The Roots of Military Doctrine

Change and Continuity in

Understanding the Practice of
Warfare

Dr. Aaron P. Jackson

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Stand Your Ground by Don Troiani

Lexington, Massachusetts -- April 19, 1775
* Use or reproduction of this print by entities other than the US Government
is reserved by the artist. This is one of a series of paintings done by the artist
to highlight the contributions of the Army National Guard to national defense.
Please contact Don Troiani at HistoricalArtPrints.com.

The Roots of Military Doctrine

Change and Continuity in Understanding the Practice of

Warfare

Dr. Aaron P. Jackson

Doctrine Desk Officer, Australian Defence Force Joint
Doctrine Centre
Visiting Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jackson, Aaron P.
The Roots of Military Doctrine: Change and Continuity in Understanding
the Practice of Warfare / Dr. Aaron P. Jackson, Doctrine Desk Officer,
Australian Defence Force Joint Doctrine Centre; Visiting Fellow, Griffith
Asia Institute, Griffith University.
Includes bibliographical references ISBN 978-0-9891372-2-5
1. Military doctrine 2. War (Philosophy) I. Title. U21.2.J33 2013
355.0201--dc23
2013 023912

Combat Studies Institute Press publications cover a wide

variety of military history topics. The views expressed in this
CSI Press publication are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of the Department of the Army or the
Department of Defense. The views expressed in this paper are
the authors own and are not necessarily those of the Australian
Defence Organization or any part thereof.
A full list of CSI Press publications available for downloading can be
found at:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CSI/index.asp
The seal of the Combat Studies Institute authenticates this document as an
official publication of the CSI. It is prohibited to use CSIs official seal on
any republication without the express written permission of the Director
of CSI.
ii

Foreword
During the 1980s a fable circulated within the US Army concerning Soviet planning for a potential war with the United States. In the
most common version, a Soviet general is alleged to have declared in
frustration, It is impossible to plan against the Americans because they
dont follow their own doctrine. Many readers of this book will have
heard (or said) that doctrine is only a guide. Indeed, the tactical agility
demonstrated by the US Army on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan
is due in no small part to a cultural imperative that prizes solutions above
all else.
While not disputing the value of unorthodox solutions to difficult
challenges, the organizational culture that underpins this perspective has
resulted in a widespread lack of knowledge of Army doctrine by company and field grade officers and mid-level and senior noncommissioned
officers. Recognizing this, the Army has dramatically re-engineered its
doctrine to distill the timeless principles into a series of accessible, easily read documents. This process has led to a larger discussion of what
should and should not be called doctrine, and has also included discussion of how we as members of the profession of arms conceptualize
warfare. Unfortunately, this conversation has not yet included the bulk
of the Armys mid-level leaders.
Dr. Jacksons monograph is an excellent contribution to remedy that
shortfall. Its greatest value lies in the fact that it forces the reader to
reconsider basic assumptions about the purpose and utility of doctrine,
and what a nations military doctrine says about its military institution.
Jacksons arguments are well reasoned, his assertions are provocative,
and his conclusions are profound. After reading this work, your view
and understanding of doctrine will be powerfully enhanced, and will lead
to lively discussions at every level.
Thomas E. Hanson
Colonel, Infantry
Director, Combat Studies Institute

iii

Contents
Foreword.................................................................................................. iii
Contents.................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction.......................................................................................... 1
Structure
Key Terms
2. The Four Schools of Doctrinal Ontology......................................11
The Technical Manual School
The Tactical Manual School
The Operational Manual School
Military Thought Collectives And Allied Doctrine Development
The Military Strategic School
3. The Relationship between the Four Schools.................................... 47
The Training and Educational Role of Doctrine
The Relationship between Doctrine and Scientific Regimes
Doctrine, Military Bureaucracy, and State/Military Relations
Doctrine and Ontological Realism
4. The Epistemology of Doctrine .......................................................... 65
Doctrines Traditional Epistemology: Military Positivism
Twenty-First Century Doctrine: An Epistemological Shift?
Counterinsurgency, Design, and Anti-Positivism
Debating Design: What the Proponents and Detractors Think
5. Significance and Implications .......................................................... 87
Paradigm Shifts
Possible Avenues for Doctrinal Evolution
Understanding Relationships
Conceptual and Terminological Clarity
6. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 99
Bibliography ........................................................................................ 105
Author Biography ............................................................................... 123

Chapter 1
Introduction
This monograph examines military doctrine and explains why
understanding its evolution and the influences that shape it are of vital
importance to military practitioners, strategists, and statesmen alike.
Doctrine, defined herein as the expression of a militarys institutional
belief system, constitutes a significant yet hitherto unrecognized
means by which this belief system can be understood and evaluated. This
understanding and evaluation is in turn important because it is this belief
system that determines the way a military fights, the relationship it will
have with the state and society that sustain it, and its institutional culture.
To get the belief system right means good strategy, victory, stable civilmilitary relations, and organizational wellbeing. Getting it wrong means
sub-optimal strategy and operational outcomes or even defeat, strained
civil-military relationships, and organizational dysfunction. This is why
it is vital that military practitioners, strategists, and statesmen all have a
well-developed understanding of this belief system and its implications.
Yet currently, many do so only subconsciously, if at all. The aim of this
monograph is to help make this understanding explicit.
The potentially detrimental results of many military practitioners,
strategists, and statesmen having developed only an implicit understanding
of the military belief system can be seen in the state of conceptual confusion
that has reigned since the end of the Cold War. Today, Western militaries
are awash with competing and contrasting terms, ideas, and concepts. As
Colin S. Gray recently observed, Americans in the 2000s went to war and
by and large have remained conceptually wounded.1 Brian McAllister
Linn traced the roots of this problem even further back asserting that even
before the [Global War on Terror] the defense community was in the midst
of a vibrant debate over whether the nature of war itself had changed.2
This conceptual confusion is most prominently manifest in the volume
of buzzwords and imprecise terms that have been coined in recent decades
to describe the nature of warfare and ways that it should be prosecuted.
Linn, for example, has charged that the Pentagon routinely issues
directives purporting to give a concept of war that are little more than
gibberish.3 The problem is by no means limited to the US military. In
a critique of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) performance in the 2006
conflict in Lebanon, Milan Vego wrote, New terms such as strategic
directive, strategic purpose, system boundary, operational boundaries,
1

campaign organizing theme, and rival system rationale were overused

in place of traditional military terms. Units were ordered to render the
enemy incoherent, make the enemy feel distress or chased down, or
achieve standoff domination of the theatre.4 In short, contemporary
western militaries are facing a conceptual crisis brought on by an even
deeper uncertainty about the nature of the strategic and operational
environments and the links between them, and indeed, whether or not it is
still appropriate to delineate between them.
To address this conceptual crisis as well as to address or avert
other potentially detrimental results of the failure to develop an explicit
understanding of the military belief system, it is necessary to address
the underlying cause of this failure. This requires going to the heart of
what a military institutionally (and by inference what the community
of practitioners that constitute it) believes and making these beliefs
explicitly known. What is a legitimate understanding of the militarys
role considered to be and what is considered illegitimate? And why is that
the case? Only once these questions are answered can the cause of the
conceptual crisis be understood and only then can it be properly addressed.
Making knowledge of a militarys institutional belief system explicit is
vital because this system needs to be founded upon a robust intellectual
construct to ensure that strategic, operational, and tactical analysis is
sound. If this intellectual construct is not robust, buzzwords will continue
to proliferate but performance will nonetheless falter.
This monograph examines the evolution and nature of the belief
systems of western militaries through an analysis of their military doctrine.
More specifically, it examines the meaning and significance of the ways
in which English speaking western militaries conceptualize, develop,
implement, and reform their doctrine.5 This analysis is significant because,
as mentioned above and elaborated below, doctrine constitutes the most
visible expression of a militarys belief system. Doctrine therefore
provides a means to gauge the state of a militarys institutional thought
and the evolution of this thought over time.
In undertaking its analysis, this monograph chronicles the evolution
of military doctrine since the 17th century. It employs ontology and
epistemology as the key tools for its analysis even though in military
circles these are not commonly used terms (Robert Leonhard, for example,
remarked that as a professional infantry officer, when I first heard the word
epistemology, I thought it had something to do with field sanitation!).6
But, adhering to Confucius adage that the beginning of wisdom is calling
things by their right names, these terms are used herein because they are
2

the right names for what is under discussion.7 In essence, ontology is the
study of the nature of reality and the relationships between objects within
it and epistemology is the theory of knowledge acquisition. To illustrate
the significance of these terms with a simple example, an ontology is the
division of military operations into the categories humanitarian, peace
enforcement, counterinsurgency and conventional war. Epistemology
is the cognitive process used when evaluating a military operation and
assigning it to one of the categories. A more detailed explanation of the
meaning of both terms is given below.
This monograph posits that a militarys understanding of its
relationship with the state and society that sustains it has influenced
doctrine to a much greater degree than has been acknowledged in almost all
of the existing literature about doctrine development. Reaching an explicit
comprehension of the ontology and epistemology of military doctrine is
vital to enabling military practitioners, strategists, statesmen, and even
doctrine writers, to undertake a more thorough evaluation of the nature
and content of military doctrine and to ensure that the institutional belief
system it represents is founded upon a robust intellectual construct. This
will lead to better evaluations of the strategic and operational concepts
that appear in doctrine, which in turn will contribute to enhanced military
strategy development and ultimately, to better military performance.

Structure
This monograph proceeds in six chapters, this being the first. In
the next section of this chapter key terms are defined including military
doctrine, epistemology and ontology, and their interrelationships are also
examined.
The second chapter offers a history of military doctrine from its
emergence in the early 17th century to the end of the 20th. This discussion
is undertaken from an ontological perspective and it is determined that
doctrinal ontology can be divided into four schools, each of which
emerged at a different point in doctrinal history. These schools are labeled
the technical manual, tactical manual, operational manual, and military
strategic manual schools, with the delineation between each school being
determined by three factors. First, the scope of the content and intended
audience broadens between each school. Second, the manner in which
manuals in each school is applied varies with manuals in each successive
school being applied respectively as instruction manuals, training aids,
guidance, and as instruments for analysis. Third, each manual has a
different type of relationship to a militarys accepted institutional ontology.

This relationship can be described as absent (technical manual school),

implicit (tactical manual school), explicit (operational manual school), and
inquisitive (military strategic school), by which it is meant that manuals
in the fourth school are used as a means to examine ontological questions
and pose answers to those questions.
In the third chapter, the relationship between these schools is analyzed
from training and educational, scientific and bureaucratic perspectives.
These perspectives are adopted because each sheds light on a different
aspect of the militarys institutional belief system as it is expressed within
doctrine and together these perspectives also explore the range and
significance of the relationships between doctrine, strategy, the military,
and its environment. It is also determined in this chapter that despite the
differences between each of the four ontological schools, doctrine has
nevertheless consistently employed ontological realism as the basis of its
discourse. This has formed an enduring bond between each of the schools
of doctrinal ontology and has usually ensured that they remain mutually
compatible despite the different scope of their focus.
Turning next to the epistemology of doctrine, the fourth chapter
determines that positivism, an approach characterized by (self-proclaimed)
rationality and objectivity, has provided the epistemological foundation
of doctrine for the first four hundred years of its existence. As such,
examples of positivist approaches abound within doctrine and include
most measurable, quantifiable, or linear processes such as that used to
determine when a soldier has qualified on a weapon system or even the
military planning process itself.
While positivism remains dominant, since the start of the 21st century
anti-positivism, emphasizing relativity and subjectivity, has begun to
influence doctrine, signaling what is perhaps the most salient change
in the nature of doctrine since its inception. The emergence of this new
epistemological approach and the state of the debate surrounding its most
prominent manifestation to date (that being the design concept featured
in several recent US Army, Marine Corps and joint doctrine manuals) is
also addressed in the fourth chapter.8
The fifth chapter considers the significance and implications of
doctrinal ontology and epistemology with discussion focusing especially
on the likely direction in which anti-positivist doctrine will evolve in the
near future. It is asserted that the shift from positivism to anti-positivism
is arguably the most pervasive paradigm shift to have occurred in 400
years of doctrinal history.9 Although several issues are identified that

need to be resolved before this shift is complete, appreciating its potential

implications for the conduct of military affairs is already of paramount
importance to military practitioners, strategists, statesmen, and doctrine
writers alike. Anti-positivist approaches have the potential to alter the way
in which militaries perceive their relationships with external organizations
including other government agencies, allied militaries, enemies, and
even the state itself and doctrine itself has potential to enable other
organizations to better communicate with militaries. Finally, developing a
better understanding of the ontology and epistemology underlying terms,
concepts, and ideas has the potential to enable doctrine writers to better
thresh the wheat from the chaff.
The idea of doctrine as a belief system is revisited in the conclusion
(Chapter 6) and the monographs core argumentthat developing an
explicit comprehension of the ontology and epistemology of military
doctrine will assist military practitioners, strategists, statesmen, and
doctrine writers to ensure that the institutional belief system doctrine
represents is founded upon a robust intellectual constructis elaborated.
This is of the utmost importance because a robust appropriate institutional
belief system (and the doctrine that represents it) contributes greatly
to determining whether a military will succeed or fail at implementing
national strategy and strategic policy, at developing corresponding military
strategy, and at conducting military operations.
Before proceeding, it is pertinent to note that this monographs
focus is limited to the doctrine produced by English speaking militaries.
Other militaries are discussed but only in instances where their doctrine
has subsequently had a substantial impact within their English speaking
counterparts. In the words of Azar Gat, the center of military thought has
normally tended to follow the center of military power.10 For this reason,
the discussion in this monograph of developments during the 17th to the
19th centuries is necessarily Euro-centric, while discussion of the 20th and
21st centuries, shifts its focus to North America, in particular to the United
States. Despite its limited focus, this study nonetheless has the potential
to serve as the base for the future conduct of a broader cross-cultural
examination of other militaries, as the ontological and epistemological
approaches it details provide a mechanism for this to occur.

Key Terms
The first problem encountered when attempting a study of military
doctrine is definitional. Specifically, the term doctrine has been defined
in so many ways that it has become thoroughly ill-defined.11 For example,

doctrine has been described as what is written down, usually at the

highest levels, for dissemination throughout an army, the usual intention
being therefore to instruct and standardize.12 It has been determined that it
stands for an institutional culture of conceptual thinking on the nature of
conflict and the best conduct of warfare13 and it has been observed that it
is regarded as the foundation of military professional knowledge. Doctrine
is to soldiers what blueprints are to architects or briefs to lawyers.14
Official definitions of doctrine do not offer any additional clarity.
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) Dictionary of Military
and Associated Terms, for example, defines doctrine as fundamental
principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their
actions in support of national objectives. To this very general definition
the seemingly paradoxical clarification is added that, it is authoritative
but requires judgment in application.15
This monograph embraces a definition of doctrine that differs from all
of those given above yet does not dispute the accuracy of any. Simply, it
is determined herein that doctrine is representative of a belief system.16
More precisely, it is posited that doctrine is the most visible expression
of a militarys belief system. Primarily, this belief system regards the
accepted paradigms by which a military understands, prepares for, and
(at least in theory) conducts warfare. Significantly, such paradigms are
important corollaries of the perceptions a military has of its institutional
role and legitimacy within broader society. Hence, at a greater level of
abstraction, doctrine also reflects this aspect of a militarys belief system.
Importantly, both of these aspects of the belief systems of western
militaries have evolved over time, and as a result, so too has the nature
of doctrine.
Notwithstanding this definition, three caveats apply to the discussion
undertaken herein. First, doctrine is considered to be expressive of an
institutional belief system that may not necessarily align with the belief
system of all or even a substantial minority of the individuals that are a
part of that institution. For this reason, the military writings of individual
scholars from Sun Tzu to the modern era are not considered to be doctrinal
until they have been formally accepted as such by a military institution.17
Second, doctrine, at least as it is conceived today, takes the form of
written manuals.18 Although this has not always been the casethe
original understanding of doctrine is simply teaching, body of teachings,
or learning,19 and for much of their histories, western militaries have
employed oral rather than written conceptualizations of doctrineanalysis
herein is concerned primarily with doctrine in its written form.
6

Third, there is general acceptance (often implicitly) that doctrine

is essentially cognitive in nature. The sources quoted in the opening
paragraph of this section all hint at this aspect and it is also central to
the definition of doctrine embraced herein. As Dennis Drew and Donald
Snow observe, the use of the word believe [in the definition of doctrine]
suggests that doctrine is the result of an examination and interpretation
of the available evidence.20 Both examination and interpretation are
cognitive actions, as cognition itself is the mental action or process of
acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and
the senses.21 Doctrine and the belief system it represents are therefore, the
result of a process of knowledge acquisition and development.
Because epistemology is concerned primarily with knowledge
acquisition and development, doctrine is understood to play an inherently
epistemological role within the military institutions that produce it.
Discussion herein is thus unavoidably epistemological also, and the term
warrants further explanation. As an academic discipline, epistemology
is the branch of philosophy that examines theories of knowledge.22 It
explores and illuminates the origins, nature, methods, and limits of human
thought, perception, knowledge, understanding, and learning.23 It is also
concerned with identifying the assumptions made, either explicitly or
implicitly, when one attempts to come to an understanding of something.
The methods by which humans acquire knowledge has also been a focus
of epistemological research, as are mechanisms used for the demarcation
of true from false knowledge.24
This is important because everyone adheres to some theory about
what constitutes warranted knowledgea set of epistemological
commitments which provide us with criteria for distinguishing between
reliable and unreliable knowledge.25 Military practitioners, strategists,
statesmen, and doctrine writers are no exception. In the case of doctrine,
its very nature as well as its role in legitimizing (or delegitimizing) military
strategies, theories, and concepts is epistemological. For example, the
inclusion within doctrine of a concept purporting to explain the nature
of warfare implies that this concept has been accepted as valid by the
military as an institution. The decision making process leading to this
acceptance, whether undertaken consciously through deliberate evaluation
or unconsciously through instinct is an epistemological process. Closely
related to epistemology is ontology, which examines the nature of being and
the first principlesor categoriesinvolved. Epistemology is concerned
with the manner by which humans acquire knowledge whereas ontology
is concerned with the formulation of taxonomies that enable one to reach

an understanding of relationships between entities.26 Although doctrine

itself is epistemological, the theories and concepts that are legitimized
or delegitimized by their inclusion within or omission from doctrine,
encapsulate a militarys accepted and rejected ontological approaches to
understanding, preparing for, and (supposedly) prosecuting warfare.
To extend the simple example offered in the opening pages of this
monograph, delineating irregular from conventional warfare is
ontological as it involves the construction of a taxonomy that enables the
categorization of military activities. Evaluating a war in order to determine
whether the war is irregular or conventional is epistemological, as the
process of evaluation involves making intellectual assumptions in order to
reach an understanding of the entity under study (in this instance the war
in question). In the case of a doctrine manual, the inclusion of a discussion
asserting that there is a difference between irregular and conventional
warfare indicates the manuals ontology. The cognitive process used
during the development of the manual to evaluate this ontology and
determine that it is acceptable for inclusion within the doctrine indicates
the epistemology underlying the manual.
While at first glance this seems to imply a hierarchical relationship,
epistemology and ontology are actually interrelated, meaning that
they continually shape one another. To illustrate this by continuing
the above example, lets suppose that a military determines (using an
epistemological process) that it is best to produce two separate doctrine
manuals, one discussing military strategies for winning irregular warfare
and the other military strategies for winning conventional warfare. In this
case, the ontological model adopted will in turn influence the subsequent
epistemological process that determines exactly what type of strategy will
be established within each of the two manuals.
A simple, real-world example of the overlapping nature of
ontological and epistemological processes is US Marine Corps General
James Mattis well-known memorandum ordering US Joint Forces
Command to cease using the term effects based operations. In declaring
that a clear understanding of [this] concept has proven problematic
and elusive for US and multinational personnel, Mattis showed that he
consideredalthough it is unlikely that he did so in these termsthat
the concepts ontology was not sound and that its implementation did not
align with the epistemological processes that he as a military practitioner
considered warranted.27

Notes
1. Colin S. Gray, Concept Failure: COIN, Counterinsurgency, and
Strategic Theory, Prism, Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2012, pp. 18-19.
2. Brian McAllister Linn, The Echo of Battle: The Armys Way of War,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 1-2.
3. Linn, The Echo of Battle, p. 3.
4. Milan N. Vego, A Case Against Systemic Operational Design, Joint
Force Quarterly, No. 53, 2nd Quarter 2009, p. 73.
5. Unless stated otherwise, hereinafter the term doctrine is used
exclusively in reference to military doctrine.
6. Robert R. Leonhard, The Principles of War for the Information Age,
Novato, CA: Presidio, 1998, p. 264.
7. Quoted in: Charles M. Westenhoff, Military Airpower: A Revised Digest
of Airpower Opinions and Thoughts, Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University
Press, 2007, p. 239.
8. These manuals include: Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM
5-0 The Operations Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, March 2010; Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, MCWP 5-1 Marine
Corps Planning Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
24 August 2010; Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 5-0 Joint
Operation Planning, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August
11, 2011.
9. Paradigm shift is used here in the Kuhnsian sense. The terms
meaning and significance will be elaborated in the fifth chapter.
10. Azar Gat, A History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to
the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, Book I, p. 107.
11. Dennis Drew and Donald Snow assert that doctrine is an ill-defined,
poorly understood, and often confusing subject. Dennis M. Drew & Donald
M. Snow, Making Strategy: An Introduction to National Security Processes and
Problems, Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press, 1988, p. 163.
12. Paul Johnston, Doctrine is not Enough: The Effect of Doctrine on the
Behavior of Armies, Parameters, Vol. XXX, No. 3, Autumn 2000, p. 30.
13. Markus Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence: The Evolution
of British Military-Strategic Doctrine in the Post-Cold War Era, 1989-2002,
Studies in Contemporary History and Security Policy No. 13, Bern: Peter Lang,
2004, p. 22.
14. Michael Evans, Forward from the Past: The Development of Australian
Army Doctrine, 1972 Present, Study Paper No. 301, Canberra: Australian
Army Land Warfare Studies Centre, August 1999, p. 2.

15. The epistemological implications of this clarification will be revisited

in the fourth chapter of this monograph. Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department
of Defense, Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of
Military and Associated Terms, as amended through August 2009, p. 171. This
is closely aligned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) definition
of doctrine, as well as to the definition used by several other English-speaking
militaries. NATO, NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and
Military Terms, Brussels: NATO-Russia Joint Editorial Working Group, undated
but promulgated online on June 8, 2001, p. 77. Available from www.nato.int/
docu/ glossary/eng/index.htm, accessed on December 20, 2008.
16. Drew & Snow, Making Strategy, p. 163, define doctrine as what
we believe about the best way to conduct military affairs. This is the closest
definition to that used in this monograph, and I am indebted to Howard Coombs
for suggesting the term used herein.
17. Brian Holden-Reid, A Doctrinal Perspective: 1988-98, Occasional Paper
No. 33, United Kingdom: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute, May 1998, p.
13.
18. Johnston, Doctrine is not Enough, p. 30.
19. Catherine Soanes & Angus Stevenson, eds., Oxford Dictionary of
English, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 511.

