emphasis added].[5]

How the Army will operate in the future … between now and the next five or six years; that is the frame of time for which Army doctrine is properly concerned. This is what former TRADOC commander, General Robert Cone, was referring to in a 2011 memorandum on 'Doctrine 2015.'  “Write," he said, "with an understanding of the current fight, but remember, doctrine is not just about today, it’s about posturing us intellectually as a profession for the next fight.”[6]

So, you see, doctrine really is about the future, the near-term future, the future that begins today and extends out to five or six years.  If it is not written that way, it is useless to the operational Army.


twh

---

[1] TRADOC Regulation 25-36, The Army Doctrinal Publication Program (HQ U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1 September 2012), 18.

[2] TRADOC Regulation 71-20, Concept Development, Capabilities Determination, and Capabilities Integration (HQ U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 23 February 2011), 11.

[3] TRADOC Regulation 25-36, 17.

[4] Rick Atkinson, Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993), 253.

[5] Clinton J. Ancker, III and Michael A. Scully, "Army Doctrine Publication 3-0: An Opportunity to Meet the Challenges of the Future," Military Review (January-February 2013), 38-42.  Ancker is the director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Scully is the lead author of ADP 3-0.

[6] General Robert W. Cone, Commander, U.S. Army TRADOC Memorandum, subject: Doctrine 2015 Guidance, dated 23 August 2011.