335.

20. Drew & Snow, Making Strategy, p. 163. Original emphasis.

21. Soanes & Stevenson, eds., Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed., p.

22. Michael Williams, Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to

Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 1.
23. Richard Maltz, The Epistemology of Strategy, paper presented at the
XX Annual Strategy Conference, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle PA, April 17,
2009, 2.
24. Gibson Burrell & Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life,
Portsmouth: Heinemenn, 1979, pp. 1-2.
25. Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley, Understanding Management
Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London: Sage Publications, 2000, p.
5.
26. Burrell & Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis, pp. 1-4.
27. General J. N. Mattis, U.S. Joint Forces Command Commanders
Guidance for Effects Based Operations, unpublished memorandum dated 14
August 2008, quote p. 3.

10

Chapter 2
The Four Schools of Doctrinal Ontology
This chapter offers a reconsideration of the history of written military
doctrine. Its discussion proceeds chronologically but ontology is used as
its principle analytical tool (doctrinal epistemology is discussed in later
chapters). Through this history, it is determined that doctrine manuals
can be grouped into four schools, which can be labeled the technical
manual, tactical manual, operational manual and military strategic
manual schools.
In addition to each school having emerged at a different point
in time and as a result of different events, there are three noticeable
distinctions between the schools. First is the nature of their relationship
to a militarys ontology. Doctrine in the technical manual school has no
relationship to a militarys ontology, as manuals in this school discuss
matters at a micro scale without discussing how these connect to other
matters (an instruction manual for the employment of a weapon system
is a typical example of this doctrine). Tactical manuals have an implicit
relationship with ontology as they assume away bigger picture aspects
of military endeavor in order to concentrate on events within a localized
time and space (such as the battlefield).
Operational manuals have an explicit relationship with a militarys
ontology as they define preferred methods of conducting military
activities but their scope is nevertheless limited, although they may detail
the relationship a military has with the state and the types of operations it
expects to undertake, they give these details as though they are a constant
and usually do so only to the extent necessary in order to explain why
particular operating methods have been established. Military strategic
manuals take their discussion a step further, constituting a means by
which militaries examine a broad range of ontological questions and
pose answers to them. In addition to proffering an approach to strategic
or operational conduct that is likely to overcome the challenges posed
within a given environment, they also actively seek to define the nature
of these challenges and to determine what the environment itself is and,
in some cases, why it is.
The second noticeable distinction between the four schools is that
the scope of the contents and the intended audience broadens between
each school. At one end of the spectrum, technical manuals are usually
aimed at users of specific systems within segments of the military while
11

at the other end, military strategic manuals are usually aimed at broad
internal (military) and external audiences. The final distinction is that
the manner in which the manuals in each school are applied varies
with manuals in each successive school being applied respectively as
instruction manuals, training aids, guidance, and as instruments for
analysis.

The Technical Manual School

The written doctrine of Western militaries has a lineage dating
to 1607 when the first modern drill book was published. The book,
Wapenhandlingen van Roers, Musqetten, Ende Spiessen [Arms Drill
with Arquebus, Musket, and Pike], containedin the form of a series
of sketchesinstructions for the correct employment of the modern
weapon systems of its day. Its publication in Amsterdam the year after
the establishment of the first modern Military Training Academy at
Sedan in northern France is a noteworthy coincidence.1
Both of these events coincided with the transition, heralded as a
revolution by some,2 of warfare into what has been labeled its modern
form. The key military reforms that characterized this transition were
the universal introduction of gunpowder weapons within European
militaries and the widespread establishment of permanent military
forces within European states.3 Importantly this military transition
was accompanied by, and indeed was a significant part of, a series of
broader changes within Western European society. Most notable among
these was the emergence of the modern state system itself, which has
often been viewed as a consequence of the signing of the Treaties of
Mnster and Osnabrck in 1648. By the end of the 17th century this
transformation had led to the establishment of military academies in
many European states and to the publication of numerous drill manuals.5
Since these early drill manuals were not official publications of the
emergent military institutions of the period, they cannot be considered
as doctrine at least not as it is defined herein.6 Despite this, they are
nonetheless the forebears of what has since become the first of four
distinctly recognizable schools of doctrinal ontology. This first school,
which could be labeled the technical manual school, is characterized
by doctrine that provides concise instructions about how to employ
various military systems, usually hardware. Doctrine manuals that fit
into this category are generally narrow in focus, are usually employed
as instruction manuals, and tend to clearly delineate correct from
incorrect processes and procedures in absolute and inflexible terms.

12

Although doctrine that fits within the technical manual school is

almost always micro in focus, it occasionally transcends this focus and
has a macro effect. The US Armys training revolution of the early
1970s is a good example:
[General Paul M.] Gorman formed a joint army-academic
analysis group and instructed them to identify and list all the
steps necessary to accomplish a particular task or mission in
the most efficient manner. They then distributed these lists in
the form of training manuals mandating exactly how each task
was to be performed. An annual evaluation is the final step in
the process, requiring soldiers and units to demonstrate their
mastery of these skill sets.7
In this case, the combined effect of several doctrine manuals enabled
them to have a greater collective impact than the sum of their parts.8
From an ontological perspective, what is omitted from the
doctrine that constitutes this school is arguably more significant than
what is included. Absent from this doctrine is anything that addresses
the possible impact of the environment external to the system under
discussion. A technical manual tells a soldier how to use his weapon;
it does not give any information about when it is appropriate to do so.
Because it omits this information, doctrine in the first school fails to
even implicitly consider a militarys ontology. This may explain why
some definitions of doctrine have deliberately excluded this school and
why acceptance of this exclusion has gradually increased as the other
schools of written doctrine have emerged.9
Hypothetically, if this school of doctrine existed in a proverbial
vacuum, or in other words if it was representative of the entire extent of
a militarys belief system, that belief system would be characterized by
the existence of only a singular, narrow, process-focused outlook. The
hypothetical military in question would be incapable of undertaking
anything other than pre-determined tasks in adherence with a prescribed
sequence. Clearly, this approach to the conduct of warfare is utterly
impractical. Soldiers have always needed to know both how and when
to use their weapons. As a result this school of doctrine has never existed
exclusively, although it has often been the only doctrine that is written
down.
In the absence of other schools of written doctrine what has instead
existed beyond technical manuals has generally been transient, informal,

13

and highly personalized. Doctrine of this nature has been identified

historically within the British Army:
Largely eschewing formal written doctrine, the Army made a
cult of pragmatism, flexibility, and an empirical approachThat
is not to say that the British Army entirely neglected doctrine
broadly definedHowever, doctrine tended to be semi-formal
at best was centered around one individual commander or
existed in a specific set of circumstances (usually high-intensity
war) and was not necessarily easily transferrable elsewhere;
and in some cases it was more honored in the breach than the
observance.10
The existence of unwritten doctrine of a similar nature has also been
identified within the US and several Commonwealth Navies as well as
within the US and Canadian air forces right up until the latter part of
the 20th century.11 In all of these militaries, as well as in several others,
champions of this form of doctrine have cited its flexibility as its key
strength and opponents have attacked the erratic success rate that has
resulted from its reliance on the abilities of individual commanders.12
In the century and a half from the signing of the Treaties of
Mnster and Osnabrck in 1648 to the commencement of the French
Revolutionary Wars in 1792, the technology used to prosecute warfare
advanced steadily if incrementally. Wars occurred for several reasons,
sometimes yielding decisive results and other times not.13 Although
doctrine also developed incrementally, a few important factors resulted
in the ongoing primacy of unwritten doctrine throughout this period.
One of these factors was the common attitude to war:
To the extent that broad publics thought about problems of
war and peace, they were generally resigned to war as a fixed
characteristic of human life or as a divine punishment for the sins
of people. War was taken for granted. Causes and consequences
were not the object of study or speculation. Writers were more
interested in the details of diplomatic maneuvers and military
campaigns.14
Another factor was the similarities between the social structures within
militaries and the societies that sustained them:
The expanded armed forces of the period developed in a fashion
that did not challenge the social reality of societies organized
around the principles of inegalitarianism and inheritance. Larger
armies brought more opportunities to nobles who benefited
14

both from the assumption that they were naturally suited for
positions of command and from the fact that this was usually
the case. Thus, armies were not forces outside society but
rather reflections of patterns of social control and influence and
the beliefs that gave cohesion to them.15
Throughout this period, the belief was commonplace that effective
military command, defined as the successful formulation and execution
of strategy, was an inherent trait possessed exclusively by the nobility.
Command appointments were thus reserved for the nobility except in the
most unusual of circumstances.16 This perception also appears to have
been fundamental in perpetuating the primacy of unwritten doctrine
throughout this period, despite the promulgation of a limited number of
written doctrine manuals, most of which fit exclusively within the first
school.

The Tactical Manual School

Despite the ongoing primacy of unwritten doctrine, accompanied
by a limited number of manuals that fit within the first school of written
doctrine, the 18th century nevertheless witnessed the production of the
first theoretical treatises that aligned with the second school. During
the latter part of the 18th century in particular, several military theorists
offered treatises that pre-empted the development of the second school.
Most notably, these theorists included Paul Gideon Joly de Maizeroy
and Jacques Antoine Hippolyte Comte de Guibert in France, Henry
Humphrey Evans Lloyd in Britain, and Adam Heinrich Dietrich von
Brlow in Prussia. Together with a few others, these writers began to
theorize about tactics mostly using a mixture of historical studies of earlyto-mid-18th century warfare and Roman warfare and the application of
geometry as their methodology. 17 In line with the definition of doctrine
used in this study, their works are personal rather than institutional, and
therefore cannot be considered as doctrine. However, they nonetheless
laid the foundation for the emergence of the second school of doctrine
in the late 18th century and its proliferation in the 19th.
This emergence was gradual, beginning in what was at the time
considered within Europe to be a military backwater the United States.
Specifically, in 1779 the newly-raised US Army published Regulations
for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, Part 1.
This manual prescribed and thereby standardized tactical drill within
the US Army and having been approved by (then) Major General
George Washington as well as by Congress prior to its publication

15

and distribution throughout the Army, it also constitutes one of the

first examples of an official doctrine manual.18 Owing to its focus
on tactical drill, this manual had much in common with first school
doctrine manuals. However, its discussion of tactics also aligned it with
the second school and it can therefore be viewed as something of a
bridging document between these schools.
Within European militaries, the second distinctive school of written
doctrinal ontology emerged during the 19th century. This emergence
was gradual, as was the proliferation of this type of doctrine amongst
Europes professional militaries:
[N]either Wellington nor Napoleon had doctrinal manuals
describing for them the principles of war and the approach they
should take towards operations. However, even while Napoleon
was still campaigning, the famous Swiss military commentator
Baron Henri Jomini began publishing works purporting to
explain Napoleons methodAs militaries professionalized
and standardized (and bureaucratized), there came about an
increasing tendency to formalize not just the tactical details of
drill but the very approach to war that higher commanders should
takeby 1914 this approach was quite formally established in
all major Western forces to a greater or lesser extent.19
Importantly, the French Revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic
Wars, which together ran from 1792 to 1815, marked a significant
transformation in the nature of European warfare.20 This transformation
was the catalyst for the emergence of a new school of doctrinal ontology
within European militaries.
Just as they triggered drastic reforms to the social structure of
several European states, so too did the French Revolutionary and
Napoleonic Wars bring about a change in common attitudes towards and
the prosecution of warfare.21 For doctrine development, a key change
was the growth in the professionalism of the officer corps of European
militaries. Beginning in France following the Revolution and spreading
through other European states during the 19th century, old systems of
commissioning officers according to social status and societal position
were gradually replaced by selection based increasingly on merit.22 With
this increase in military professionalism came an increased interest
amongst military officers in the study of warfare. Thus, the postNapoleonic period witnessed an acute acceleration of a trend that had
begun during the latter part of the 18th century when the impact of the
Enlightenment on military thought had brought about an expansion in
the role of military academies and colleges.23
16

The second school of written doctrinal ontology emerged against

this backdrop and its proliferation was a product of these and other
military reforms of the 19th century. This school could be labeled the
tactical manual school. Manuals in this school purport to describe
the most up-to-date tactics at the time of their publication and several
were initially based on the tactics developed by Napoleon, as described
by the key military thinkers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries,
Jomini the most famous amongst them.24
Similarly to the technical manual school, manuals in the tactical
manual school were initially published externally to militaries although
several manuals were tacitly selected to become doctrine through their
semi-official use as instruction manuals at military colleges. By the turn
of the 20th century however, several militaries had begun to formally
publish tactical manuals for official use and it is at about this time
that these manuals became doctrine in a form that would be easily
recognizable today.25
Amongst the new tactical manuals formally published by Western
militaries in the early 20th century was the US Armys 1905 Field Service
Regulations, the forerunner to Field Manual (FM) 3-0 Operations. This
manual was clearly situated within the tactical manual school of doctrinal
ontology and it has been observed that it, as well as subsequent editions,
was written atand reflected onlythe tactical level right down to the
advent of AirLand Battle doctrine in the early 1980s.26 For example,
the 1941 edition, which established an intellectual foundation for the
Armys success in the Second World War,27 contained very specific
doctrines of leading troops in combat and tactics of the combined
arms. The intent of these doctrines was to constitute the basis of
instruction of all arms and services for field service.28
This is indicative of both the intent and limitations of the content
of doctrine in the tactical manual school. This doctrine has tended to
be applied as a training aid during courses at military academies and
colleges and during major exercises where it assists students to develop
workable solutions to tactical problems. Unlike the technical procedures
described by manuals in the first school, there is scope for flexibility
in the application of doctrine in this school even though it ultimately
serves to delineate acceptable from unacceptable tactical practice.
Although doctrine of this nature has long expounded (supposedly
immutable) principles of war, it remains limited in scope because of
its otherwise exclusively tactical focus.29 Thus it is of little use to higher
commanders seeking to successfully maneuver larger forces between
17

tactical encounters and, as a result of this limitation, it has generally

been accompanied by the continued existence of unwritten doctrine.
Furthermore, its limited scope means that the ontological
assumptions underlying doctrine in the tactical manual school are
implicit. Answers to ontological questions that might be raised about the
relationship between militaries and the states and societies in which they
exist, the nature of the international environment in which they operate,
the role that they play within that environment, and their development
of military strategy, are all taken for granted. Having assumed away the
answers to questions about these subjects, tactical manuals are free to
concentrate instead on developing approaches to overcoming an enemy
on the battlefield.
In the US Army this concentration led to the development of what
has since been labeled the American Way of War (or as Antulio
Echevarria has suggested, what might be more accurately called
the American Way of Battle).30 This so-called way of war focuses
primarily on overcoming manpower shortages by exploiting new
technologies to tactically attrit the enemy on the battlefield. 31 In so
doing, it assumes away its own inherent ontology, unquestioningly
embracing a view of warfare in which it is assumed that first, there will
be a battlefield and second, that the outcome of a battle (or a series of
battles) is the most important factor in determining the outcome of a
war. Of course, ontological assumptions of this nature have not been
limited to the US Army. John Ellis for example, identified the existence
of similar ontological assumptions on the part of several First World War
European militaries (although he, like so many others, did so implicitly
and did not use the term ontology anywhere in his analysis).32
As a result of this aspect, manuals in the second ontological school
have the potential to bring about the development of a dissonance
between tactical means and strategic ends. By taking for granted answers
to ontological questions about the relationship between militaries and
societies and the nature of the environment in which militaries operate,
manuals in the second school are susceptible to providing ill-suited
guidance when faced with situations that do not match those envisaged
by the ontological model they implicitly accept. For example, manuals
that assume enemy forces will be that of another state may fail to
provide adequate guidance for the conduct of operations against
non-state groups. In such situations, doctrine in the second school
becomes irrelevant and the success or failure of military endeavors
must ultimately rely upon the abilities of individual commanders to
18

come to an independent understanding of the broader context and act

accordingly.33
In extreme cases the existence of tactical manuals in such situations
may even be counter-productive as commanders following their
guidance seek to implement tactical solutions that ultimately detract
from the achievement of strategic goals. For example, it has been
compellingly argued elsewhere that the dissonance between tactical
success and strategic failure that characterized the American War in
Vietnam was largely a result of the exclusively tactical nature and role
of US military doctrine during that war. This problem was exacerbated
because throughout that War most tactical doctrine did not align with
the tactics that were required to achieve strategic success.34

The Operational Manual School

There can be little doubt that the American experience in Vietnam
was the catalyst for the subsequent emergence within English speaking
militaries of the third school of doctrinal ontology. This emergence
has been labeled the US Armys doctrinal renaissance35 and it has
already been subjected to much intellectual scrutiny.36 The key doctrine
manual that heralded the emergence of the third ontological school is
the 1982 edition of FM 100-5 Operations, and the process leading to
the development of this manual was fundamental in establishing the
new school.37
Following its withdrawal from Vietnam, the US Army faced
significant challenges. Organizationally, these included major morale,
discipline, and drug problems.38 Operationally, the immediate needs of
the Vietnam War had resulted in a decade-long disruption to the Armys
planning for the defense of Western Europe. Concerns about Soviet
qualitative gains during the intervening period were greatly exacerbated
by the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which dramatically demonstrated the
battlefield potential of modern Soviet weapons systems.39 Confronted
with this challenge and keen to leave behind the bitter experience of the
War in Vietnam (intellectually as well as in many other ways), the US
Army set out to reorient itself toward winning a conventional land war
in Europe.40
The central mechanism enabling this reorientation was doctrine.
Facilitating this was the establishment of the US Armys Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in 1973, initially under the command
of General William E. DePuy. The 1976 edition of FM 100-5, produced
under DePuys leadership, focused on preparing the Army to win the
19

first battle of the next war in Europe.41 The release of this manual
prompted an unusually high amount of debate both from within
and outside of the Army which led to it becoming one of the most
controversial field manuals ever published by the US Army.42 This
debate emerged primarily because the manual established a defensive
operational doctrine that stood in drastic contrast to the Armys
longstanding predilection for offensive operations. Because of the
debate, several flaws in the tactics this manual promulgated were soon
apparent.43 Fixing these errors served as the catalyst for next round of
doctrinal reform, which in turn led to the publication of the 1982 edition
of FM 100-5.
Although the AirLand Battle concept was central to the 1982
edition of FM 100-5,44 the manuals key ontological contribution was
to assert the existence of an operational level of warfare. Stating that
operational level of war uses available military resources to attain
strategic goals within a theater of war, the doctrine also determined
that military strategy employs the armed forces of a nation to secure
the objectives of national policy and that tactics are the specific
techniques smaller units use to win battles and engagements which
support operational objectives.45 In other words, this model perceives
tactics as a subset of operations, which are in turn a subset of military
strategy, which is itself a means of achieving national policy goals.
Despite the appearance of this idea in Prussian/ German doctrine in the
mid-19th century and in Russian/Soviet doctrine early in the 20th, this
was the first time it had been included in the doctrine of an English
speaking Western military.46
The reasons for the American time lag behind Prussia/Germany and
Russia/Soviet are complicated and although an analysis of these reasons
is not the focus of this monograph, they are nonetheless worth briefly
summarizing.47 Primarily, the time lag was caused by two factors. The
first was the American Way of War that this monograph has already
touched upon. Because this way of war stresses the exploitation of
technologies to either attrit or outright annihilate the enemy, it does not
require any subtlety as far as operational planning is concerned.48 The
second factor, which became important following the Second World
War, was the advent of nuclear weapons. These called into question
the ongoing need for operational planning, as it was initially assumed
that the prospects of nuclear war would render conventional warfare
redundant.49 Despite experimentation with tactical innovations such as
the Pentomic Division, the initial impact of the debate about nuclear

20

weapons was to stymie, until after the end of the Vietnam War, any
serious attempts towards explicitly developing the operational art.50
When the operational level of warfare was discussed in the 1982
edition of FM 100-5, it was also the first time that a notable Englishlanguage doctrine manual had made its underlying ontology explicit.
This ontology, grounded in the Clausewitzian maxim that war is
nothing but the continuation of policy with other means, established
that the Armys role was subordinate to national policy.51 It also clearly
established the Armys perception of the scope of its role in relation
to policy, suggesting that once policymakers had set policy goals and
determined strategic objectives, the Army should be entrusted to plan
and conduct operations to fulfill these objectives.52 In making this
suggestion, the manual endorsed what Eliot Cohen referred to as the
normal theory of civil-military relations first expounded by Samuel
Huntington and since enshrined as the accepted theoretical standard
that civil-military relations should strive to attain.53 The focus on the
Soviet challenge in Europe made it clear that the Army also considered
its role to be that of a conventional war fighting force. Furthermore,
the Army was the military of a state and as such existed to undertake
operations to defeat the military forces of other states. Little doubt
was left as to the Armys perception of the prevailing international
environment or what it understood Americas key policy goals and
strategic objectives to be.
The second noteworthy difference between the 1982 edition of FM
100-5 and previous doctrine was that the process used to develop and
refine the new manual was a radical departure from what had previously
occurred. Hitherto, doctrine had tended to be written by individuals or
small teams and then circulated to a limited audience for pre-release
feedback. The new process, later summarized by John Romjue, was
much broader in scope:
The development of the new doctrine was one thing, its
acceptance by the Army and an influential cadre of civilian
defense writers and critics was another. Fresh in memory was
the debate over the 1976 version of FM 100-5 with its active
defense doctrine. In 1981, TRADOC Headquarters proceeded
differently from the way it had with the 1976 concept. First,
[then Commander of TRADOC] General Starry took pains
to include the Army at large in the development of AirLand
Battle, disseminating information through briefings and wide
circulation of Fort Leavenworths draft of the new FM 10021

5 during 1981. The doctrine was well received. AirLand

Battle was an offence-oriented doctrine that the Army found
intellectually, as well as analytically, convincing.54
Together, the explicit ontology propounded within the new manual and
its developers willingness to take steps to include the Army and US
defense and strategic studies communities more broadly in the doctrine
development process indicate the main enduring characteristics of the
third school of doctrinal ontology.
No longer was the role of doctrine limited to the dissemination
of technical instructions and tactical best-practice. Instead, doctrine
manuals became a mechanism for disseminating analytically sound
theoretically-derived operational concepts that prompted commanders
to engage with them in a much more intellectual manner than had
previously been the case. Due to this intent, the third school of doctrinal
ontology could be labeled the operational manual school. Manuals
in this school have tended to be applied to provide guidance for
operational commanders and planning staff. This doctrinal role has
been accompanied by major changes in the pedagogical use of doctrine.
Specifically, its usage has increased markedly in prominence within
intermediate and senior level officer education courses.55
Over the coming years, the other branches of the US military
underwent their own ontological awakening which saw their doctrine
expand into the third school. For the US Marine Corps (USMC), the
1989 edition of Fleet Marine Force Manual (FMFM) 1 Warfighting
and its accompanying publications embodied this awakening.56 As
Lieutenant Colonel H. T. Hayden later asserted, until FMFM 1
Warfighting, FMFM 1-1 Campaigning, and FMFM 1-3 Tactics, not one
publication taught a Marine how to think about war. Not one produced
a theory of war.57 The publication of the 1989 edition of FMFM 1 filled
this void, making its ontology explicit in the process.
Like the 1982 edition of FM 100-5, the new edition of FMFM 1
explicitly recognized the existence of an operational level of warfare
and in so doing, expressed the USMCs acceptance of a similar
ontological outlook to that of the Army. This was not, however, the
central concept featured within the manual. Instead, its key conceptual
contribution was its development of maneuver warfare, which was
defined as a warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemys
cohesion through a series of rapid, violent, and unexpected actions
which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which

22

he cannot cope.58 Although the Marine Corps viewed its role in relation
to national policy and strategic goals in the same way as the Army, it had
developed a different approach to the conduct of operations in pursuit
of these goals.
The 1992 edition of Air Force Manual (AFM) 1-1 Basic Aerospace
Doctrine of the United States Air Force was the equivalent US Air Force
(USAF) publication. For the first time in USAF doctrine, this manual
incorporated a discussion of the operational level of conflict. However
its main conceptual contribution was the elaboration of seven tenets
of aerospace power.59 Like the USMC, the Air Force had developed its
own operational approach but nevertheless viewed its role in relation to
national policy and strategy in the same way as the Army. Additionally,
the manuals unique format demonstrated the expanded doctrine
development process typical of the third ontological school: it contained
two volumes, the first being the doctrine itself and the second featuring
25 essays that gave intellectual substance to the concepts contained in
the doctrine.60
The US Navy (USN) also briefly flirted with the third school of
doctrinal ontology during the mid-1990s following the establishment
of a short-lived Naval Doctrine Command in 1993.61 This flirtation
led quickly to the publication of Naval Doctrine Publication (NDP)
1 Naval Warfare in 1994, which, like its equivalents in the other
Services, established three levels of war.62 Declaring that maneuver
warfare, based on the twin pillars of decisiveness and rapidity, is
our preferred style of warfighting,63 it quite deliberately aligned the
Navys operational approach with that of the Marine Corps.64 Thus,
the ostensible ontological underpinning of the Navys third school
doctrine manual also aligned closely with the proclaimed ontological
approach of the USMC. The Navys manual, however, was notably
shorter and far less detailed than its Marine Corps (or indeed Army and
Air Force) equivalent. The reasons for this difference relate to both the
circumstances of its development and release as well as to the service
culture of the USN.
Indeed, each services culture has played a significant if lowkey role in determining the manner in which the doctrine of each has
evolved.65 In the case of the US services for example, the Army has
been credited with being a doctrine-based organization while the
Navy has generally been dismissive of doctrine development.66 As
the dissemination of the third school of doctrinal ontology illustrates,
the ontological trends identified within this monograph are broadly
23

applicable across the services. Differences in service culture are manifest

as the time lag between the proliferation of each new school of doctrinal
ontology within each service as well as in the terminology each has used
to refer to its doctrine. A non-US example is perhaps the most strikingly
illustrative: manuals in the first and second ontological schools were
traditionally labeled procedural manuals or fleet instructions by
Commonwealth navies and were not acknowledged as being doctrinal
until the 1990s.67
In the US military, each service views its preferred relationship with
the state in a Huntingtonian manner, seeing itself as subordinate to the
states government and acknowledging that it exists as a mechanism
to implement the governments national strategy and related policies.68
However, the means by which each service prefers to implement this
strategy and policy can differ substantially.69 This difference is partly
the product of service culture, which helps to explain why there is
a difference between each of the services operational approaches
described above.

Military Thought Collectives and Allied Doctrine

Development
The third school of doctrinal ontology also spread to the militaries
of key English speaking US allies. The examples of Britain, Canada,
and Australia are illustrative. In Britain, the Army was the first of the
three services to experiment with doctrine in the third ontological
school, although the inspiration for this experimentation has been
contested. on one hand, Markus Mder, has observed that it was in
close alignment with the US Armed Forces reorientation after the
Vietnam War and their development of an AirLand Battle concept for
the European battlefield.70 Hew Strachan, on the other, has asserted that
the intellectual inspiration for General Sir Nigel Bagnalls (Chief of the
General Staff from 1985-88) decision to adopt the operational level of
war was the German Army and that the British army mirrored but was
independent of comparable trends in the United States.71 Of the two
accounts, Mders is more closely aligned with the mainstream view
and Strachans account focuses more exclusively on Bagnall and his
(considerable) individual influence.72
Even if Strachan is correct about the influences upon Bagnalls
decision making (which is likely), developments in the US nevertheless
had an impact on the intellectual debate that surrounded the emergence
of the third school of doctrine in Britain. Regardless of what influenced

24

Bagnall personally, American developments clearly played a significant

role in shaping those around him as well as in setting a tone generally
for the British debate about their doctrinal direction and requirements.73
Following this period of debate and accompanied by changes to
senior officer education programs, Britains first third school doctrine
manual, Design for Military OperationsBritish Military Doctrine,
was released by the British Army in 1989.74 The new manual discussed
the levels of war and advanced the maneuverist approach as the Armys
preferred operational concept.75 Over the next half decade, the debate
over the manoeuvrist [sic] approach spread across Service boundaries
and the concept was integrated into Britains first joint doctrine in
1997.76
Although their militaries are substantially smaller than that of the US
or even the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and Canada also expanded
their doctrine into the third ontological school during the same period.
In Australia, the Army was the first service to do so, addressing the
operational level of war in the 1985 edition of Manual of Land Warfare
(MLW) One 1.1 Fundamentals of Land Force Operations.77 A decade
later the Canadian Forces followed suit, releasing joint operational level
doctrine in 1995.78 The publication of these manuals was accompanied
in both countries by changes to professional military education
programs, although these were not as substantial as those undertaken in
the militaries of their larger allies.79
The emergence of this school was not, however, accompanied within
these allied militaries by the same broad ranging debate that constituted
one of the key characteristics of its emergence within the US military.
In the case of Australia, Michael Evans noted that the 1985 edition of
Fundamentals of Land Force Operations sought to define an Australian
context for campaign planning.80 To this end, the development of this
manual was accompanied by some intellectual discussion. However,
this was mostly internal to the Army and was thus limited in breadth.
In the case of Canada, Howard Coombs has observed that half a dozen
or so journal articles, book chapters and internal Canadian Defence
College papers, and a collection of Symposium papers published in
1995, constitute the only evidence of the limited debate that occurred
within the Canadian Forces.81 Even the more extensive debate that
occurred within the British Army has been described as rather more
low key than that which occurred within the US Army.82
In attempting to explain this situation within the Canadian Forces,

25

Coombs has offered the only explanation known to this author of why
this may have been the case within the militaries of any of these US
allies. Applying Ludwik Flecks concept of thought collectives,
which consist of participants in a definable and collective structure
of thought generated by an esoteric circle of authorities or experts,
Coombs identified a North American military thought collective.
Regarding the emergence of operational level doctrine in Canada, he
subsequently determined that:
One must situate the paradigm shift within the context of a
single group of military professionals defined by a common
purpose rather than locating it in two distinct groups separated
by nationality The experts within the larger collective were
the doctrine writers and then the practitioners of the United
States ArmyNone of the hallmarks of the paradigm shift
[that could be] attributed to professional discourse took place in
Canada because it had already occurred in the United States.
The Canadian military implicitly viewed itself as part of a single
community of practice that extended across the continent and
followed the paradigm shift that had taken place.83
The existence of international military thought collectives is an
interesting notion that warrants further examination.
From the available evidence, it appears that the extent of the
influence of international developments as a substitute for domestic
debate is related to the size of the military in question. The larger the
military, the greater the extent of the intellectual debate surrounding the
emergence of the third school of doctrinal ontology. This notion aligns
with Flecks conception of the structure and pattern of communication
within a thought collective. This group [the experts] communicates
knowledge within a circle of laypeople that provides feedback on these
views. Knowledge passes from the inner to outer circles and back again
so that this cycle is strengthened and collectivized.84 In light of the
cursory examination conducted above, it could be argued that the US
Army thinkers of the late 1970s and early 1980s constituted an inner
circle with Canadian and Australian thinkers situated in outer circles
and their British counterparts somewhere in the middle.85
Yet for this to be the case, there needs to be some evidence that
knowledge passes back again from these allies to the US military.
Although there is evidence that this has occurred in a limited number
of casesfor example in 2005 when the International Institute for
26

Strategic Studies observed that large portions of the new US future

land warfighting concept appear to have been drawn directly from
the Australian Complex Warfighting doctrine86instances such as
this appear to be limited to at most only a handful of cases. The rest
of the time, US doctrine development has been influenced instead by
domestic factors, including conceptual developments, and evaluations
of Americas own strategic circumstances and operational experiences.87
As Romjues aforementioned account of the process used to develop the
1982 edition of FM 100-5 attests, a military thought collective exists
within the US wherein doctrine writers are the experts and the defense
community contains the laypeople from which the experts actively
seek feedback.88 The existence of this domestic thought collective
means that US doctrine writers are at liberty to ignore their smaller
allies when it suits them to do so, a liberty these allies do not necessarily
have themselves due to their need to remain interoperable with the US.89
The result is that although an international military thought
collective can be identified between the US military and key Englishspeaking allied militaries, the flow of ideas from the inner to the outer
circles is far stronger and more consistent than the return flow from
the outer to inner circles. As a result of this divergence from Flecks
conception, the military thought collective also possesses the character
of an epistemic community. Described by Peter Haas as a network of
professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular
domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within
that domain or issue area, epistemic communities are characterized
by a shared set of normative and principled beliefsshared casual
beliefsshared notions of validity[and] a common policy enterprise,
rather than by the explicit transition of ideas between inner to outer
circles.90 The perception of the Canadian doctrine writers who elected
to include the operational level of war in Canadian doctrine certainly
viewed themselves as part of a single group of military professionals
with their US counterparts, regardless of whether those counterparts felt
likewise.91
Ultimately, however, developments within the US military,
particularly the doctrinal embrace of the operational level of war,
influenced the military intellectual communities within the allied
militaries of Britain, Canada, and Australia. Despite the divergence
and its implications identified above, Flecks thought collectives, as
applied by Coombs, can be identified between the US military and these
English-speaking allies. This concept will therefore be subsequently
revisited from time-to-time throughout the rest of this monograph.
27

The Military Strategic School

By the mid-1990s the third school of doctrinal ontology had
proliferated to most English speaking militaries. However, the global
strategic situation was changing drastically during the same period,
generating unusually high and widespread levels of strategic uncertainty
for Western militaries. This uncertainty was initially generated by
the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet
Union. Over the next few years, this would be accompanied by Iraqs
unexpected invasion of Kuwait leading to an equally unexpected US
success in repelling Iraqi forces, substantial post-Cold War military
budget cuts, renewed policy debate about homosexual and female
integration in military and combat units, the need to integrate an array
of newly emergent technologies, and finally by the onset of an awkward
transition from peacekeeping to peace enforcement which involved the
conduct of bloody, indecisive, or ultimately failed operations in several
places, most notably Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.92
Together, these changes triggered a cascade of ontological (and
even epistemological) questions for Western militaries. Why had the
US won such an impressive victory against Iraq in 1991? How would
new information technologies change the nature of warfare? What
would be the American military role in what was being touted as the
emerging unipolar world93 and for that matter what military role
would its allies (especially those in Western Europe) be expected to
play given the collapse of the Soviet Union? What were the appropriate
roles for Western militaries to play during peace enforcement missions?
Should these missions even be considered proper soldiering or were
they instead something less than worthy of the attention of modern
military forces? Were peace enforcement missions achievable within
the boundaries of existing military structures and training? Indeed,
what was the appropriate structure for military forces now that the Cold
War was over and the Soviet threat gone? As Western militaries sought
answers to these questions, the fourth school of doctrinal ontology
emerged.
This school could be labeled the military strategic school. This
label is derived from the conceptual sub-division of the strategic level
of war into national strategy (alternatively labeled grand strategy
or national policy objectives) on one hand and military strategy on
the other. In the first of these sub-divisions, governments determine
overarching strategic goals that have military as well as other aspects
while in the second sub-division, militaries themselves develop
28

institutional strategies to enable them to implement the military aspects

of national strategy.94 Doctrine manuals in the military strategic school
are generally referred to as keystone or capstone manuals and they
usually sit at the pinnacle of formally established doctrine hierarchies.95
In terms of their content, doctrine manuals in the fourth school tend
to be philosophical in nature, establishing fundamental principles or a
core conceptual framework that is intended to describe, categorize, and
justify military activities as much as guide the application of military
force in pursuit of national strategic goals. Their precise content,
however, varies from service to service and military to military. Michael
Codner concisely summarized this variation in the case of the British
armed forces:
The Army presents a preferred style of warfare. The [Royal]
Navy is cautious about prescription and offers what is
essentially a conceptual framework, distilling wisdom from
the corpus of work on maritime strategic theory. The Royal Air
Force provides a rigorous and coherent analysis of tasks within
an overall framework of principles and in so doing, makes a
logical case for an independent air force.96
Similar variances can be observed in the case of several other armed
forces including those of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.97
In the US armed forces, the separation of the third and fourth
schools of doctrinal ontology has been less distinct than in the militaries
of these smaller allies. In the Army, USMC, and USAF, more recent
editions of manuals that were formerly located unambiguously within
the third school have since taken on characteristics more closely aligned
with the fourth.98
For the Army, these characteristics first crept into the 1993 edition
of FM 100-5, the second chapter of which discussed the US national
strategic context and the Armys military strategic roles therein. The
rest of the manual, however, continued to focus almost exclusively on
the operational level of war. The subsequent edition, released in 2001
with a new reference number of FM 3-0, advocated the conduct of full
spectrum operations, a concept that linked Army operations to military
strategy in a much more consistent and explicit manner throughout.99
Another manual, FM 1 The Army, described in its own preface as one
of the Armys two capstone manuals (the other being FM 3-0) has
since provided an even stronger bridge between Army operations and
national strategy.100

29

For the Marine Corps, the 1997 edition of Marine Corps Doctrine
Publication 1 (MCDP 1the title given to replacement manual for
FMFM 1), was clearly located within the fourth school of doctrinal
ontology. It provided a short introductory overview of the nature, theory,
and conduct of war, leaving more specific discussion about military
strategy, operations, and tactics to subsequent manuals in the series
which fit within the fourth, third, and second schools respectively.101
The 1997 edition of Air Force Basic Doctrine, itself re-titled and
re-numbered as Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1, included an
unprecedented (in terms of USAF doctrine) discussion about the levels
of doctrine. Explicitly placing itself above operational and tactical
doctrine, it subsequently confirmed its fourth school status through the
inclusion of a series of lists such as principles of war, tenets of air
and space power, and air and space power functions.102 While these
lists were simple (perhaps even a little simplistic) in comparison to the
equivalent Army and Marine Corps doctrine, they nonetheless provided
a conceptually sound explanation of the USAF role in implementing US
national strategy.103
The USN is conspicuous because it is different to the other Services.
The fourth school has not emerged at all within the USN, which has
instead achieved similar functions though non-doctrinal institutional
strategy publications. These publications include: From the Sea;
FORWARD From the Sea; and Anytime, Anywhere.104 Discussing these
and other key US Navy strategy documents of the 1990s, Hattendorf
asserted that:
the documents assembled here, though labeled strategic
concepts, are not framed in a specific context that allows them
to meet the definition of an operational strategy. In conceptual
terms, they are closer to doctrine than to strategy. Actually, they
lie between doctrine and strategy as strictly defined.105
As Hattendorfs definition of doctrine is reminiscent of the third
ontological school discussed above (it addresses how one generally
expects, or even prefers, to operate to carry out the broad missions
that are likely to appear in future scenarios), his assertion about these
documents reveals their similarity to doctrine in the fourth school.106
Finally, the 1990s saw the emergence of joint doctrine which
involved the proliferation of manuals applicable to all of the services.
In the US, this doctrine emerged following the 1986 passage of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act, which
was designed to balance single service interests with joint operational
30

and organizational imperatives.107 The Act stimulated a great momentum

in the US military towards jointness and a joint capstone doctrine
manual, Joint Publication (JP) 1 Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces,
was released in November 1991.108
Other English speaking militaries followed suit during the 1990s or
early 2000s although they differed from the US in one major way, the
publication of their own joint doctrine tended to be internally driven
by their armed forces. Where US joint doctrine had been produced
because of a legislative catalyst (the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization
Act), the move towards jointness on the part of its English speaking
allies was the product of armed forces reacting to post-Cold War budget
cuts. These cuts initially brought about the amalgamation of functions
previously duplicated by each service (such as aspects of logistics)
with subsequent reforms eventually leading to the establishment of
permanent joint command structures.109 Importantly, newly established
joint structures usually had an operational or strategic focus, leaving
tactical activities to each of the services. The result of this focus was
that new joint doctrine manuals produced to detail the function of these
structures tended to fit within the third or fourth schools, with occasional
manuals in the second and virtually none in the first.110
One of the key distinctive features of doctrine manuals in the
fourth school is their intended audience. The intended audience of the
fourth school is much broader while doctrine in the first three schools is
intended either exclusively or primarily for an internal service audience.
In addition to the service audience it includes members of other services,
other government departments, the members of legislative and executive
branches of government, allied militaries, and the general public. The
2005 edition of the US Armys FM 1, for example, states upfront that
its intended audience includes the Executive Branch, Congress, Office
of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, combatant commanders, other
Services, officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted Soldiers of
all Army components, and Army civilians.111
Furthermore, this school of doctrine is intended to perform a different
function for each of these audiences. In addition to providing military
strategic level guidance for its internal audience (a similar function
to that of doctrine in the third school), it also constitutes an open and
accessible declaration of institutional strategy, a platform for supporting
service lobbying, and a public relations tool.112 Part of these roles has
also been to explain how a service contributes to implementing national
strategy and strategic policy. Hence in the US case, documents such as
31

the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Defense

Planning Guidance are taken into account during the development of
these manuals.113 Yet surprisingly little analysis of the significance and
impact of these additional aspects has been undertaken and the scope
of fourth school doctrine manuals is often overlooked. Perhaps this is
because declarations such as those appearing in FM 1 are the exception,
not the rule. Usually, the external audience of fourth school doctrine
manuals tends not to be explicitly mentioned within them.114
Although doctrine in the fourth school has maintained some key
ontological features of the third school, it has in other respects diverged
greatly. Separating it from the third school is the greatly expanded, and
for that matter not-so-well defined, scope of its focus. That it could
be labeled military strategic rather than operational is indicative
of this. Closely related to this difference in scope is the uncertainty
confronting militaries during the 1990s. This starkly contrasts with the
final decade of the Cold War when the third school of doctrinal ontology
emerged, during which period Western militaries faced a single specific
threat that was clearly definable in nature and origin. Accompanying
this was an ontological clarity that was suddenly missing following the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
In the face of the uncertainty that followed, doctrine became at once
the militarys instrument for analyzing past experience, guiding current
operations, and exploring future challenges or what could be labeled
an instrument for analysis.115 In other words, as militaries struggled to
determine the nature and extent of their post-Cold War roles, doctrine in
the fourth school emerged as a mechanism enabling them to undertake
an institutional exploration of the key ontological challenges they were
confronting.
In a few significant ways, doctrine in the fourth school is similar
to that in the third. It plays a vital role in establishing the militarys
perception of its role in relation to society, the state, and government
policy for example. It also constitutes a mechanism for disseminating
theoretically derived concepts that prompt intellectual engagement,
however evidence of the ontological uncertainty of the period abounds
in the plethora of new concepts that have been included in the doctrine
manuals that together constitute the fourth school. These concepts have
notably included the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), effects
based operations (EBO), network centric warfare (NCW), military
operations other than war (MOOTW), stability and support operations
(SASO), and rapid decisive operations (RDO) to name but a few.116
32

In addition, maneuver warfare, conceptually expanded and rebadged

as the maneuverist approach, has been particularly prevalent within
military strategic doctrine, possibly owing to the flexibility with which
it can be applied.117
Finally, as the concepts contained in fourth school doctrine manuals
have been derived from a mixture of military and external sources, their
development represents yet another difference from manuals in the other
schools. While first and second school manuals were usually developed
by individuals or small groups of officers, usually writing within staff
colleges or general staffs,118 third school manuals usually contain
concepts of internal military origin that may have been subsequently
refined in consultation with outsiders.119 The fourth school, however,
draws on concepts developed both internally to militaries and externally
by defense academics, commentators, and other members of the defense
community. This is likely another product of the uncertainty of the era in
which fourth school doctrine emerged. As militaries attempted to make
sense of the changed environment and their roles within it, they became
more willing to consider ideas from a broader variety of sources.

33

Notes
1. John Childs, The Military Revolution I: The Transition to Modern
Warfare, in Charles Townshend, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern
War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 32-3. This is the traceable,
unbroken lineage of contemporary written doctrine. Although some have argued
that certain Roman treatises constituted doctrine in a similar form to that of
the modern era, the accuracy of this argument depends on the definition of the
term doctrine that is applied. For example, Richard M. van Nort, The Battle
of Adrianople and the Military Doctrine of Vegitius, The City University of
New York: Unpublished PhD Dissertation, 2007, asserts that Roman Legions
regularly applied doctrine as a matter of routine. Although he appears to
equate the term doctrine to both military theory and tactics, van Nort does
not explicitly define the term itself, hence leaving the nature of its relationship
to modern doctrine open to debate. Regarding Wapenhandlingen van Roers,
Musqetten ende Spiessen, Feld has observed that it was obviously influenced
by the numerous fencing books printed throughout Europe after about 1530.
Importantly, it differed from these earlier texts in two substantial ways. First,
its intended audience was militaries rather than the general public, and second,
the level of procedural detail with which it treated its subject meant that it
constituted an integrated instructional device, perhaps the first ever printed.
M. D. Feld, Middle-Class Society and the Rise of Military Professionalism:
The Dutch Army 1589-1609, Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 1, No. 4, August
1975, pp. 423-4.
2. Childs, The Military Revolution I, pp. 19-34; Jeremy Black, The
Military Revolution II: Eighteenth-Century War, in Townshend, ed., The Oxford
Illustrated History of Modern War, pp. 35-47.
3. Bruce D. Porter, War and the Rise of the State: The Military
Foundations of Modern Politics, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1994, pp. 64-7,
110-3.
4. For further details about the significance and effect of these treaties,
see: Kalevi J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order
1648-1989, Cambridge Studies in International Relations No. 14, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 25-42. The relationship between doctrine
and the emergence and evolution of the modern, state-centric international
system is further discussed in the third chapter.
5. Childs, The Military Revolution I, p. 33.
6. In making this observation it must be remembered that during this
period modern militaries had not yet been fully institutionalized, even within
the most advanced European states. For this reason, they cannot be expected
by this era to have developed an institutional discourse. Charles Tilly, Coercion,
Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 6795.

34

7. Brian McAllister Linn, The Echo of Battle: The Armys Way of War,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 200-1.
8. Another example of this macro effect is the influence of
marksmanship training on U.S. Army culture and weapons acquisition decisions.
See: Thomas L. McNaugher, Marksmanship, McNamara and the M16 Rifle:
Organizations, Analysis and Weapons Acquisition, RAND Paper No. P-6306,
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, March 1979.
9. For example, see: John S. Clay, The Fifth Service Looks at Doctrine,
Joint Force Quarterly, No. 14, Winter 1996-7, pp. 29-33.
10. Gary Sheffield, Doctrine and Command in the British Army: An
Historical Overview, in Directorate General Development and Doctrine, Army
Doctrine Publication: Land Operations, United Kingdom: British Army, May
2005, p. 165.
11. James J. Tritten, Developing Naval Doctrine From the Sea,
Joint Force Quarterly, No. 9, Autumn 1995, p. 111; Michael Codner, British
Maritime Doctrine and National Military Strategy, in Centre for Defence
Studies, Kings College London, Brasseys Defence Yearbook 1996, London:
Brasseys, 1996, pp. 88-104; Aaron P. Jackson, Doctrine Development in Five
Commonwealth Navies: A Comparative Perspective, Papers in Australian
Maritime Affairs No. 33, Canberra: Sea Power CentreAustralia, 2010, p.
1; Robert Futrell, Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Volume I: Basic Thinking in the
United States Air Force 1907-1960, Maxwell Air force Base: Air University
Press, 1989, p. xi; Aaron P. Jackson, The Emergence of a Doctrinal Culture
within the Canadian Air Force: Where it Came From, Where its at and Where to
From Here? Part One: Doctrine and Canadian Air Force Culture Prior to the End
of the Cold War, Canadian Air Force Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, Summer 2009, pp.
38-46.
12. Examples of these alternative perspectives include: P. Richard
Moller, The Dangers of Doctrine, in Maritime Security Working Paper No.
5, Halifax: Dalhousie University, December 1996, pp. 57-71; Milan Vego,
Joint Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, Newport RI: U.S. Naval War
College, 2007, pp. XII.4-XII.6.
13. Holsti, Peace and War, pp. 46-63; Black, The Military Revolution II,
pp. 35-47.
14. Holsti, Peace and War, p. 63.
15. Black, The Military Revolution II, p. 45.
16. Hal Klepak, Some Reflections on Generalship Through the Ages, in
Bernd Horn & Stephen J. Harris, eds., Generalship and the Art of the Admiral:
Perspectives on Canadian Senior Military Leadership, St. Catherines, ON:
Vanwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 24-5; Lynn, Battle, pp. 137-9.

35

17. For a detailed discussion about the nature and extent of the works of
these and other key military thinkers of the late 18th century, see: Azar Gat, A
History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to the Cold War, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001, Bk I, pp. 27-55.
18. Walter E. Kretchik, U.S. Army Doctrine: From the American Revolution
to the War on Terror, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2011, pp. 16-24.
19. Paul Johnston, Doctrine is Not Enough: The Effect of Doctrine on the
Behavior of Armies, Parameters, Vol. XXX, No. 3, Autumn 2000, pp. 31-2.
20. John A. Lynn, Battle: A History of Combat and Culture, Cambridge,
MA: Westview, 2003, pp. 179-200.
21. Bernard Brodie, War and Politics, New York: MacMillan Publishing
Co., 1973, pp. 252-8.
22. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power: Volume II: The Rise of
Classes and Nation-States, 1760-1914, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1993, pp. 419-36.
23. John Gooch, Introduction: Military Doctrine in Military History, in
John Gooch, ed., The Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, Occasional Paper No.
30, Camberly: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute, September 1997, p. 5;
Gat, A History of Military Thought, Bk II, pp. 269-72, 285. For a discussion of
the impact of the Enlightenment on the development of military theory, see Gat,
Bk I, part 1.
24. On the works of Jomini and their influence, see: John Shy, Jomini, in
Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear
Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986, pp. 143-85; Gat, A History
of Military Thought, Bk I, pp. 108-137.
25. John L. Romjue, The Evolution of American Army Doctrine, in
Gooch, ed., The Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, pp. 52-3.
26. Romjue, The Evolution of American Army Doctrine, p. 53.
27. Christopher R. Gabel, Preface, in U.S. Army, FM 100-5 Field
Service Regulations: Operations [first issued 1941]. Fort Leavenworth: U.S.
Army Command and General Staff College Press, 1992.
28. U.S. Army, FM 100-5, 1941, p. ii.
29. The idea that universal principles of war existed and could be
uncovered and applied to guide all military operations regardless of the
unique circumstances of individual wars, campaigns and battles, first gained
prominence during the late Renaissance. This idea was subsequently shaped,
and greatly popularized, by the prevailing intellectual paradigms of the
Enlightenment, and the notion has remained (rightly or wrongly) within the
discourse of military theory ever since. Gat, A History of Military Thought,
Bk I, part 1. See also: John A. Alger, The Quest for Victory: The History of the

36

Principles of War, Contributions in Military History No. 30, Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press, 1982, which traces the routes of the principles of war to Sun
Tzu, but nevertheless observes that their popularization within the West began
during the 18th century.
30. Echevarrias insight is itself an indication of the implicit ontological
assumptions made within tactical doctrine. In this case the assumption is that
war is the province of states, while battle is the province of armies. Antulio
J. Echevarria II, Toward an American Way of War, Carlisle: U.S. Army War
College Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004.
31. The idea of a distinctive American Way of War was first explicitly
elaborated in: Russell F. Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of U.S.
Military Strategy and Policy, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1973;
a succinct summary of the causes and origins of this approach are also given in:
John Ellis, The Social History of the Machine Gun, London: Pimlico, 1976, pp.
21-25 (albeit that Ellis does not use the same label as Weigley).
32. Ellis, The Social History of the Machine Gun, pp. 111-145.
33. There have of course been many second school doctrine manuals that
address how to combat non-state groups. The assertion here is not that there
has not been, but rather that different approaches are needed to meet different
challenges. This doctrine only becomes irrelevant if the manuals available (or
consulted) do not contain the appropriate approach for addressing the challenge
at hand. On second school doctrine written about how to combat non-state
groups, see: Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise
of American Power, New York: Basic Books, 2002, pp. 281-5; Tim Moreman,
The Greatest Training Ground in the World: The Army in India and the NorthWest Frontier, 1901-1947, in Daniel P. Marston & Chandar S. Sundaram, A
Military History of India and South Asia: From the East India Company to the
Nuclear Era, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008, pp. 53-73.
34. Andrew F. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, Baltimore, MD: The
John Hopkins University Press, 1986.
35. Romjue, The Evolution of American Army Doctrine, p. 70. The
term revolution in Army thinking has also been used in reference to the same
events. Richard Lock-Pullan, U.S. Intervention Policy and Army Innovation:
From Vietnam to Iraq, New York, NY: Routledge, 2006, p. 77.
36. For example, see: Roger J. Spiller, In the Shadow of the Dragon:
Doctrine and the U.S. Army after Vietnam, in Jeffrey Grey & Peter Dennis,
eds., From Past to Future: The Australian Experience of Land/Air Operations,
Canberra: Australian Defence Force Academy, 1995, pp. 6-46; Richard LockPullan, How to Rethink War: Conceptual Innovation and AirLand Battle
Doctrine, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 2005, pp.
679-702; Robert T. Davis II, The Challenge of Adaptation: The U.S. Army in
the Aftermath of Conflict, 1953-2000, Fort Leavenworth KS: Combat Studies
Institute Press, March 2008, pp. 45-80.
37

37. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-5 Operations,

Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 20, 1982.
38. Spiller, In the Shadow of the Dragon, pp. 15-6.
39. In Spillers words, the October War had the effect of organizing
knowledge in the absence of operational theory. What had been until now a
collection of undifferentiated suppositions and disparate intentions was given
substance and an organized framework from which specific reforms could be
undertaken. Spiller, p. 27.
40. Conrad Crane presents a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. Armys
intellectual desire to leave Vietnam behind, concluding that many of the
reformers who developed AirLand Battle doctrine and the force to apply it
were motivated by a sense of indignation and embarrassment about losing in
Southeast Asia. Out of that defeat the Army developed a new doctrine, force
structure, and attitude designed to win an anti-Vietnam, high-intensity conflict
with the Soviets in Europe. Perhaps more revealing is a quote attributed to
General Starry, one of the primary architects of the Armys post-Vietnam
doctrinal reform: After getting out of Vietnam, the Army looked around and
realized it should not try to fight that kind of war again. Conrad C. Crane,
Avoiding Vietnam: The U.S. Armys Response to Defeat in Southeast Asia,
Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, September 2002, pp. 16-17.
41. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-5 Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1, 1976, p. 1.1.
42. Robert A. Doughty, The Evolution of U.S. Army Tactical Doctrine, 194676, Leavenworth Papers No. 1, Fort Leavenworth KS: Combat Studies Institute,
August 1979, p. 43.
43. For the purposes of this monograph, details of the content of this
manual are less important than the process and debate surrounding its
development. Readers interested in more details about the content of this manual
and the criticisms it drew are encouraged to consult: Doughty, pp. 40-6.
44. For a concise overview of the AirLand Battle concept, see: John L.
Romjue, The Evolution of the AirLand Battle Concept, Air University Review,
May-June 1984. Available from www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/
aureview/1984/may-jun/romjue.html, accessed on November 30, 2009.
2.3.

45. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-5 Operations, 1982, p.

46. The implications of this for the Prussian/German and Russian/Soviet

militaries are that in these militaries the second and third schools of doctrinal
ontology appeared in a much closer succession than they did in the English
speaking militaries that are the subject of discussion herein. Because of the
limits of this study (its focus on English speaking militaries) the implications
of this difference are not discussed here. On the reasons for the U.S. lag behind
Germany and Russia, see: Vego, Joint Operational Warfare, pp. I.15-I.34,
38

XII.4; James J. Schneider, The Structure of Strategic Revolution: Total War

and the Roots of the Soviet Warfare State, Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1994,
esp. chap. 5; Shimon Naveh, In Pursuit of Military Excellence: The Evolution
of Operational Theory, London: Frank Cass, 1997; Dennis E. Showalter,
Prussian-German Operational Art, 1740-1943 and Jacob W. Kipp, The Tsarist
and Soviet Operational Art, 1853-1991, both in John Andreas Olsen & Martin
van Creveld, The Evolution of Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 35-95.
47. For a more detailed account see: Antulio J. Echevarria II, American
Operational Art, 1917-2008, in Olsen & van Creveld, The Evolution of
Operational Art, pp. 137-165.
48. Weigley, The American Way of War, p 475.
49. Michael Carver, Conventional Warfare in the Nuclear Age, in Paret,
ed., Makers of Modern Strategy, pp. 779-814.
50. A. J. Bacevich, The Pentomic Era: The U.S. Army between Korea and
Vietnam, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1986, esp. pp.
103-119; Echevarria, American Operational Art, pp. 154-5.
51. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, edited and translated by Michael Howard
and Peter Paret, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 69.
52. This aligns with the implicit assumptions underlying several U.S. Army
manuals that fall within in the tactical manual school. The key difference is
that discussion within the 1982 edition of FM 100-5 was more detailed and the
implications of this ontological model were finally made explicit.
53. Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and
Leadership in Wartime, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 226; see also
Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of
Civil-Military Relations, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959;
Edward M. Coffman, The Long Shadow of The Soldier and the State,
Journal of Military History, Vol. 55, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 69-82. Of note,
subscription to the normal school of civil-military relations has not been
limited to FM 100-5: Cohen explicitly states that FM 1 The Army, which fits
within the fourth school of doctrinal ontology, is largely Huntington in tone
and a particularly interesting document. Cohen, p. 273 (n. 4).
54. Romjue, The Evolution of the AirLand Battle Concept.
55. Linn, The Echo of Battle, pp. 211-212, describes the U.S. Armys
experience. For examples of this effect in two allied militaries, see: Hew
Strachan, Operational Art in Britain, 1909-2009, in Olsen & van Creveld, The
Evolution of Operational Art, p. 120; Howard G. Coombs, In the Wake of a
Paradigm Shift: The Canadian Forces College and the Operational Level of War
(1987-1995), Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, 2010, pp. 19-27.
56. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FMFM 1 Warfighting, Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 6, 1989.
39

57. H. T. Hayden, Introduction: The History and Execution of Marine

Corps Doctrine, in H. T. Hayden, ed., Warfighting: Maneuver Warfare in the
U.S. Marine Corps, London: Greenhill Books, 1995, p. 19.
58. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FMFM 1, 1989, p. 59.
59. Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Manual (AFM) 1-1 (Volume
1), Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1992, pp. 7-8.
60. Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, AFM 1-1 (Volume 2), Basic Aerospace
Doctrine of the United States Air Force, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, March 1992. The authorship of these essays was not disclosed.
61. Naval Doctrine Command was subsequently disestablished in 1998, at
which time most of its functions were transferred to the newly established Navy
Warfare Development Command. John B. Hattendorf, Introduction, in John B.
Hattendorf, ed., U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1990s: Selected Documents, Newport
Paper No. 27, Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 2006, p. 15.
62. Headquarters, Department of the Navy, Navy Doctrine Publication
(NDP) 1 Naval Warfare, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
March 28, 1994, pp. 16-7.
63. Headquarters, Department of the Navy, NDP 1 Naval Warfare, p. 35.
64. Hattendorf, Introduction, p. 15.
65. There are very few available sources that address service culture in
depth. Key among the sources available are: Carl H. Builder The Masks of War:
American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore MD: John Hopkins
University Press, 1989; Allan D. English, Understanding Military Culture: A
Canadian Perspective, Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press, 2004.
66. U.S. Army Combined Arms Centre, Doctrine Development,
available from http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/doctrine.asp, accessed on August 8,
2010; Tritten, Developing Naval Doctrine From the Sea, p. 111.
67. Jackson, Doctrine Development in Five Commonwealth Navies, p. 1.
68. Huntington, The Soldier and the State, part 1; see also Cohen, Supreme
Command, pp. 225-248.
69. Builder, The Masks of War, esp. chap. 6-8.
70. Original emphasis. Markus Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual
Excellence: The Evolution of British Military-Strategic Doctrine in the PostCold War Era, 1989-2002, Studies in Contemporary History and Security Policy
No. 13, Bern: Peter Lang, 2004, p. 78.
71. Strachan, Operational Art in Britain, pp. 119-121, quote p. 119.
72. Strachans account is also brief, although he does note that Bagnalls
contribution is still in need of a full study. Strachan, Operational Art in
Britain, p. 135 (n. 83).
40

73. Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, pp. 90-2.

74. Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, pp. 78-103; Sheffield,
Doctrine and Command in the British Army, pp. 177-178.
75. Prepared under the Direction of the Chief of the General Staff, Design
for Military OperationsBritish Military Doctrine, London: Her Majestys
Stationary Office, 1989.
76. Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, p. 98.
77. Evans, Forward from the Past, p. 28.
78. Canadian Forces, Joint and Combined Operations, Ottawa: Canadian
National Defence Headquarters, 1995.
79. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, pp. 19-27; David Cox &
Andrew ONeil, Professional Military Education in Australia: Has it All Gone
Terribly Right? Australian Defence Force Journal, No. 171, 2006, pp. 59-60.
80. Evans, Forward from the Past, p. 28.
81. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, p. 25.
82. Sheffield, Doctrine and Command in the British Army, p. 177.
83. Original emphasis. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, p. 25.
84. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, p. 25.
85. An interesting aside is that New Zealand not only fits within this
construct, but occupies a position where one would logically expect to find
it given the small size of its military relative to the other English-speaking
militaries examined. Each of its Services briefly engaged in the production
of third and fourth school doctrine during the early and mid-1990s, prior to
deferring to foreign, usually Australian, doctrine, in lieu of undertaking further
internal doctrine development in these schools. Since the early-2000s the New
Zealand Defence Force has produced comprehensive joint doctrine manuals that
fit within both of these schools, with the content of these manuals being strongly
influenced by conceptual developments featured in allied doctrine, again
primarily that of Australia. Thus, relative to the U.S., New Zealand appears
to be situated in a more outer circle than either Canada or Australia, although
another thought community also appears extant wherein Australian doctrine
writers occupy an inner circle and New Zealand doctrine writers an outer circle.
For further details about doctrine development in New Zealand, see: Aaron P.
Jackson, Getting it Right? Military-Strategic Level Doctrine Development in
New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 3, August 2008,
pp. 11-17.
86. International Institute for Strategic Studies, Complex Irregular Warfare:
The Face of Contemporary Conflict, The Military Balance, Vol. 105, No. 1,
2005, p. 419.

41

87. These developments are discussed in greater detail in subsequent

chapters.
88. Romjue, The Evolution of the AirLand Battle Concept.
89. Even though the U.S. military stresses the need for interoperability
and constantly takes measures to enhance it, interoperability is nevertheless a
more pressing concern for its smaller allies. The reasons for this are summarized
by Middlemiss and Stairs: It should be clear that, in any military alliance,
interoperability is primarily an issue for the lesser powers. This is because it is
the lesser powers that must deal with the military equivalent of keeping up with
the Joneses. Nowhere has this been more starkly revealed than in NATO, where
all the members, save in some degree the United Kingdom and France, have
found it a perennially daunting challenge to maintain military forces that can
operate effectively with the vastly superior military establishment of the United
States., Danford W. Middlemiss & Denis Stairs, The Canadian Forces and
the Doctrine of Interoperability: The Issues, Policy Matters Occasional Paper
Series, Vol. 3, No. 7, Montreal, QC: Institute for Research on Public Policy, June
2002, p. 14.
90. Peter Haas, Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International
Policy Coordination, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1, Winter 1992,
p. 3.
91. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, p. 25.
92. For a comparative analysis of Western military responses to these
challenges during the 1990s, see: Charles C. Moskos, John Allan Williams &
David R. Segal, eds., The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold
War, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.
93. For a prominent example of this debate, see: Charles Krauthammer,
The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 1, Winter 1990-1, pp. 2333.
94. This division has been promulgated within some capstone doctrine
manuals. See, for example: British Armed Forces, Joint Warfare Publication
(JWP) 0-01 British Defence Doctrine, 1st ed., London: Her Britannic Majestys
Stationary Office, 1997, pp. 1.8-1.9; Australian Defence Force, Australian
Defence Doctrine Publication-Doctrine (ADDP-D) Foundations of Australian
Military Doctrine, 2nd ed., Canberra: Defence Publishing Service, July 2005,
para. 1.7.
95. Doctrine hierarchies have long contained designated keystone or
capstone manuals. Prior to the emergence of the fourth school of doctrinal
ontology, these manuals were often accompanied by several other manuals in the
hierarchy that fit within the same ontological school. The important difference
between these and manuals in the fourth school is that fourth school manuals are
generally the only manual of their school within a hierarchy. Below them, it is
common to find the remainder of the hierarchy consists of several operational,
tactical and technical manuals.
42

96. Michael Codner, Purple Prose and Purple Passion: The Joint Defence
Centre, RU.S.I Journal, Vol. 144, No. 1, February/March 1999, p. 38.
97. In a study of military strategic doctrine in these three countries, this
author found several similarities between each army, navy and air force, but few
similarities between the three services of each country. The key reason for this
was service culture, which caused army doctrine to have a downwards focus
(providing guidance for operational conduct was the key concern), navy doctrine
to have an upwards focus (justifying funding for acquisitions to government
was the key concern) and air force doctrine had an inwards focus (educating
airmen about the significance of air power was the key concern). Interestingly,
joint doctrine exhibited elements of all three of these foci as well as a fourth,
outwards focus, to which end it was employed as a device for explaining
military strategy to the general public. Aaron P. Jackson, Doctrine, Strategy and
Military Culture: Military-Strategic Doctrine Development in Australia, Canada
and New Zealand, 1987-2007, Trenton, ON: Canadian Forces Aerospace
Warfare Centre, 2013.
98. A holistic study of U.S. military strategic doctrine development
and its impact is notably absent from the existing literature. Although some,
such as Chapman, provide a starting point, their work is nonetheless limited.
Chapman, for example, focuses on doctrine development since World War Two,
providing a general overview rather than examining military strategic doctrine
development specifically. As his main objective is to identify sources available
for further research, his analysis is understandably limited. In contrast, the
development and significance of military strategic doctrine in Britain, Australia,
Canada and New Zealand has been the subject of comprehensive analysis. See:
Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence; Jackson, Doctrine, Strategy and
Military Culture; Bert Chapman, Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook,
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International, 2009, pp. 6-41.
99. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-5 Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 14, 1993; Headquarters,
Department of the Army, FM 3-0 Operations, Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, June 14, 2001.
100. This manual is not as well known as FM 3-0 and its impact is quite
limited by comparison. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 1 The
Army, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 14, 2001;
since superseded by: Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 1 The Army,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 2005.
101. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication
(MCDP) 1 Warfighting, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June
20, 1997; Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, MCDP 1-1 Strategy, Washington
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 12, 1997; Headquarters, U.S.
Marine Corps, MCDP 1-2 Campaigning, Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, August 1, 1997; Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, MCDP 1-3
Tactics, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 30, 1997.
43

102. U.S. Air Force, Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1 Air Force
Basic Doctrine, Maxwell Air Force Base: Headquarters Air Force Doctrine
Centre, September 1997.
103. These lists were simple in the sense that they were descriptive and
exhibited a straightforward, check-list type of appearance. This is in contrast
with the equivalent Army and U.S.MC doctrine manuals, which each presented a
few major thematic concepts that were explicitly linked to national strategy.
104. These and five other U.S.N strategy documents first published during
the 1990s are reproduced in: Hattendorf, ed., U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1990s. A
brief overview of the circumstances surrounding the development and release of
each document is also given in this source.
105. Hattendorf, Introduction, p. 2.
106. Added emphasis. Hattendorf, p. 3.
107. For a detailed review of the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act,
see: James R. Locher, Has it Worked? The Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization
Act, Naval War College Review, Vol. LIV, No. 4, Autumn 2001, pp. 95-115.
108. Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 1 Joint Warfare
of the U.S. Armed Forces, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 11, 1991.
109. On joint doctrine development in the UK, Australia, Canada and New
Zealand, see: Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, pp. 229-258; Jackson,
Doctrine, Strategy and Military Culture, chap. 7.
110. Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, pp. 297-311; Jackson,
Doctrine, Strategy and Military Culture, chap. 7.
111. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 1, 2005, p. iii.
112. Kretchik, U.S. Army Doctrine, pp. 278-286.
113. Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 1 Joint Warfare of the
Armed Forces of the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, November 14, 2000, esp. foreword & chaps. 1 & 4; U.S. Navy, NDP-1
Naval Warfare, The Navy Operational Concept, Anytime, Anywhere: A Navy
for the 21st Century, and Navy Strategic Planning Guidance with Long Range
Guidance, all reproduced in Hattendorf, ed., U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1990s,
pp. 136, 159-61, 171-2, 173, 177, 210, 219-20; Headquarters, Department of the
Army, FM 1, June 14, 2001, pp. iv, 17-18; U.S. Air Force, AFDD 1, September
1997, pp. 5-6.
114. This is also the case regarding allied joint doctrine. See: Mder, In
Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, pp. 297-311; Jackson, Doctrine, Strategy and
Military Culture, conclusion.
115. Mder, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence, p. 22.

44

116. For details of the evolution of each of these concepts, see respectively:
David Jablonsky, U.S. Military Doctrine and the Revolution in Military
Affairs, Parameters, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1994, pp. 18-36; Paul T. Mitchell,
EBO: Thinking Effects and Effective Thinking, Pointer, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2007,
pp. 50-58; Arthur K. Cebrowski & John J. Garstka, Network-Centric Warfare:
Its Origin and Future, Proceedings, Vol. 124, No. 1, January 1998, pp. 28-35;
Keith E. Bonn & Anthony E. Baker, Guide to Military Operations Other Than
War: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Stability and Support Operations:
Domestic and International, Mechanicsburg PA: Stackpole Books, 2000, pp.
1-20; Jennifer Morrison Taw, Stability and Support Operations: History and
Debates, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2010, pp. 387-407;
Antulio J. Echevarria II, Rapid Decisive Operations: An Assumptions-Based
Critique, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, November 2001,
pp. 3-5.
117. This prevalence has been especially noticeable in joint doctrine.
In the U.S., the first edition of JP 1 prominently advocated some of the key
maneuverist ideas, such as targeting an enemys strategic and operational centers
of gravity. This notion has continued through to the current (2007, incorporating
change 1, 2009) edition. The UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have
been even more explicit, and their joint capstone manuals have all emphasized
that their armed forces jointly apply a maneuverist approach. Joint Chiefs of
Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 1, 1991, pp. 46, 56, 65; Joint Chiefs of
Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the
United States, May 2, 2007, Incorporating Change 1, March 20, 2009, p. I-18,
available from www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf, accessed on March 4,
2011; British Armed Forces, JWP 0-01, 1st ed., pp. 4.8-4.9; Canadian Forces,
Canadian Forces Joint Publication (CFJP) 01 Canadian Military Doctrine, 1st
ed., Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forces Experimentation Centre, April 2009, pp.
6-13, available from www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/cfwc-cgfc/Index/JD/Pub_Eng/
Capstone/ CFJP_%2001_Canadian_Military_Doctrine_En_2009_04_Web.pdf,
accessed on March 4, 2011; Australian Defence Force, ADDP-D Foundations
of Australian Military Doctrine, 1st ed., Canberra: Defence Publishing Service,
May 2002, pp. 5.3-5.5; New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Defence
Doctrine Publication-Doctrine (NZDDP-D) Foundations of New Zealand
Military Doctrine, 1st ed., Wellington: Development Branch, Headquarters New
Zealand Defence Force, 2004, pp. 6.18-6.19.
118. Strachan, Operational Art in Britain, pp. 96-136.
119. Romjue, The Evolution of the AirLand Battle Concept.

45

Chapter 3
The Relationship between the Four Schools
By the end of the 20th century, four distinct schools of doctrinal
ontology had emerged within English speaking western militaries.
Before proceeding to discuss the epistemology underlying these schools
and the impact of the developments of the early 21st century, it is first
pertinent to reflect on the nature of the relationship between these
schools. This relationship is important as it situates the emergence of
each school within its broader intellectual context while concurrently
allowing for the conduct of a detailed analysis of the significance of
each in relation to the others.
In this chapter, the relationship between the schools is analyzed
from three different perspectives: the educational, the scientific, and
the bureaucratic. These perspectives are adopted because each sheds
light on a different aspect of the militarys institutional belief system
as it is expressed within doctrine and together these perspectives also
explore the range and significance of the relationships between doctrine,
strategy, the military and its environment. It is subsequently determined
that despite the differences between each of the four ontological schools,
doctrine has nevertheless consistently employed ontological realism as
the basis of its discourse. This has formed an enduring bond between
each of the schools of doctrinal ontology and has usually ensured that
they remain mutually compatible despite the different scope of their
focus.

The Training and Educational Role of Doctrine

The first of these perspectives relates primarily to the role of doctrine
in the delivery of professional military training and education (the
difference between training and education is that training is designed
to teach a skill whereas education is designed to increase the recipients
knowledge).1
As asserted above, each school of doctrinal ontology has been
applied in a different manneras instruction manuals, training aids,
guidance, and as an instrument for analysis, respectively. Of note, these
applications correspond to the requirements of a military practitioners
professional training and education at various stages of their career
trajectory, as identified by Alan Okros within his paper addressing
alternative approaches to understanding leadership within a military
context.2
47

A brief overview of the relevant aspects of Okros paper is thus

warranted. At the core of his observations about military career
progression is the assertion that:
Entry level formationis based on engineering and the
assumptions that one is to focus on learning how to apply
known procedures to address the professions (tactical) issues.
Mid-level Officerand senior [non-commissioned member]
formation is based on the natural sciences and the assumption
that, at this level, one must learn how to develop general
(operational) plans of action and update existing (tactical)
procedures through some form of structured analysis (the
Operational Planning Process dominates). Senior level Officer
[formation is] based on the liberal arts and the assumption that,
at the most senior level, one must learn how to analyze complex
issues to establish (strategic) guidance which, in turn, informs
operational planning.3
This is closely related to the division between long-established modes
of general education: Arts teaches one how to ask the right questions
(the strategic focus), the Natural Sciences teach one how to answer these
questions the right way (the operational focus), and Engineering teaches
one how to apply the answers the right way (the tactical focus).4 As a
result:
The significant challenge identified is that individuals have to
transit across all three major faculties of engineering, sciences,
and the arts while also expanding their focus from mastery
of the military arena[to] the full spectrum of government
objectives the key conclusion is that those moving to the most
senior staff roles also need to move away from predominant
reliance on engineering models based on the assumptions
of a knowable, definable, programmable world to adopting
philosophical models that acknowledge that one rarely gets the
question right let alone determines the answers with absolute
certainty.5
Importantly, the relationship between each of the successive schools
of doctrinal ontology identified above aligns with the training and
educational requirements of the military career progression path
identified by Okros.
Throughout ones military career, doctrine in the technical manual
school is consulted to provide instructions about the employment
48

specific systems. Manuals in this school thus enable training to be

conducted with the intent of teaching military practitioners the technical
skills they need to do their job. Although technical manuals are more
likely to be of relevance to those employed in technical trades (such
as artillery or engineers) or to those in the initial stages of their career,
there may nevertheless be cause for those at any stage of their career to
consult the instruction manual if required. Thus, doctrine manuals in
this school form a foundation for training throughout ones career.
In alignment with Okros analogy, doctrine in the tactical manual
school can be viewed primarily as a training aid for military engineers.
This doctrine is produced with the underlying assumption that the
problems confronting tactical forces are knowable, definable and, to an
extent, programmable (regardless of how frequently re-programming
may be required). Accordingly, the employment of this doctrine as a
training aid aligns with the requirements of training military practitioners
using an engineering approach.
Doctrine in the other two schools assists in the delivery of education,
rather than in the conduct of training. Continuing with Okros analogy,
doctrine in the operational manual school is targeted at an audience of
military natural scientists. In the words of R. K. Taylor, it is more
about creating a framework within which to prepare, plan, and conduct
operationsrather than [establishing] procedures on how to fight.6
For this reason, the guidance it provides can be construed as a means of
establishing the appropriate questions that operational planners should
seek to answer.
Finally, as it constitutes an instrument for analysis, doctrine in the
military strategic school can be interpreted as a component of attempts to
determine which ontological questions militaries need to ask. Doctrine
manuals in this school therefore constitute something akin to academic
textbooks for military arts students who (to again paraphrase Okros)
are required to analyze a myriad of complex problems as they arise,
determine their own creative solutions and while in the process of
doing so, define which questions need to be answered. To this end the
philosophies, principles, and concepts contained in doctrine manuals
that fit within this school fill two roles. In the first, they are an expression
of thought about the nature of the strategic questions confronting
militaries, and in the second, they are an important source of intellectual
support to which military practitioners can refer when justifying why
they have determined to ask certain questions. Coincidentally, this latter
role corresponds to the citation by arts students of texts that support the
hypotheses of their papers.
49

From the training and educational perspective, it can be seen that

the emergence of each school of doctrinal ontology roughly corresponds
with major developments in the expansion of formalized professional
military training and education programs. As previously mentioned,
the publication of the first modern drill book, Wapenhandlingen van
Roers, Musqetten ende Spiessen, the year after the establishment of
the first modern military academy, is a noteworthy coincidence.7 The
17th century subsequently witnessed the proliferation within Europe of
both military academies and drill manuals, the forerunners to doctrine
in the technical manual school. During this period, military academies
focused almost exclusively on providing training for the technically
inclined military trades of artillery and engineering.8
Towards the end of the 18th century, however, many European
military academies began to expand their curriculums to cover a broader
9
range of subjects, including military theory and tactics. In the late 18th
and early 19th centuries, staff collegesdesigned to provide further
education for mid-level officers selected to serve in staff appointments
10
were also opened across the Occident. During the latter half of the 20th
century too, formal education programs were expanded or consolidated at
all stages of military career progression. This included the establishment
in 1983 of the US Armys School of Advanced Military Studies which
offered a rigorous education in the tactical and operational levels of
warfare, staff procedures, planning, and problem solving based on the
ontology made explicit in the previous years edition of Field Manual
11
(FM) 100-5 Operations. Alongside these changes is the trend in most
English speaking militaries towards an ever increasing percentage of
officers holding tertiary or even postgraduate degrees.

The Relationship between Doctrine and Scientific Regimes

The second perspective from which the relationship between
the schools of doctrinal ontology can be analyzed is the scientific
perspective. In conducting this analysis, the work of Antoine Bousquet
is most useful. Conducting enquiry into the profound interrelationship
of science and warfare, Bousquet determined that throughout the
modern era the dominant corpus of scientific ideas has been reflected
in the contemporary theories and practices of warfare in the Western
world.12 Furthermore, he posited the existence of:
four distinct regimes of the scientific way of warfare, each
of which is characterised [sic] by a specific theoretical and
methodological constellation: mechanistic, thermodynamic,

50

cybernetic, and chaoplexic warfare. At the core of every

scientific regime we find an associated paradigmatic technology,
respectively the clock, the engine, the computer, and the
network.13
Just as the different requirements of professional military education at
successive stages of a military career, as identified by Okros, align with
the different schools of doctrinal ontology, so too do each of the four
regimes identified by Bousquet.14
The first of these regimes, the mechanistic, was dominant throughout
the 17th and 18th centuries. Employing clockwork as its primary
technological metaphor, the dominance of this regime was marked by
general belief that, in a similar manner to the sequence of interaction
between a series of weights as well as cogs and springs within a clock,
the world could be holistically understood through an examination of
the nature of its component parts and the interaction between them.15
Alongside the dominance of this regime emerged the first school of
doctrinal ontology. Indeed, Bousquet observes about Wapenhandlingen
van Roers, Musqetten ende Spiessen that it:
acted as an integrated instructional device, breaking down the
use of any given weapon into a series of distinct component
steps which were arranged in a numbered logical sequence
and each associated with an individual verbal command. The
sequence formed a complete cycle to be repeated as many times
as required.16
This sequence is, of course, analogous to the sequence of interaction
between the components of a clockwork mechanism. Notably, doctrine
manuals in the technical manual school have continued to tend towards
this methodology right up to present day. The US Armys training
revolution of the early 1970s employed the same sequence but on a
larger scale, for example.17
The second regime, the thermodynamic, assumed primacy during
the 19th century, maintained this position until at least the mid-20th
century, and employed the engine as its own primary technological
metaphor. According to this metaphor, the world is composed of
different types of energies that interact with one another and which can
be harnessed, concentrated, discharged, or transformed, in the same way
that an engine converts its fuel source into motive power through the
process of thermodynamics. For militaries, the spread of technologies
that had been developed through the application of the science of

51

thermodynamics irreversibly changed war and new technologies such

as railways, steamships, automobiles, breech-loading and rifled weapon
systems, and eventually airplanes, were all developed as a result of this
branch of scientific endeavor.18
The period of primacy of this scientific regime also coincided with
the emergence of the second school of doctrinal ontology. Assessed
from the scientific perspective, it can be concluded that doctrine in this
school has indeed been influenced by thermodynamics. In concentrating
its discussion on battlefield tactics, it at least tacitly acknowledges the
influence of different energies, their interactions, and their exertions and
impacts upon one another. In particular, linguistics and metaphors relating
to thermodynamics abound. The 1941 edition of FM 100-5, for example,
discussed attack and defense in relation to a war of movement, a concept
that is inherently related to the expenditure and transformation of energy.19
It is important to note at this juncture that the emergence of new
scientific regimes and their ascendency as the dominant paradigm of their
era has not been accompanied by the consignment of previous regimes
to history. Instead, older regimes have continued to coexist alongside
the newer ones, albeit having passed the mantle of dominance, and have
even in some instances assumed a complementary position alongside
their successors.20 The same could be said about the influence of each
regime on the major concepts that have been featured in doctrine. Hence,
mechanistic ideas, such as the linear battlefield, continued to exist
alongside other (newer and hence more prominent) ideas belonging to
more recent scientific regimes, long after the mechanistic sciences had
ceased to constitute the dominant regime.21 The same can subsequently
be observed in the case of thermodynamics and so on.
The third scientific regime Bousquet identified is the cybernetic and
its dominant metaphor is the computer, an apparatus designed to capture
information from its environment, process it, and then transmit the
results back into the environment thus potentially creating a feedback
loop. This regime has its origins in the technological developments
of the Second World War and became a dominant scientific paradigm
during the decades thereafter.22 The key significance of this regime is
that the promises of cybernetic warfare fuelled the dream of a complete
automated dominance of the battlefield. This dream soon came to
be accompanied by a drive for certainty and predictability during
military operations.23

52

The influence of this drive on military thought was evident in the

development of several new concepts. Most notable is the replacement
of the term command with command and control, the latter part of
which suggests a process that involves a feedback mechanism allowing
the controller to obtain new information from the system, adjust orders
accordingly, and thus exert continuous direction on subordinates in the
same way that a computer captures and processes and then disseminates
processed information.24 Although this regime had already begun to
have a noticeable influence on doctrine prior to the emergence of the
third school of doctrinal ontology (for instance, the training revolution
of the 1970s can be construed from this perspective as employing
doctrine as part of a large scale information gathering and processing
activity), it nevertheless became an instant feature of the third school
doctrine manuals of its era of dominance.
This influence was subtle, however. The 1982 edition of FM 100-5
is illustrative. Despite prominently discussing command and control and
addressing the employment and effect of several cybernetic technologies
such as sensors and electronic warfare, the cybernetic regime was not
immediately evident in most of the content of this manual.25 Instead, the
application of training regimes based on the AirLand Battle concept it
featured were the most prominent result of the influence of cybernetics.
The Armys National Training Center (NTC), which opened in 1982:
employed laser weapons to precisely calibrate the damage (so
that a rifle could not destroy a tank) and teams of observers to
conduct immediate on-site seminars. Cameras and computers
recorded the words and actions of individuals and units engaged
in combat against a surrogate Soviet force (the Krasnovians).
Armor, mechanized, and even light units rotated through the
NTC, conducting tactical exercises (or missions) that simulated
the violent and intensive combat environment expected in a war
with the Soviets.26
The application of doctrine had thus taken on the features of an
enormous scale cybernetic feedback loop, in which information about
performance could be collected, analyzed, assessed, and evaluated and
the results widely communicated within a very short timeframe.
The final regime is termed chaoplexity by Bousquet in a deliberate
amalgamation of the terms chaos theory and complexity science,
the two dominant scientific paradigms underlying it.27 These paradigms
emphasize non-linearity and self-organization, and the key metaphor

53

accompanying them is the network, an abstract concept emphasizing

multifaceted interaction through an intricate web of interconnectivity
that exists between different elements of a system, and between the
system and its environment. Relative to the other regimes, chaoplexity
is still in a state of intellectual adolescence, having emerged in the
sciences during the early 1970s and only beginning to shape military
thinking two decades later.28
Like cybernetics, chaoplexity has influenced the development of
some key military concepts, although its influence has been notably less
prominent than any of the other regimes probably due to its relatively
short lineage. One of the most prolific concepts identified as employing
the principles of chaos theory is John Boyds Decision Cycle (also
known as the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act Cycle or simply as the
OODA loop), which presents a cognitive model of the decision making
process of participants in combat.29 Bousquet observes a tendency,
however, for cybernetic concepts to be construed as chaoplexic when
they in fact are not (his highly detailed critique of Network Centric
Warfare is informative as it demonstrates this tendency in the case of
that concept)30 or for chaoplexic concepts to be misinterpreted or oversimplified into a more linear form (Boyds Decision Cycle itself suffers
from this).31
Hence, there is still a way to go before chaoplexity is fully
established as a dominant paradigm within military thinking regardless
of its proliferation in the sciences. The application of chaoplexic
thinking within doctrine has nevertheless increased in recent years
particularly within doctrine in the fourth school. Furthermore, some
prominent concepts have been reinterpreted as employing chaoplexic
metaphors. One example is the maneuverist approach. In this case,
while it is acknowledged that key associated terms such as friction,
tempo and firepower remain connotative of thermodynamics, the
discussion of other ideas such as uncertainty, disorder, and even
complexity clearly demonstrates the presence of chaoplexic modes of
interpretation.32 The rise of this mode of thinking within doctrine will be
revisited from an epistemological perspective in the next chapter.
Overall, from the scientific perspective it can be seen that each of
the four scientific regimes identified by Bousquet has had a substantial
influence on the development of concepts featured within the doctrine
produced during the period of its epoch and that each of the regimes has
left a noticeable conceptual legacy thereafter. As the emergence of each

54

of the schools of doctrinal ontology has coincided with the dominance of

a different scientific regime, the scientific undercurrents of the doctrine
in each school can be seen to have expanded from the last. In light of
this, it is possible to determine the existence an ongoing relationship
between the progress of scientific endeavor on one hand and the content
of doctrine on the other.

Doctrine, Military Bureaucracy, and State/Military Relations

The third perspective from which the relationship between the
schools of doctrinal ontology can be analyzed is the bureaucratic
perspective. Unlike the educational and scientific perspectives,
analysis from the bureaucratic perspective is not linked to the writings
of any particular individual. Instead, analysis from the bureaucratic
perspective draws on various examinations of the rise and expansion
of the modern state. It is posited that through this lens the expansion of
doctrine can be seen to have paralleled crucial changes in the nature of
the states that sustain modern military forces.
The emergence of the modern state, and for that matter of the statecentric international system in which modern militaries purport to
operate, is contentious and alternate dates have been suggested. While
those attempting to specify a precise date often cite the proclamation
of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,33 others have argued that a gradual
evolution of the modern state occurred from the early 15th to the early 18th
century.34 Regardless of which of these views one accepts, the modern
state and the state-centric international system are both underpinned by
the primacy of state sovereignty. Although the enshrining of this was a
major component of the Peace of Westphalia, this does not mean that
the modern state appeared overnight following its proclamation.35
Subsequent to its emergence as the primary political unit within the
international system, the role of the state has progressively expanded in
relation to society. As George Thomas and John Meyer expound, this
expansion can be viewed as a mixture of the growth of jurisdiction,
rationalization, and bureaucracy linked to an accelerating rate of
institutionalization. The first of these facets includes the states early
development of legal systems and taxation structures, the expanding
scope of these, and more recently constructed apparatus such as national
finance systems, citizens and civil rights, and the regulation of social
activities. This has gone hand-in-hand with increasing rationalization,
which Thomas and Meyer define as the organization of social life
within a unified frame of means and ends.36

55

Bureaucracy has been the preferred mechanism for controlling

the relationship between means and ends associated with increasing
rationalization and for implementing the requirements of increasing
jurisdiction. The increased scope and size of bureaucratic mechanisms
in particular has been one of the most immediately visible elements
of state expansion. Accompanying this has been an accelerating rate
of institutionalization within Western society. In the latter half of the
20th century, for example, this encompassed most prominently the
expansion of public education and state-provided welfare mechanisms,
closely linked to shifting conceptions of citizens rights in relation to
state-provided services.37
Although they offer an excellent summary of the key elements of
state-expansion, Thomas and Meyers account approaches the subject
from a sociological rather than historical perspective. Hence, it remains
somewhat ahistoric and a greater elaboration of a few key events is
required.
The period following the Peace of Westphalia was dominated by the
monarchic governance of European states, by the occurrence of limited
wars and by the expansion of European power into newly-established
colonies. The practice of warfare during this period remained limited
to the conduct of war by permanent volunteer military forces that
were officered primarily by members of the aristocracy. The role,
scope, and modus operandi of the state and its institutions evolved
slowly throughout this period, at least relatively to those preceding
and following it.38 This was also the period in which the first school of
doctrinal ontology emerged.
The revolutions in North America from 1774 to 1783 and France
from 1789 to 1799 brought fundamental changes to the relationship
between states and society. In particular, the concept of citizenship
was drastically altered. After the revolutions, citizenship became
universal and a new relationship between the people and the state
was established wherein the people were subjected to increased state
jurisdiction in exchange for an increased stake in the state itself.39
This new relationship spread across Europe during the 19th century
witnessed by increased nationalism on the part of the people and by
increased jurisdiction, rationalization, and bureaucracy on the part of
the state. It was against this backdrop that the vast conscripted European
militaries that would eventually contest both World Wars emerged and
that these militaries concurrently professionalized and bureaucratized.40
It was also against this backdrop that the second school of doctrinal
ontology first appeared.
56

Gradual expansion of the state continued into the 20th century,

accelerating during the decades following the Second World War. As
mentioned above, this encompassed most prominently the expansion
of public education and welfare mechanisms as popular notions of
citizens rights again expanded during this period. This is related to the
expanding concept of human rights that was traditionally confined to
civil and political rights (such as those granted by the Bill of Rights
enshrined within the US Constitution), but which has more recently
expanded to include economic rights (such as freedom from poverty
and access to education) and social and cultural rights (to ensure the
protection of culture and identity).41 As citizens have come to expect
states to uphold these additional rights, state jurisdiction has increased as
has rationalization and bureaucracy, and institutionalization has greatly
expanded within areas such as education and welfare.42 English speaking
Western militaries, now only one state institution amongst several,
during this period have further professionalized and bureaucratized, and
have returned to a voluntary model of service.43
Turning to the relationship between states and militaries, it is
noteworthy that modern militaries have existed as a recognizable
institution since the 16th century, about the same time that the modern state
itself came to exist.44 The evolution of these two entities is inextricably
linked, with militaries constituting one of the oldest institutions of the
state. While still a newly-emerged institution, militaries naturally began
to develop their own institutional discourse, which consisted of written
as well as other elements. In light of state expansion and the growth of
bureaucracy in particular, the widening scope of written doctrine can
be viewed as the gradual bureaucratization of the militarys dominant
institutional discourse.
Just as the appearance of the first and second schools of doctrinal
ontology coincided with certain key aspects of state emergence
and expansion, so too did the third and fourth. The singular explicit
ontology of doctrine in the third school can be viewed as the translation
into writing of what had, by the latter part of the 20th century, become
the dominant idealized model of the state/military relationship.45 In this
relationship, militaries exist within the international arena and their
purpose is to deter or defeat the conventional military forces of other
states.46
The circumstance of the emergence of this school is significant.
The US Army, where this school of doctrinal ontology originated (at
least within English speaking militaries), had recently emerged from
57

a guerrilla war against an unconventional enemy force, was seeking to

refocus itself on what it considered to be its core business,47 and was
also attempting to address major challenges to its hitherto longstanding
institutional and bureaucratic norms.48 By making its dominant
institutional ontology explicit in writing, the Armys jurisdiction as a
bureaucratic organization and subset of the state was clearly defined and
its legitimacy within American society resultantly increased (or, perhaps
more accurately, was restored to something akin to its pre-Vietnam
status). The US Armys success in this regard may partially explain the
subsequent spread of this school to other military organizations, which
sought to emulate its success.
In the period following the Cold War, the ontology defined within
the third school was challenged both by the removal of the Soviet
military threat to the West and by the proliferation of military activities
other than conventional war. As they were called upon to undertake an
increasing variety of activities including most notably peace enforcement
missions and the provision of humanitarian assistance, English speaking
western militaries were also challenged by post-Cold War budgetary
pressures.49 Not only were the perceived role of military institutions and
their jurisdiction in relation to that of the state shifting but the military
bureaucracy was coming under increasing pressure from the state to
justify its ongoing institutional legitimacy.50 In this environment, there
was a need for the military to again expand the scope of its institutional
discourse and doctrine in the fourth school emerged to fill the void.
Viewed from the bureaucratic perspective, it can thus be determined
that each of the schools of doctrinal ontology emerged either as a
result of state expansion (the first and second) or because militaries
understood to be bureaucratic institutions of the statewere acting to
either increase or maintain their legitimacy (the third and fourth). It is
therefore unsurprising that the expansion of the modern state, of modern
military institutions, and of the scope of written doctrine, has occurred
concomitantly.

Doctrine and Ontological Realism

When examined together, the educational, scientific, and bureaucratic
perspectives reveal that the relationship between the schools of doctrinal
ontology is complicated and multifaceted. Returning to the definition of
doctrine given at the opening of this monographthat doctrine is the
most visible expression of a militarys belief systemit can now be
concluded that this belief system has been shaped by an interwoven
mixture of trends that are inherent within western society itself. It is
58

further evident that the ontology underlying written doctrine (and for
that matter whether doctrine has taken written or verbal form) is related
to the institutional evolution of modern militaries. Changes in doctrinal
taxonomies have resulted from, and have in turn influenced, concurrent
military expansion, professionalization, and bureaucratization. The
nature of these changes has been strongly influenced by emerging
technologies and by dominant scientific and sociological paradigms.
It is worth pausing at this juncture also to recall that ontology is
the examination of the nature of being and of the first principlesor
categoriesinvolved. It is concerned with the formulation of taxonomies
that enable an understanding of relationships between objects to be
reached. Analysis to this point has established the existence of four
distinct ontological schools of doctrine, has discussed the taxonomies
identified within each, and has elaborated the significance of their
evolution in relation to broader trends.
Before moving onto the next chapter, a final observation about
ontology is required. The difference between each of the four schools of
doctrinal ontology is evident most clearly in the scope of their content,
which incrementally, but also greatly, expands between the first and
fourth schools. Despite this difference, it is also noteworthy that all of
the schools have traditionally been linked by the single ontological
assumption that reality exists, regardless of how individuals may
perceive (or fail to perceive) its existence. Because of this, doctrine is
fundamentally realistan ontological perspective that emphasizes that
the world beyond human cognition is structured and tangible regardless
of whether or not humans perceive and label it. This perspective is often
contrasted with nominalism, which emphasizes that the identification
and labeling of structures is fundamentally necessary for establishing
their existence. Without labels, reality remains unstructured.51
The appeal of ontological realism to militaries is understandable.
Military practitioners are frequently required to venture into harms
way where they may be hurt or even killed regardless of whether they
understand, or have labeled, the relationships they are encountering.52
This notwithstanding, militaries are prolific labelers and the concepts
featured in doctrine can be viewed as a means of labeling objects,
structures, and the relationships between them. Given the military
tendency to ontological realism, this is done not to create reality but
in an effort to come to an understanding of how it works, the ultimate
aim being to subsequently manipulate it in order to achieve a desired
outcome (victory).
59

Notes
1. Thomas E. Sheets, Training and Educating Marine Corps Officers
for the Future, unpublished monograph: U.S. Army War College, April 1992, pp.
4-6, available from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249432.pdf, accessed
on September 30, 2012.
2. Alan Okros, Leadership in the Canadian Military Context, Canadian
Forces Leadership Institute Monograph 2010-01, Canada: Canadian Forces
Leadership Institute, November 2010.
3. In this context, Okros uses the term formation to refer to both an
individuals official education and training, and to the accompanying informal
process of socialization. Okros, p. 39.
4. Okros, Leadership in the Canadian Military Context, p. 39.
5. Okros, Leadership in the Canadian Military Context, pp. 40-1.
6. R. K. Taylor, 2020 Vision: Canadian Forces Operational-Level
Doctrine, Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, Autumn 2001, pp. 35-42.
7. John Childs, The Military Revolution I: The Transition to Modern
Warfare, in Charles Townshend, ed, The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern
War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 32-33.
8. Martin van Creveld, The Training of Officers: From Military
Professionalism to Irrelevance, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1990, pp. 1316. The early history U.S. Military Academy at West Point presents another
example of this tendency. See: Russell F. Weigley, American Strategy from
its Beginnings through the First World War, in Paret, ed., Makers of Modern
Strategy, pp. 413-8.
9. Azar Gat, A History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment
to the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, Bk II, pp. 285-6.
English speaking militaries too followed this pattern. In the United Kingdom,
the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, which delivered training for Royal
Engineers and Royal Artillery officers, was inaugurated in 1741. Yet it was not
until 1801 that the Royal Military College was opened, offering a course for
future officers of less technical trades, primarily cavalry and infantry. Similarly,
the opening of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1802 was preceded
by the establishment in 1794 of a more limited course teaching engineering
and artillery topics. Anthony Clayton, The British Officer: Leading the Army
from 1660 to the Present, Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education, 2007, pp. 5758, 72, 88; Brian McAllister Linn, The Echo of Battle: The Armys Way of War,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 11.
10. The forerunner to these military institutes of higher education was
established within Frances Ministry of War during the 1780s. The establishment
of staff colleges in other European militaries was a gradual and erratic process,
with the last major European power to open such a college being Russia in 1832.
Van Creveld, The Training of Officers, pp. 17-67.
60

11. Linn, The Echo of Battle, p. 212.

12. Antoine Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on
the Battlefields of Modernity, London: Hurst and Co., 2009, p. 3.
13. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, p. 4.
14. Deferring to Fritjof Capra, Bousquet defines a regime as a social
paradigm, which is understood to be a constellation of concepts, values,
perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which forms a particular
vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself.
Capra, quoted in Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, p. 13. Of note, this
definition is somewhat similar to Flecks concept of thought communities, as
applied by Coombs (see: Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, p. 25).
Both of these concepts are revisited in the fifth chapter.
15. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 37-43.
16. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, p. 58.
17. Linn, The Echo of Battle, pp. 200-1.
18. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 64-85.
19. U.S. Army, FM 100-5 Field Service Regulations: Operations [first
issued 1941]. Ft Leavenworth: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Press, 1992, pp. 112-6.
20. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare.
21. The conceptualization of the battlefield as linear appeared frequently in
doctrine manuals in the second school right up until the latter third of the 20th
century. On the origins of the linear conceptualization of warfare, see: Lynn,
Battle, chap. 4. Significantly, establishing that the battlefield is non-linear was
at the forefront of the first manual in the third ontological school. Headquarters,
Department of the Army, FM 100-5 Operations, Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, August 20, 1982, pp. 1.1-1.2.
22. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 93-119.
23. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, p. 126.
24. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 128-9.
25. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 100-5, 1982, pp. 7.3-7.7.
26. Linn, The Echo of Battle, p. 215.
27. Bousquet has borrowed this term from the earlier work of John Horgan.
See: Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, p. 164.
28. One of the earliest examples of the implications of this paradigm being
considered from a strategic studies perspective is: Steven R. Mann, Chaos
Theory and Strategic Thought, Parameters, Vol. XXII, No. 3, Autumn 1992,
pp. 54-68.

61

29. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 187-96. For details of
Boyds Decision Cycle, see: Frans P. B. Osinga, Science, Strategy and War:
The Strategic Theory of John Boyd, London: Routledge, 2007. Although the
conceptual development of the Decision Cycle is revisited throughout, pp. 22932 are particularly pertinent. Boyds own graphical representation of the Cycle is
reproduced on p. 231.
30. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare.
31. The idea that victory depends on getting inside the enemys OODA
loop has become commonplace in contemporary military literature, particularly
in the network-centric variety, to the extent that it has become something of an
incantation that is not always based on a consistent and faithful understanding
of Boyds ideas. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 194-5. See also:
Osinga, Science, Strategy and War, pp. 5-6, which makes a similar criticism.
32. All of these terms have been sourced from: Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication (MCDP) 1 Warfighting,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 20, 1997.
33. See discussion in: Kalevi J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts
and International Order 1648-1989, Cambridge Studies in International
Relations No. 14, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 25-42.
34. Martin Wight, Systems of States, Leicester, UK: Leicester University
Press, 1977, pp. 129-152.
35. Bruce D. Porters account presents a typical assessment: The peace of
Westphalia is often viewed as marking the birth of the modern European state
system and the formal recognition of the concept of state sovereignty but this is
far more evident in retrospect than it was at the timeThe Thirty Years War did
not render Europe modern overnight, but it accelerated the modernizing forces
already unleashed by the Military Revolution and the Reformation. Bruce
D. Porter, War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern
Politics, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1994, p. 72.
36. George M. Thomas & John W. Meyer, The Expansion of the State,
Annual Review of Sociology, No. 10, 1984, pp. 468-70, quote p. 469.
37. Thomas & Meyer, pp. 470-7.
38. Porter, War and the Rise of the State, pp. 105-21.
39. Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 107-114; Porter, War and the Rise of the State, pp.
121-37, 243-57.
40. Porter, War and the Rise of the State, pp. 149-193.
41. These different types of rights have been labeled first, second and
third generation rights. See: Anthony J. Langlois, Human Rights, in Martin

62

Griffiths, ed., Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics,

Abingdon: Routledge, 2006, pp. 385-93.
42. Thomas & Meyer, The Expansion of the State, pp. 475-7.
43. Hal Klepak, Some Reflections on Generalship Through the Ages, in
Bernd Horn & Stephen J. Harris, eds., Generalship and the Art of the Admiral:
Perspectives on Canadian Senior Military Leadership, St. Catherines, ON:
Vanwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 32-3.
44. Childs, The Military Revolution I, pp. 21-2.
45. Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and
Leadership in Wartime, New York: The Free Press, 2002, pp. 225-9.
46. Cohen, Supreme Command, pp. 225-9.
47. Conrad C. Crane, Avoiding Vietnam: The U.S. Armys Response to
Defeat in Southeast Asia, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute,
September 2002, p. 17.
48. The most fundamental of these was the institutional shift from a conscript-based to a volunteer force; however, the concurrent need to address major
morale, discipline and drug problems constituted major bureaucratic challenges
as well. Roger J. Spiller, In the Shadow of the Dragon: Doctrine and the U.S.
Army after Vietnam, in Jeffrey Grey & Peter Dennis, eds., From Past to
Future: The Australian Experience of Land/Air Operations, Canberra: Australian
Defence Force Academy, 1995, pp. 15-6.
49. John Allen Williams, The Postmodern Military Reconsidered, in
Charles C. Moskos, John Allen Williams & David R. Segal, eds., The Postmodern
Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War, New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2000, pp. 267-8.
50. Williams, pp.265-7.
51. Gibson Burrell & Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life,
Portsmouth: Heinemenn, 1979, p. 4.
52. A detailed study of the ontological perspectives and assumptions of military
practitioners is absent from the existing literature. As a consequence of this void, the
assertion made here is based on a dual assessment from an ontological perspective
of the content and application of doctrine, and of existing studies of military and
Service culture. Works addressing the latter include: Carl H. Builder The Masks
of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press, 1989; Allan D. English, Understanding Military Culture:
A Canadian Perspective, Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press, 2004.

63

Chapter 4
The Epistemology of Doctrine
Having now explored the nature of doctrinal ontology, this
monograph shifts its focus to the epistemology of doctrine. To this end,
the first section of this chapter determines that positivism, an approach
characterized by (self-proclaimed) rationality and objectivity, has
provided the epistemological foundation of doctrine for the first 400
years of its existence. As such, examples of positivist approaches abound
within doctrine and include most measurable, quantifiable, or linear
processes, such as that used to determine when a soldier has qualified on
a weapon system or even the military planning process itself.
While positivism remains dominant, since the start of the 21st century
anti-positivism, emphasizing relativity and subjectivity, has begun to
influence doctrine, signaling what is perhaps the most salient change
in the nature of written doctrine since its inception. The emergence of
this new epistemological approach is chronicled in the second section
of this chapter. The third section then discusses the situation that led
to the emergence of the most prominent manifestation of this new
epistemological approach to date the design concept featured in
several recent US Army, Marine Corps, and joint doctrine manuals.
Although anti-positivist approaches have already shaped
contemporary operational conduct, the epistemological shift to antipositivism is still in its infancy and concepts such as design have been the
subject of much recent debate. The state of the debate surrounding deign
in particular is summarized in the final section of this chapter and from
this it becomes clear that anti-positivist approaches have yet to reach
their full potential.1

Doctrines Traditional Epistemology: Military Positivism

Given the consistency with which doctrine has reflected ontological
realism, it is unsurprising that its epistemology also remained constant
from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Its epistemological approach is
positivism, the key aspects of which require explanation. The term
positivism was coined by philosopher Auguste Comte in the mid-19th
century and his work subsequently played a significant role in shaping
the emerging social sciences in the latter half of the 19th centurythe
period during which the second school of doctrinal ontology was in its
adolescence. The origins of the positivist approach, however, are in the
Enlightenment, an intellectual era that ran approximately from the late
17th century to the conclusion of the 18th century.2
65

The key intellectual facets of the Enlightenment were fourfold. First,

was the belief that the functioning of the world as a whole, including all of
its components regardless of size or consequence, was subject to a single
set of overarching laws that could be discovered and understood by man.
Second, man was capable of both individual and societal improvement.
Third, there were several compatible goals such as justice, happiness,
liberty, knowledge, and virtue, which all men sought. Finally, as human
progress was possible, these goals were obtainable. That they had not yet
been obtained was the result of ignorance of either the goals themselves
or the means of achieving them and this ignorance was a product of the
failure of man to recognize and understand the universal laws governing
the world.3
Importantly for the subsequent development of epistemological
positivism, the intellectual viewpoint of the Enlightenment established
that man was a rational actor, capable of coming to a logical reasoned
understanding of the world around him.4 In making positivism explicit,
Comtes determination that valid knowledge could be obtained through a
combination of initial observation and subsequent reasoning reveals the
link between his outlook and that of the intellectuals of the Enlightenment.5
At
risk of over-simplification, the methodology advocated by
positivism (as developed by Comte as well as numerous subsequent
scholars)6 can be summarized as one in which the subjects of study should
be observed from a neutral viewpoint with the results of observation
subsequently being assessed in a rational objective manner in order
to allow the researcher to determine the universal laws governing the
relationships between them. Advocates of positivism, including Comte
himself, have asserted that this approach should be applied not only
within the natural sciences but also within the social sciences and
humanities where the discovery of universal laws would facilitate their
subsequent application to selectively alter social conditions so as to bring
about desired changes to a society.7
The impact of positivism on doctrine development has been
described by Christopher Paparone, whose brief typology offers one of
the few available examinations of doctrinal epistemology (although he
noticeably avoids using the term epistemology itself). Asserting that
positivism served the foundation [sic] of traditional, post-WW II US
doctrine, he was quick to characterize this doctrine as focus[ing] on
reductionism, empiricism, linearity, mathematical logic, and predictable
cause-and-effect relationships.8 In light of discussion above, it can
be determined that his assessment of the temporal and geographical
66

locations of this doctrine was excessively limited pre-Second World

War doctrine also adopted positivist methodology and this methodology
was far from limited to the US military.
Basing his analysis on a two-dimensional continual construct featuring
endurance (defined as the rate of change required to maintain doctrinal
currency over time) on the horizontal axis and exclusivity (determined by
the number of concepts featured in a manual) on the vertical, Paparone
identified a key difference between what he labeled highly positivist
and moderately positivist doctrine.9 The key difference between these
was their endurancehighly positivist doctrine changed less over time.
Both types of doctrine were assessed as being highly exclusive, featuring
only a few relatively simple concepts in each manual.
Given the relevance of Paparones work to this study, cursory though
it may have been, it is worth recounting his description of each of these
types of doctrine at length. Regarding highly positivist doctrine, he
assessed that:
Doctrinal remedies (like independent variables) for a standing
list of problems (like dependent variables) can be expressed
in predetermined terms of tasks and standards. For example,
doctrine expressing how a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, or
Coast Guardsman (military practitioner) must qualify on his or
her assigned weapon can be quite effectiveEffectiveness of
[highly positivist] doctrine is assessed as much more objective
than subjective, using mathematical probabilities and measures
of effectivenessRule-based, sequential, well-oiled, machinelike command and control works well in executing this type
of doctrineA trade school (basic and advanced individual
training) approach is suitable for indoctrination of Soldiers in this
type.10
Although this description clearly applies to doctrine in the first ontological
school (Paparones affiliation of this doctrine with a trade school
teaching approach is akin to the description herein of first school doctrine
as technical manuals), Paparone also determined that some of the
doctrine assessed by this study as falling within the second school fits the
description of highly positivist. For example, a view of the 1976 edition
of Army FM 100-5 [Field Manual 100-5 Operations] (the precursor to
3.0) could be categorized as a positivist doctrine focused on simplicity,
linearity, and predictability.11
Moderately positivist doctrine is process oriented and requires
well-controlled hard-science-like research methods to generate creative
67

hypothesis, identify critical factors (variables), and courses of action as

well as plans for contingencies if things do not go as planned.12 It is
based on:
Rational decision-making processes or templated campaign
planning [that] might work well depending on factor analysis of
such things as mission, enemy, time and troops available, and
terrain and weather [Moderately positivist] doctrine prescribes
processes rather than preset solutions (found in [highly positivist
doctrine]) and requires military staff practitioners with specialized
and practiced analytical skills where hierarchical (commandercentric) decision making works well
The dominant values that drive this type of doctrine are, like with
[highly positivist doctrine], associated primarily with exclusivity;
however, practitioners are much more willing to speculate on
what can possibly happen outside the conventional organization
of troop-to-task and perhaps into the interagency realm
moderately positivist approaches call for planned activities driven
by forecasted conditions. A professional school setting (like the
traditional command and general staff college) is appropriate for
training and educating Soldiers [to apply] this type [of doctrine]. 13
This description is applicable to the vast majority of manuals found in
the second, third and fourth schools of doctrinal ontology.
That positivism can be identified in doctrine manuals that fit within
all four ontological schools, and in countless manuals produced across
the span of several centuries, are indicative of the pervasiveness of this
branch of epistemology amongst doctrine developers.14 This in turn is
representative of the institutional belief systems of the military forces
that develop such doctrine manualswarranted knowledge is that which
can be mathematically measured when a subject is assessed from a
neutral viewpoint.
The pervasiveness of doctrinal positivism is evidenced further in
the official definition of doctrine employed by many Western militaries,
including the US military and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) partners. The US definition, for example, is that doctrine
constitutes fundamental principles by which military forces or elements
thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives.15 In this case,
it is implied that there can exist a separation between an observer (military
practitioner/planner) and a subject (current or future military actions,
enemy actions, and/or the environment/situation). The term fundamental

68

principles, which is noticeably reminiscent of Enlightenment thinking,

is particularly important, as it assumes the existence of principles
themselves, which the observer (again, the military practitioner/planner)
can determine when a subject (past military activities) is assessed from a
rational perspective.16 The addendum to this definition of the caveat that
doctrine is authoritative but requires judgment in application constitutes
a nod to post-Enlightenment intellectual trends.17 However, this nod does
not alter the definitions underlying positivism, as the sound application
of judgment presumes the conduct of rational thinking as a prerequisite.
The implications of this intellectual foundation have been the subject
of much recent analysis, although this has rarely been undertaken from an
epistemological viewpoint. The timing of the growth of this analysis has
been driven by two factors. The first is the implications of the emergence
of Bousquets fourth scientific regime or more specifically the growing
application of chaos theory and complexity science within doctrine. The
second has been a response to the nature of the wars of the early 21st
century and the initial failure of doctrine to provide adequate guidance
for their prosecution. Both of these factors are explored in depth in the
next section but it is nevertheless necessary to mention them here as these
motives, particularly the second, provide an explanation as to why much
of the recent analysis of doctrinal positivism has viewed that positivism
negatively.18
For example, in one of the earliest critiques of doctrinal positivism,
the argument of which has since been echoed with increasing frequency,
Steven R. Mann asserted that:
The revolution in strategy founded on a mechanistic ordering of
reality has been frozen in place and the provocative doctrines of
the last century have become the confining dogmas of this one
Not only does classical strategic thought seek to explain conflict
in linear, sequential terms, but it compels us to reduce highly
complex situations down to a few major variables.19
This critique highlights what is perhaps the most significant reason for the
widespread adoption within doctrine of a positivist worldview. It posits
the existence of determinable cause and effect relationships, provided
the variables involved can be identified and, preferably, quantified. In
so doing, positivist methodology allows strategists and military theorists
(and for that matter doctrine writers) to stipulate formulas that, if
conceptually sound and correctly applied, should bring about military
victory. Despite the recent criticism the application of positivism within

69

military doctrine has attracted because of this very aspect of its nature, its
approach was nevertheless well suited for fighting the increasingly-large
scale and industrialized interstate wars that dominated the international
system from the time of the Peace of Westphalia until very recently.

Twenty-First Century Doctrine: An Epistemological Shift?

As observed above, the number of critiques of traditional military
doctrine (that founded in positivist epistemology) has grown in recent
years.20 Generally, these critiques are driven by one (or sometimes
both) of two motives: the growing perception of a need to apply chaos
theory and complexity science within doctrine; and the initial failure of
positivist doctrine to provide adequate guidance for the wars of the early
21st century. Of these motives, the former emerged over a decade before
the latter, with the tentative application of chaos and complexity theory
to military affairs initially occurring during the late 1980s.21
At the crux of the critiques from this perspective is the belief either
that the international system is becoming increasingly complex, as is the
nature and role of warfare within it, or that we are becoming more aware
of its complexity. These critiques emerged to coincide with the end of the
Cold War and have become increasingly popular since. Manns argument
has again become typical:
Traditionally, we see strategic thought as the interplay of a limited
number of factors, principally military, economic, and political.
More sophisticated discussions expand the set to include factors
such as the environment, technological development, and social
pressures. Yet even this list fails to convey the full complexity
of international affairsThe closer we come to an honest
appreciation of the international environment, the more we must
confess that it is nonlinear and frustratingly interactive.22
Even within the realm of warfare, as opposed to the international
system more generally, an increasing level of complexity has been
observed in recent decades. Michael Evans, for example, determined
that during the 1990s, warfare fractured into three varieties. These he
identified as modern (encompassing conventional warfare between
states), postmodern (encompassing peacekeeping and humanitarian
intervention), and pre-modern (encompassing sub-state and trans-state
warfare). While he attributed unique features to each, he also noted that
these three varieties of warfare overlap and that the boundaries between
them are easily obfuscated.23

70

In response to these observations, as early as the mid-1990s attempts

to apply chaos theory can be discerned in a limited array of doctrine
manuals, most notably that of the US Marine Corps. In announcing the
development of the new series of USMC doctrine manuals in 1996 (the
Marine Corps Doctrine Publication (MCDP) series), Lieutenant General
Paul K. Van Riper, then Commanding General of the Marine Corps
Combat Development Command, asserted that the new series will
not simply codify conventional military wisdom but will expand the
boundaries of doctrine by incorporating lessons from other disciplines
including the new sciences. Specifically, the manuals will incorporate,
as appropriate, the implications of chaos and complexity theory.24 In
particular, the manuals MCDP 1 Warfighting, MCDP 1-1 Strategy and
MCDP 6 Command and Control have been credited for incorporating
chaos theory and complexity science into USMC doctrine during the
mid-1990s.25 This incorporation was, however, subtle, an approach
to introducing new subject matter that was intended to avoid what
Christopher Bassford identified as sales resistance to the introduction
of new paradigms into doctrine.26

Counterinsurgency, Design, and Anti-Positivism

Since the onset of the major wars of the 21st century, in particular
those in Iraq and Afghanistan, the willingness of military practitioners
to accept the introduction of new paradigms into doctrine has markedly
increased. This is due mostly to the initial failure of positivist doctrine to
provide adequate guidance for the conduct of these wars, an occurrence
that brought criticism of earlier modes of doctrinal thinking into the
mainstream and which triggered doctrine writers to look for new solutions
to military problems.
The story of the emergence and evolution of this criticism has been
widely told. Notably, its scale and pervasiveness has been compared to
the doctrinal renaissance of the early 1980s, which itself had brought
about the emergence of the third school of doctrinal ontology. Just as this
renaissance was the result of the US military experience in Vietnam,
the initial criticism of doctrine as ill-suited to the wars of the 21st century
grew out of the experience of the early years of the War in Iraq.
As far as most of the popular literature is concerned, the most significant
manifestation of this criticism was the development and publication of
the 2006 edition of the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency
doctrine manual.27 Although its Army and Marine Corps manual numbers,
FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-33.5

71

respectively, indicate that this manual occupies a spot in the doctrine

hierarchy commensurate with manuals in the second ontological school,
the 2006 edition of Counterinsurgency incorporates elements of the
second, third, and fourth schools and therefore does not sit easily within
the extant ontological construct.28 Why this is the case warrants further
attention.
The situation leading to the development of this manual is now
a familiar tale. In very brief summary, it begins sometime after the
invasion and occupation of Iraq when a small but growing cadre of junior
and mid-ranking US Army officers began to publically criticize the US
military strategy being used there.29 At times, this criticism became
outright dissent.30 Soon, this cadre was accompanied by a prominent
group of retired general officers who also spoke publically against the
US war strategy (this was later dubbed the revolt of the generals).31
The core criticism leveled by both of these groups was that the Army
was losing the war in Iraq because of its failure to adopt an appropriate
counterinsurgency strategy.32
A period of further debate as to what might constitute the right
strategy followed. As the debate widened, an eclectic mix of civilians rose
to prominence alongside their military counterparts.33 By 2006, (then)
Lieutenant General David Petraeus, whose tour of duty as Commander
of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul in 2003 has been widely credited
as an early example of effective senior command in Iraq, became a key
personality within this group.34 His posting in 2006 as Commander US
Army Combined Arms Center gave him an opportunity to put forward an
alternative military strategy for waging the war in Iraq.
This strategy was developed in close consultation with several of
the officers and civilians who had previously expressed dissenting views
about the prosecution of the Iraq war. It also involved an unprecedented
level of collaboration between Petraeus and his USMC counterpart,
Lieutenant General James Mattis, a cooperation that resulted in the
manual being given positions in both the Army and USMC doctrine
hierarchies. Updating the Counterinsurgency doctrine manual was the
primary mechanism used to put forward the strategy with the writing
team headed by a retired Army officer-turned-academic, Dr Conrad
Crane.35
Published in December 2006, the immediate impact of the manual
was unprecedented in scale. It was downloaded 1.5 million times in
the month after it was posted on the internet by the Army and Marine
Corps. It was reviewed in numerous forums that ranged from widely72

circulated periodicals such as the New York Times to the websites of

Jihadist groups.36 Overall, it may possibly be the best known and widest
circulated military doctrine manual ever published.
For the purposes of discussion herein, two components of its content
are especially important. The first was a discussion of social network
analysis. Although included in an annex, this discussion was closely
linked to the third chapter which addressed the role of intelligence in
counterinsurgency operations, stressing the importance of building an
understanding the social, economic, cultural, religious, political, ethnic
and linguistic aspects of the operating environment as well as conducting
more traditional analyses of enemy forces.37 The annex discussing
social network analysis drew heavily on complexity sciences and chaos
theory directly engaging with the concept of the network that Bousquet
had identified as paradigmatic of the fourth regime (chaoplexity) of the
scientific way of warfare.38 The Counterinsurgency manual translated
this abstract concept into something more tangible that could be applied
by military staffs to help them develop an understanding of societies,
cultures, and insurgent groups operating within (and between) them.
Second, the Counterinsurgency manual discussed designing
counterinsurgency campaigns and operations in its fourth chapter. The
significance of this is the incorporation of design thinking into doctrine.
The chapter defined design by contrasting it to traditional military
planning:
Design and planning are qualitatively different yet interrelated
activities essential for solving complex problems Presented a
problem, staffs often rush directly into planning without clearly
understanding the complex environment of the situation, purpose
of military involvement, and approach required to address the
core issues Planning applies established procedures to solve a
largely understood problem within an accepted framework. Design
inquires into the nature of a problem to conceive a framework
for solving that problem. In general, planning is problem solving,
while design is problem setting. Where planning focuses on
generating a plan, a series of executable actions, design focuses
on learning about the nature of an unfamiliar problem.39
As Nagl noted in the introduction to the Chicago University Press edition,
design was a gift from the Marine Corps members of the writing team.40
Although this may have been the case regarding the development of the
Counterinsurgency manual itself, in fact the terms origin in the military

73

vernacular lies with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), which developed
a Systemic Operational Design (SOD) concept during the 1990s. This
concept in turn drew heavily on design thinking and systems theory that
had been developed within the social sciences and humanities as far back
as the 1940s.41
Although the content of the 2006 Counterinsurgency manual
influenced several aspects of the 2008 edition of FM 3-0 Operations,42
the extent of the spread of design thinking is perhaps more indicative
of the Counterinsurgency manuals general acceptance within the US
military. In addition to discussing design in the 2008 edition of FM
3-0, the Army has included it in the 2008 manual FM 3-07 Stability
Operations and in the 2010 edition of FM 5-0 The Operations Process.43
Outside of the Army, design has been elaborated in the 2010 edition of
MCWP 5-1 Marine Corps Planning Process44 and in the 2011 edition of
the joint manual Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 Joint Operation Planning.45
The inclusion of discussions about design thinking in this variety of
publications, especially JP 5-0, indicates the concepts institutional
acceptance by the US military.
From an epistemological perspective, the inclusion of social network
analysis and design thinking within doctrine (as well as the USMCs
earlier discussion of chaos theory within certain manuals in the MCDP
series) signal a move away from doctrines traditional positivism and
towards an approach more akin to anti-positivism. Refuting the core
methodology underlying positivismi.e. objective assessment of the
subject of study based on observation from a neural perspectiveantipositivism instead determines that there can be no such thing as an
observer when studying social phenomena (which include warfare,
strategy, and most other areas of military endeavor such as the conduct
of humanitarian operations as an example). Instead, the social world is
essentially relativistic and can only be understood from the point of view
of the individuals who are directly involved in the activities which are to
be studied. Hence, one can only understand by occupying the frame
of reference of the participant in the action.46 To anti-positivists, there
can be no such thing as an objective understanding of a subject of study.
Understanding is instead inherently subjective.
Anti-positivism has an intellectual lineage dating to late 19th century
thinkers including Max Weber and Wilhelm Dilthey. Unlike positivists,
who assert that the same methodology can be applied in the natural and
the social sciences, Weber, Dilthey, and subsequent anti-positivists have
argued that the social sciences and humanities differ from the natural
74

sciences and therefore require a different methodology. The key reason

for this difference is that, contrary to the behavior of objects in nature,
human interaction is subject to subjective influences such as human will,
thought, and emotion. These influences cannot by their nature be observed
objectively and for that matter cannot be accurately quantified.47
Paparones typology is worth revisiting at this juncture as it is once
again one of the few available sources that explicitly addresses this
epistemological approach as it has been applied within doctrine. A word
of caution is first necessary, however, since Paparone used the term
post-positivism, which in the case of his discussion may actually be
a misnomer. Positivism, anti-positivism, and post-positivism are three
different branches of epistemology altogether. Founded in the writings
of Karl Popper, post-positivism differs from positivism as it rejects the
existence of truth. It does not, however, dispute either the existence of
objective judgment or the existence of a neural perspective in relation
to subject matter under assessment, which is where anti-positivisms
key dispute with positivism lies.48 The definition of post-positivism that
Paparone gave in his typology seems to incorporate some aspects of both
post-and anti-positivism, and attempts to un-muddle this are hampered by
a lack of references to his source material.49 Discussion below therefore
proceeds cautiously but nevertheless uses Paparones own terminology.
Paparone offered a brief analysis of the 2008 edition of FM 3-0 and of
a Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) paper discussing design
thinking that was published in the same year. The issue with nomenclature
notwithstanding, he concluded that aspects of the 2008 edition of FM 3-0
are moderately postpositivist, a newly-emergent doctrinal category.
Rather than describing its subject matter categorically, as Paparone
observed of positivist doctrine, moderately post-positivist doctrine
would call for viewing the world through overlapping continua
this type of doctrine requires improvisation, mentally agility [sic], and
collaborative military practitioners.50 As an example of an overlapping
continua, he cited the spectrum of conflict concept contained within
FM 3-0.51
In his analysis of the TRADOC paper, which was not a doctrine
manual but which would go on to influence doctrine, Paparone concluded
that it is highly postpositivist:
Meaning in this doctrine type (perhaps this should be better named
the anti-doctrine) is more contextual and fleeting because high
complexity prohibits the ability to even imagine what is happening

75

or what will happen next. In this type, how we make sense is

paradoxically non-routine where learning [is] ephemeral in a
real-time dynamic.52
In other words, this type of doctrine acknowledges that ideas that may
work right now are unlikely to work even a short time into the future
and that no amount of planning will ever be able to accurately predict
all possible consequences of any action taken. This type of doctrine is
also difficult to apply due to a large number of interactive variables that
must be taken into account and the prospects of military success are
acknowledged as more open to the influence of chance, perception, and
other subjective factors than they are in positivist doctrine. In essence,
the advantage of this doctrine is that it allows those inside a situation
to develop a greater understanding of the situation itself and of a greater
proportion of the possible impacts of their actions.53 Although not directly
mentioned by Paparone, doctrinal discussions of design fit into this
doctrinal category, which (as elaborated above) is arguably more antithan post-positivist owing to its inherent subjectivity.

Debating Design: What the Proponents and Detractors Think

Unsurprisingly in a large organization such as the military, the
introduction of anti-positivist approaches into doctrine has not been
without debate. Proponents of design and other concepts applying
anti-positivist approaches have lauded their employment of non-linear
thinking, problem framing and emphasis on the role of subjective factors
such as culture, environment, interconnectedness, and adaptation.54
Several papers by US military practitioners (particularly Army officers)
have analyzed these concepts and offered interpretations, supporting
concepts or guidance to assist with their application.55 Paparone (in
addition to the typology discussed above) wrote a seven-part series of
articles for Small Wars Journal which analyzed the applicability of design
thinking to various areas of military endeavor including leadership,
ethics, and planning.56
Those who detract from these approaches fall into one of two camps,
with those in the first camp being opposed to the concepts themselves.
William F. Owen, for example, dismisses many of the terms used in
systems thinking as good old wine in shabby new bottles, arguing that
the new concepts (and their terminology in particular) confuses what was
previously well understood anyway without adding any value to military
operations.57 Offering a more refined analysis of the theoretical framework
underlying systems theory, Milan Vego warns that its application by the

76

military is doomed to failure. In addition to critiquing the concept itself,

he offers in support of his case an analysis of the IDFs problematic
application of SOD during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon.58
In the second camp are those who feel that anti-positivist concepts
are valid but that their application has gone, or perhaps inevitably
will go, astray. The reasons underlying their concerns vary. Adam
Elkus and Crispin Burke warn that although design is highly useful
in framing operational and strategic problems, at the tactical level its
vague language and acceptance of uncertainty may actually be counterproductive.59 In a similar vein, Alex Vohr observes that design is
geared towards counterinsurgency operations, where time allows for a
detailed understanding of a situation to be developed. He questions its
appropriateness to conventional operations concluding that in this type of
warfare, problem framing runs the risk of paralysis through analysis.60
Greenwood and Hammes offer 10 criticisms of design thinking as applied
by the US Army. Key amongst these is their assertion that design includes
some of the key aspects of problem framing but either omits, oversimplifies, or misinterprets several others, hence severely constraining
its potential to be effectively applied. Furthermore, they express concern
that military culture may ultimately result in design thinking being boiled
down to just another checklist, which would encourage the exact opposite
of what design thinking sets out to achieve.61
Between the US and other English speaking western militaries,
Flecks thought collectives (as identified by Coombs) appear to be
functioning in the same manner as they have previously.62 In Australia
and Canada, ideas shaped by chaos theory and complexity science have
been featured in both doctrine and concept papers.63 Most recently,
US design doctrine has been evaluated in military journals published
in both countries leading one to hypothesize that it is only a matter of
time before the concept appears in their doctrine manuals.64 Although
the British Armed Forces do not yet seem to have debated design, they
have nevertheless incorporated other anti-positivist ideas into their own
counterinsurgency doctrine.65 They have also released a joint doctrine
manual entitled Understanding, which they define as the ability to
place knowledge in its wider context to provide us with options for
decision making.66 The thought and analysis processes advanced by this
manual are noteworthy because they occupy a similar position to design
in relation to the military planning process. The manual also addresses
an array of similar anti-positivist ideas including the impact of culture,
judgment, and human nature on decision making.67

77

Despite this debate having served to highlight several areas where

improvement is warranted, it can be concluded that a doctrinal experiment
with anti-positivism has well and truly commenced. This indicates
that the military belief system itself may be shifting substantially as
a result of recent conflicts, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if this is not the case, at the very least the belief system is going
through a period of openness to new ideas. The significance and
implications of this possibility are addressed in the next chapter.

78

Notes
1. These manuals include: Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM
5-0 The Operations Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, March 2010; Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, MCWP 5-1 Marine
Corps Planning Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
24 August 2010; Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 5-0 Joint
Operation Planning, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August
11, 2011.
2. Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley, Understanding Management
Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London: Sage Publications,
2000, pp. 12-19, quote p. 19. The exact dates of the start and finish of the
Enlightenment is the subject of ongoing debate. The earliest point at which the
Enlightenment is identified as commencing is the publication of Isaac Newtons
Principia Mathematica in 1687, and the latest point at which it is identified
as a dominant intellectual paradigm is shortly after the onset of the French
Revolutionary Wars. Margaret C. Jacob, The Enlightenment: A Brief History
with Documents, Boston: Bedford/St Martins, 2001, pp. 1-72.
3. This summary has been derived from the insight offered by Isaiah
Berlin, as quoted in: Johnson & Duberley, Understanding Management
Research, p. 13. Gendered language has been intentionally employed in this
description as it reflects the highly-gendered nature of the intellectual discourse
of the Enlightenment. It should also be observed that the intellectual discourse
of the Enlightenment was shaped by discoveries in the mechanistic scientific
regime identified by Bousquet. Indeed, the perception of the world as several
component parts subject to a single set of overarching laws is metaphorically
similar to the functioning of a clockwork mechanism. See: Antoine Bousquet,
The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of
Modernity, London: Hurst & Co., 2009, pp. 38-50.
4. Johnson & Duberley, Understanding Management Research, pp. 13-14.
5. For a discussion of the influences on Comtes own intellectual development, as well as an overview of the impact of his writings, see: Gertrud
Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, New York,
NY: Harper & Row, 1975, pp. xvii-lxviii.
6. For a discussion of these writers, see: Johnson & Duberley,
Understanding Management Research, pp. 21-27.
7. Auguste Comte, Plan of the Scientific Operations Necessary for
Reorganizing Society [1822]. Reproduced in: Lenzer, ed., Auguste Comte and
Positivism, pp. 57-61.
8. Christopher R. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Postpositivism, Small Wars Journal, May 2008, available from http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/65-paparone.pdf, accessed on February 17,
2011.

79

9. Additional results of Paparones analysis are discussed in the next

section of this chapter.
10. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
11. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
12. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
13. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
14. This assertion is based on the authors observations of themes present
across scores of doctrine manuals produced by a half dozen or so Englishspeaking militaries, as well as translations of a few significant manuals produced
by European militaries and many secondary source analyses of even more.
Listing all of these doctrine manuals and related sources here would result in
an unmanageably long endnote, so no attempt will be made to do so. Readers
interested in more information about which manuals were consulted in making
this assessment should note that all of the doctrine manuals referred to in the
second and third chapters contain examples of positivist approaches to their
subject matter. Furthermore, manuals in the second and third schools are more
strongly and uniformly positivist than those in the fourth. Readers interested in
further information about how they can access doctrine manuals are encouraged
to consult: Bert Chapman, Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook, Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International, 2009.
14. There is a slight discrepancy in the wording of the U.S. and NATO
definitions, but this is not substantial enough to impact on the underlying
meaning, which is the same in both cases. Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department
of Defense, JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, as amended through August 2009, p. 171; NATO, NATORussia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms, Brussels:
NATO-Russia Joint Editorial Working Group, undated by promulgated online on
June 8, 2001, p. 77, available from www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/index.htm,
accessed on December 20, 2008.
16. The temporal relationship between the observer and subject is also
observed by Paparone, who determines that highly-positivist doctrine is
present-to-past oriented, while moderately positivist doctrine is present-tofuture oriented. Unfortunately, he does not provide a great deal of detail about
his reasoning in reaching this conclusion. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the
Cusp of Postpositivism.
17. For an overview of these trends, see: Azar Gat, A History of Military
Thought: From the Enlightenment to the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001, Bk I, Pt 2, Bk II & Bk III. A more cynical observer might be
forgiven for thinking that the caveat has been included as a disclaimer, in case
the application of doctrine goes awry.
18. This criticism emerged within military circles about forty years after
critiques of positivism had become widespread within the academic community
80

during the 1960s. Johnson & Duberley, Understanding Management Research,

pp. 27-36.
19. Stephen R. Mann, Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought, Parameters,
Vol. XXII, Autumn 1992, pp. 56-57.
20. These critiques include: Mann, Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought,
pp. 54-68; Gary R. Schamburg, Cloud Patterns: An Operational Hierarchy?
Unpublished monograph, Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military
Studies, Academic Year 1994-5; H. R. McMaster, On War: Lessons to be
Learned, Survival, Vol. 50, No. 1, February-March 2008, pp. 19-30; Matthew
Lauder, Systemic Operational Design: Freeing Operational Planning from the
Shackles of Linearity, Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2009, pp. 4149; Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Postpositivism; Christopher
R. Paparone, Design and the Prospects for Decision, Small Wars Journal,
November 2010, available online from http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/
journal/docs-temp/598-paparone.pdf, accessed October 2, 2012.
21. Some of John Boyds theories provide an early example of the
application of chaos and complexity theory to military thinking; Manns Chaos
Theory and Strategic Thought provides an early example of the application
of chaos theory. For an early example of a book-length treatment of chaos
theory, written during the mid-1990s and intended as an introductory guide for
an audience of military practitioners, see: Glenn E. James, Chaos Theory: The
Essentials for Military Applications, Newport Paper No. 10, Newport, RI: Naval
War College, 1996. On the relationship between Boyd and chaos and complexity
theory, see: Frans P. B. Osinga, Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory
of John Boyd, London: Rutledge, 2007, pp. 52-127. Mann, Chaos Theory and
Strategic Thought, p. 57.
22. Michael Evans, From Kadesh to Kandahar: Military Theory and the
Future of War, Naval War College Review, Vol. LVI, No. 3, Summer 2003, p.
135.
23. Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, quoted in Christopher Bassford,
Doctrinal Complexity: Nonlinearity in Marine Corps Doctrine, in F. G.
Hoffman & Gary Horne, eds., Maneuver Warfare Science 1998, Washington
DC: Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, 1998, p. 9.
24. Bassford, Doctrinal Complexity, pp. 10-11; Adam Elkus,
Complexity, Design, and Modern Operational Art: U.S. Evolution or False
Start? Canadian Army Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, Autumn 2010, pp. 57-58.
26. Bassford, Doctrinal Complexity, p. 11.
27. See for example: Thomas E. Ricks, The Gamble: General Petraeus and
the Untold Story of the American Surge in Iraq, 2006-2008, New York: Allen
Lane, 2009, esp. pp. 24-31.
28. The process of its development, although touted by some as unique
due to the scope of its consultation both inside and outside of the military, was
81

actually akin to the a mixture of the development process for third and fourth
school doctrine manuals. The scale of the consultation was similar to that which
occurred during the development of the 1982 edition of FM 100-5. On the
development of FM 3-24, see: See: Ricks, The Gamble, pp. 24-31; John Nagl,
The Evolution and Importance of Army/Marine Corps Field Manual 3-24,
Counterinsurgency, Small Wars Journal Blog Post, June 27, 2007, available
from http:// smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-evolution-and-importance-ofarmymarine-corps-field-manual-3-24-counterinsurgency, accessed on April 5,
2012.
29. Philipp Rotmann, David Tohn & Jaron Wharton, Learning Under Fire:
Progress and Dissent in the U.S. Military, Survival, Vol. 54, No. 1, AugustSeptember 2009, pp. 38-41.
30. The most prominent example is a 2007 article by Lieutenant Colonel
Paul Yingling, which asserted that Americas generals have failed to prepare
our armed forces for war in Iraq. In making his case, he argued that U.S. Army
generals miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq,
that they failed to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency and that while
the physical courage of Americas generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty
regarding their moral courage. Perhaps most famously, he stated that a private
who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a
war. Paul Yingling, A Failure in Generalship, Armed Forces Journal, May
2007, available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198, accessed
on October 28, 2009.
31. Rotmann, Tohn & Wharton, Learning Under Fire, p. 41; Martin L.
Cook, Revolt of the Generals: A Case Study in Professional Ethics, Parameters,
Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1, pp. 4-15.
32. Rotmann, Tohn & Wharton, Learning Under Fire, pp. 31-48.
33. Most notably these civilians included David Kilcullen, Conrad Crane
and Emma Sky, amongst many others.
34. Ricks, The Gamble, pp. 20-21.
35. Walter E. Kretchik, U.S. Army Doctrine: From the American
Revolution to the War on Terror, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas,
2011, pp. 260-264.
36. Nagl, The Evolution and Importance of Army/Marine Corps Field
Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency.
37. Headquarters, Department of the Army & Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 Counterinsurgency, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, December 15, 2006, chap. 3. This reference (along
with all subsequent references made herein) is to the content of the U.S. Army/
USMC edition of the manual, not to the subsequent Chicago University Press
edition.

82

38. Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 163-184.

39. Headquarters, Department of the Army & Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5, paras. 4.2-4.3.
40. Nagl, The Evolution and Importance of Army/Marine Corps Field
Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency.
41. William T. Sorrels, Glen R. Downing, Paul J. Blakesley, David W.
Pendall, Jason K. Walk & Richard D. Wallwork, Systemic Operational Design:
An Introduction, unpublished monograph: School of Advanced Military Studies,
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, academic year 2004-5,
pp. 7-13, available from www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479311,
accessed on April 11, 2012.
42. Kretchik, U.S. Army Doctrine, pp. 269-77.
43. Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 5-0 The Operations
Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 2010, chap.
3.
44. Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, MCWP 5-1 Marine Corps Planning
Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 24 August 2010,
chap. 2. A draft version of this new manual was released in August 2009. For
a critique of the draft manual, see: Jonathan M. Stofka, Designing the Desired
State: A Process and Model for Operational Design, unpublished Masters thesis:
Marine Corps University Command and Staff College, academic year 2009-10,
available from www.mcu.usmc.mil/Student%20Research/STOFKA%20-%20
MMS%20Paper%20AY%202010.pdf, accessed on April 10, 2012.
45. Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, JP 5-0 Joint
Operation Planning, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August
11, 2011, chap. 3.
46. Gibson Burrell & Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life,
Portsmouth: Heinemenn, 1979, p. 5.
47. David Goddard, Max Weber and the Objectivity of Social Science,
History and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1-22; Rudolf Makkreel, Wilhelm
Dilthey, in Edward N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Summer 2012 edition, forthcoming. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2012/entries/dilthey/, accessed on April 13, 2012.
48. For post-positivism, there is no such thing as truth because nothing
can ever be proven true beyond any doubt, no matter how small this doubt
may be. Even in instances where there is absolutely no doubt now, it cannot
ever be guaranteed that doubt will not appear sometime in the future. There
is, however, such a thing as false, and valid knowledge is derived by the
rejection of things that can be proven false and the retention of things that have

83

not yet been (or cannot yet be) proven false. The means of determining that
something is false can, however, be objective in nature. Johnson & Duberley,
Understanding Management Research, pp. 27-33.
49. Paparones definition of post-positivism, given here verbatim, is:
Postpositivism is nested in the worldview that humans always are biased in
their objective perceptions of reality; hence, this orientation permits going
beyond an empirical sense of reality (i.e. we can never be positive about the
way the world of military operations works). Postpositivism suggest that we can
only approach the truth of reality, but can never really explain it fully; hence,
to appreciate the complexity of life we humans must learn to value multiple
perspectives. There can be no one best way of examining the complicated truth;
hence, interdisciplinary interpretations are necessary to study reality. Rather
than pursuing a quest for an objective, physical sense of reality, postpositivism
demands we have to make sense of it all (and accept that this sensemaking
is subject to change). Postpositivism does not reject positivism outright, but
subordinates the view [original emphasis]. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on
the Cusp of Postpositivism.
50. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
51. This concept is located at: Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM
3-0 Operations, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 22,
2008, chap. 2.
52. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
53. 53. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of Post-positivism.
54. For example, see: Edward C. Cardon & Steve Leonard, Unleashing
Design: Planning and the Art of Battle Command, Military Review, Vol. 90,
No. 2, March/April 2010, pp. 2-12; Huba Wass de Czege, Systemic Operational
Design: Learning and Adapting in Complex Missions, Military Review, Vol.
89, No. 1, January/February 2009, pp. 2-12; Ketti Davidson, From Tactical
Planning to Operational Design, Military Review, Vol. 88, No. 5, September/
October 2008, pp. 33-39.
55. For example, see: Celestino Perez Jr., A Practical Guide to Design: A
Way to Think About It, and A Way to Do It, Military Review, Vol. 91, No. 2,
March/April 2011, pp. 41-51; Xander Bullock & Bruce Vitor, Design: How,
Not Why, Military Review, Vol. 90. No. 2, March/April 2010, pp. 102-108;
Stefan J. Banach & Alex Ryan, The Art of Design: A Design Methodology,
Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 2, March/April 2009, pp. 105-115.
56. For a list of articles in Small Wars Journal that have been authored or coauthored by Paparone, see: http://smallwarsjournal.com/author/chris-paparone,
accessed on October 25, 2012.
57. William F. Owen, Essay: The War of New Words: Why Military
History Trumps Buzzwords, Armed Forces Journal, November 2009, available

84

from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/11/4114043, accessed on April 17,

2012.
58. Milan N. Vego, A Case Against Systemic Operational Design, Joint
Force Quarterly, No. 53, 2nd Quarter 2009, pp. 69-75.
59. Adam Elkus, & Crispin Burke, Operational Design: Promise and
Problems, Small Wars Journal, February 2010, pp. 16-17. Available from
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/362-elkus.pdf, accessed on
April 16, 2012.
60. J. Alex Vohr, Design in the Context of Operational Art, Marine Corps
Gazette, Vol. 94, No. 1, January 2010, pp. 39-42.
61. T. C. Greenwood & T. X. Hammes, War Planning for Wicked
Problems: Where Joint Doctrine Fails, Armed Forces Journal, December 2009,
available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/12/4252237, accessed on
April 16, 2012.
62. Howard G. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift: The Canadian
Forces College and the Operational Level of War (1987-1995), Canadian
Military Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2010, pp. 19-27. For a critique of design
doctrine from a German perspective (published in English), which implicitly
suggests that a military thought collective exists between the U.S. and each of its
NATO allies, see: Christof Schaefer, Design: Extending Military Relevance,
Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 5, September/October 2009, pp. 29-39.
63. For a summary of these developments, including an account of an
anomalous if temporary situation in which the Canadian and Australian armies
embraced the idea of operational complexity without the usual reference to
their larger allies, see: Aaron P. Jackson, Moving Beyond Manoeuvre: A
Conceptual Coming-of-age for the Australian and Canadian Armies, Australian
Defence Force Journal, No. 177, November/December 2008, pp. 85-100. See
also: Australian Army, Adaptive Campaigning: The Land Force Response to
Complex Warfighting, Version 4.18, reproduced as Appendix 2 to Scott Hopkins,
ed., Chief of Armys Exercise Proceedings 2006, Duntroon: Australian Army
Land Warfare Studies Centre, 2006, pp. 143171; Andrew B. Godefroy, ed.,
Land Operations 2021: Adaptive Dispersed OperationsA Force Employment
Concept for Canadas Army of Tomorrow, Kingston, ON: Directorate of Land
Concepts and Doctrine, 2007.
64. For example, see: Lauder, Systemic Operational Design, pp. 4149; David L. Walker, Refining the Military Appreciation Process for Adaptive
Campaigning, Australian Army Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2011, pp. 85-100.
65. These included reprinting the paradoxes of counterinsurgency section
of the U.S. Armys FM 3-24; instructions on developing a narrative; and a
discussion of the role of conundrum. British Army, Field Manual Volume 1
Part 10, Countering Insurgency, Army Code 71876, Warminster: Land Warfare
Centre, October 2009.

85

66. UK Ministry of Defence, Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 04

Understanding, Shrivenham, UK: Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre,
December 2010, p. iii.
67. UK Ministry of Defence, JDP 04 Understanding, esp. chaps. 3-4.

86

Chapter 5
Significance and Implications
The nature, scope, and content of doctrine can only be fully
understood in light of the intellectual context in which it is written.
In addition to well-known influences such as military operations and
national strategies, other lesser realized influences that shape this
intellectual context include culture, both national and service; intellectual
trends in the natural and social sciences, and in the humanities; the
relationships between military institutions, states and societies; and a
host of other factors.
Previous chapters have shed light on these influences through an
analysis of the ontology and epistemology of military doctrine. This
chapter builds on this analysis to address the significance and implications
for contemporary military doctrine, strategy, and operations. Discussion
proceeds in four sections, with the first asserting that a significant
paradigm shift is currently underway regarding what constitutes an
acceptable military belief system. The second section discusses possible
directions in which military strategic and conceptual thinking may
evolve in the near future. The third section discusses implications for
the relationships between militaries and other agencies. In the fourth
section, discussion turns to the benefits ontology and epistemology
potentially yield for conceptual and terminological clarity.

Paradigm Shifts
As defined herein, doctrine is the most visible representation
of a militarys institutional belief system. This belief system regards the
accepted paradigms by which a military understands, prepares for and
(at least in theory) conducts warfare. These paradigms are themselves
corollaries of the perceptions a military has of its institutional role and
legitimacy within broader society, hence these aspects of a militarys
belief system are also discernible through its doctrine, albeit at a greater
level of abstraction. For this reason, doctrine constitutes an institutional
discourse which is reflective of the dominant modes of military thinking
during various epochs. Historical analysis, such as that conducted in
previous chapters, offers insights into to how this belief system has
changed over time.
From the analysis above, it can be seen that the nature of this
discourse has undergone several of what Thomas Kuhn identified as

87

paradigm shifts. A paradigm, as defined by Kuhn, exists amongst

a community of scientific practitioners who base their research upon a
coherent tradition, which encompasses law, theory, application and
instrumentation together1what might otherwise be understood as a
shared belief system.2 This coherent tradition provides a common set of
rules and establishes accepted standards that form the basis for further
research within the paradigm. From time-to-time, the coherent tradition
is challenged, causing a paradigm in crisis followed eventually by a
revolution that introduces a new paradigm and therefore establishes
a new tradition.3
For doctrine, each of the four schools of doctrinal ontology
identified above constitutes one such paradigm. The concepts and
theories developed within the doctrine manuals constituting each
school are analogous to the research undertaken within each of Kuhns
communities of scientific practitioners with the different scope of each
school representing the coherent tradition underlying this research. In
line with Kuhns hypothesis, these traditions have undergone periods of
crisis, leading to the emergence of a new school of doctrinal ontology
and therefore establishing a new tradition.
There is, however, one important departure from Kuhns thesis.
Kuhn determines that the emergence of a new paradigm will lead to
the previous paradigm gradually disappearing. While this is true of
certain concepts and theories that have appeared in doctrine, risen in
favor to a pinnacle and then fallen out of favor and disappeared, it is
not true of the schools themselves. Rather, each of the different schools
of doctrinal ontology have continued to exist alongside one another,
in this respect being more akin to the scientific regimes identified
by Bousquet.4 Equating a regime to a social paradigm, Bousquet
defers to Fritjof Capra, who defines it as a constellation of concepts,
values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community which forms
a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community
organizes itself.5 For Bousquet, the appearance and rise to dominance
of one regime does not eliminate another but rather the two regimes
come to exist alongside each other and may even be complimentary.
This has certainly been the case with doctrine where paradigm shifts
have exposed the limits of previous paradigms but have not rendered
them either useless or antiquated.
Significantly, a paradigm shift appears currently to be underway.
Furthermore, this shift is arguably the most pervasive to have occurred
in 400 years of doctrinal history. The reason for this is that it is an
88

epistemological rather than an ontological shift. The emergence in

recent years of concepts grounded in anti-positivism, in particular those
related to chaos theory and the complexity sciences, are challenging
existing doctrinal paradigms at a more fundamental level. These new
concepts question longstanding assumptions made within all four
schools of doctrinal ontology, for example by proposing that knowledge
acquisition is subjective rather than objective, and by readily accepting
and working within, rather than attempting to regulate around, remove,
or simply ignore, the existence of metaphysical factors such as culture,
chance, and human will.
This paradigm shift is far from complete, however. According
to Kuhn, during the transition period there will be a large but never
complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old
and new paradigm but there will also be a decisive difference in the
modes of solution.6 The existence at present of such a state of affairs is
clear from the nature of doctrine manuals that incorporate anti-positivist
approaches. As Elkus observed, these concepts are still the doctrinal
equivalent of a first draft and numerous criticisms such as those
summarized in chapter 4 will need to be addressed before the paradigm
shift can be declared complete.7
There is also the possibility that the incorporation of anti-positivist
approaches into doctrine may turn out to be a flirtation rather than an
actual paradigm shift. This possibility may come to fruition for any
number of reasons. Perhaps, as Greenwood and Hammes observe, it may
simply be beyond the institutional capacity of military organizations to
accept such a fundamental variation to their world view.8 Alternatively,
hitherto low-key critiques of Israels performance during the 2006 war
in Lebanon may be yet to have their full impact on the US discourse and
may ultimately serve to undermine the approach itself.9 In the US case,
most anti-positivist doctrine came about as a result of its own wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. As these wars come to an end, another possibility
is that doctrine writers may move away from them in favor of a return
to more traditional approaches.10
A fourth potential reason is the changing nature of strategic challenges.
As Elkus and Bourke contend:
the complexity experienced in the context of new wars is
mostly complexity generated by specifically American factors
grand strategic uncertainty, the growing doctrinal problem of
compression and its relationship to a dysfunctional whole
of government approach and geopolitical shifts in American
strategic primacy.11
89

The implication of this contention is that should American grand strategy

enter a period of renewed certainty, anti-positivism may well disappear
from doctrine. The incorporation of design thinking into the 2011 edition
of Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 Joint Operation Planning notwithstanding,
anti-positivist doctrine in the US military has thus far been limited to
the Army and Marine Corps. As the US strategic focus shifts towards
12
the Asia-Pacific, the Navy and Air Force have recently developed an
AirSea Battle concept for use in this theatre. This concept sits very
comfortably within the third school of doctrinal ontology (even its name
is immediately reminiscent of the main operating concept contained
in the 1982 edition of Field Manual (FM) 100-5 Operations) and its
13
underlying epistemology is unquestionably positivist.
Despite this array of possibilities, historical precedence suggests that
the new doctrinal paradigm will most likely solidify and eventually take
its place alongside previous paradigms. Already the debate summarized
in the previous chapter indicates that several of the issues yet to be
resolved are under discussion in scholarly and military forums. Again
historical precedence indicates that the result of these debates is likely
to shape doctrine over the coming years and indeed, the state of the
non-doctrinal debate is already yielding clues as to how anti-positivist
doctrine may evolve in the next few years.

Possible Avenues for Doctrinal Evolution

By evaluating both the state of the debate about anti-positivist
concepts and the evolution anti-positivism within existing doctrine, one
can deduce several issues that still need to be addressed. Despite the
difficulties that satisfactorily resolving these issues pose, addressing
them will nevertheless be necessary before a paradigm shift can be said
to have completely occurred.
One of the issues that will need to be addressed concerns the
appropriateness of the extent of anti-positivist doctrine. It has already
been acknowledged that anti-positivist approaches are more applicable
at the strategic and operational levels than at the tactical,14 however this
debate may yet go a step further. In an influential monograph, Justin
Kelly and Mike Brennan recently posited that operational art has now
expanded to the extent that it has devoured several aspects of strategy.
They call for operational art to re-focus on bridging tactical encounters
and for a reassertion of strategy to fill all of the other areas currently
absorbed by operational art.15 This has triggered renewed debate as to what
the role and extent of the operational level of war and its relationship to

90

tactics and strategy should be. It is possible that a reconsideration of this

construct taking into account alternate epistemological approaches will
emerge, leading tactics and (a constrained re-definition of) operations to
be assigned to the realms of positivist doctrine and a reasserted strategic
level to be assigned to that of anti-positivism.
A second issue concerns the means of translating understanding
derived through anti-positivist approaches into practical results and
to date, this area remains underdeveloped. Given that anti-positivism
emphasizes subjectivity, it challenges the legitimacy of most if not all
traditional mechanisms for measuring the results of military operations.
In place of this, anti-positivism stresses the importance of perception:
victory or defeat exists only as it is perceived by participants in conflict
(be they friendly, enemy, civilians, or neutral fourth-party observers).
Furthermore, these perceptions are likely to change over time and are
unlikely to be black and white. How to work within this conceptual
framework and where victory can never be considered as either
complete or total, remains an issue to be resolved.16
Thirdly, the clarity of the nomenclature needs to be addressed. As
things stand, several terms that imply anti-positivist approaches are
routinely misapplied within positivist constructs. Perhaps the most
common example of this is the tendency over the past decade or so
for seemly every military problem to be labeled as complex, usually
without any attempt to determine what this actually means or what its
ramifications may be.17 This problem is the manifestation of the latest
terminological fad, wherein the language of an emerging idea has been
adopted without the doctrine writer being fully aware of, understanding
or appreciating the idea itself. The same could be said for several
other terms associated with anti-positivism, including (but certainly
not limited to) knowledge, understanding, adaptation, and
even design, which should more correctly be referred to as design
thinking.18 Beyond doctrine, this is also a common problem within
strategic policy and concepts.
Finally, there are two prominent gaps that need to be filled. First,
there exists at present a comprehension gap: despite having developed
an awareness of anti-positivist concepts such as design, many strategists
and military practitioners are not yet aware of the epistemological roots
of these concepts or of the implications of these roots. Second, there
exists also an application gap, the bolting of anti-positivist ideas
onto existing positivist ones has caused this. Both of these problems
are epitomized by the current placing of design at the beginning of
91

existing operational planning processes. A detailed assessment of the

nature of anti-positivist concepts that takes explicitly into account their
epistemology may yet determine that their application at the strategic
or operational level requires a separate planning process than the
application of other doctrine at the operational or tactical level and that
a bridging construct is necessary between the two. In short, the further
development of the new epistemological approach is likely to have a
greater impact on doctrinal ontology than has yet been forthcoming.

Understanding Relationships
Another implication of the analysis herein concerns the ill-explored
nature of the relationships between militaries and other actors. In the
past few decades, there has been a growing discussion of the need for
strategic and operational approaches that are whole of government,
interagency, multinational, or some other term implying cooperation
between militaries and other organizations.19 The employment of these
terms indicates an increased awareness of the nexus of relationships that
exist between militaries and other parties. The (in)famous dynamic
planning for counterinsurgency in Afghanistan diagram perhaps
constitutes the most extreme manifestation of this awareness.20 Yet for
all the criticism this diagram has attracted, it is nevertheless an excellent
example of the application of chaos theory and complexity science in
attempting to solve a military problem.21
Anti-positivist approaches offer a new mechanism for understanding
relationships between, and for that matter within, militaries. As observed
above, the impact of service culture upon military conduct remains
seldom-explored,22 as does the relationship between the militaries
of different states.23 Both of these areas require further exploration
especially in light of the emerging American strategic refocus on the
Asia-Pacific region. Tentative steps have recently been taken towards a
comprehensive reassessment of western (read English speaking in this
instance) understanding of non- western military culture, history, and
ideas.24 The application of alternative epistemological approaches, most
notably those associated with chaos theory and complexity science, yields
substantial potential for the conduct of a more significant reassessment
of the nature of the military challenges in this region. Increased crosscultural understanding may, in turn, yield other potential sources to be
tapped during future doctrine, concept, or even strategy development.
Closer to home, there has been another interesting development
within the last decade. This monograph chronicles the expansion of

92

written doctrine within western militaries over the course of 400 years.
Within the last few years, military-style doctrinespecifically that which
could be assessed as fitting within the fourth ontological schoolhas
been released by other organizations. These include the United Nations
and non-profit organizations, the latter of which have collaborated
with the US military.25 These manuals have been labeled doctrine
by their sponsor organizations and have been developed specifically
to mimic their military equivalents. While the dissemination of ideas
and concepts between militaries on one hand and non-government
organizations, the business world, and academia on the other is not
new, the creation of military-style doctrine by other organizations is.
This attests to the legitimacy with which doctrine is now viewed as a
mechanism for transmitting an institutional discourse. It also signifies
that other organizations appreciate the appeal of doctrine to the military
audience. The implication of this for enhanced interoperability cannot
be overstated but due to the recentness of this development it is still too
early to determine what its ultimate impact will be.

Conceptual and Terminological Clarity

Another significant implication of discussion herein is the realization
that most of the factors that have affected doctrine development have, for
most of the existence of doctrine, done so subconsciously. For English
speaking militaries, it was not until the 1980s that they explicitly defined
their institutional ontology. Explicit discussion of military ontology
and epistemology to date remains limited to a dozen papers or so. Yet
awareness of these is of the utmost importance because:
how we come to ask particular questions, how we assess the
relevance and value of different research methodologies so that
we can investigate those questions, how we evaluate the outputs
of research, all express and vary according to our underlying
epistemological commitments. Even though they often
remain unrecognized by the individual, such epistemological
commitments are a key feature of our pre-understandings which
influence how we make things intelligible.26
At the opening of this monograph, it was observed that contemporary
militaries are suffering from a glut of buzzwords and imprecise or illdefined terms, ideas, and concepts. As a result, the number of terms and
concepts that are vying for inclusion in doctrine are more numerous
than ever before. An understanding of epistemology, and for that matter
ontology, will give doctrine writers, strategists, statesmen, and military

93

practitioners a hitherto untapped means by which to identify problems,

propose solutions, and evaluate the worth of these proposals. Ultimately,
this will lead to better doctrine and, if the rhetoric of the doctrine itself is
to be believed, will in turn translate into more effective military practice.

94

Notes

1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.,

Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1996, pp. 10-11.
2. Howard G. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift: The Canadian
Forces College and the Operational Level of War (1987-1995), Canadian
Forces Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2010, p. 20.
3. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 10-22, 84-91.
4. Antoine Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on
the Battlefields of Modernity, London: Hirst and Co., 2009, p. 4.
5. Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of
Living Systems, New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1997, pp. 5-6, quote p. 6.
6. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 85.
7. Adam Elkus, Complexity, Design, and Modern Operational Art: U.S.
Evolution or False Start?, Canadian Army Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, Autumn
2010, p. 55.
8. T. C. Greenwood & T. X. Hammes, War Planning for Wicked
Problems: Where Joint Doctrine Fails, Armed Forces Journal, December 2009,
available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/12/4252237, accessed on
April 16, 2012.
9. For an example of a critique along these lines, see: Milan N. Vego, A
Case Against Systemic Operational Design, Joint Force Quarterly, No. 53, 2nd
Quarter 2009, pp. 69-75.
10. The abandonment of counterinsurgency theory within third and fourth
school doctrine already appears to be underway, with future editions of the US
Armys counterinsurgency doctrine manual likely to be relegated to the second
school. Crucially for anti-positivist doctrine, however, this abandonment has not
included design, which remains prominent within key doctrine manuals such
as JP 5-0. Regarding the progress of what has been dubbed the rise and fall of
counterinsurgency, see: Fred Kaplan, The End of the Age of Petraeus: The
Rise and Fall of Counterinsurgency, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 92, No. 1 (January/
February 2013), pp. 75-90.
11. Adam Elkus & Crispin Burke, Operational Design: Promise and
Problems, Small Wars Journal, February 2010, p. 5, available from http://
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/362-elkus.pdf, accessed on April
16, 2012.
12. U.S. Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, January 2012, p. 2.
13. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Why AirSea Battle? Washington, DC: Centre
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010; Jan van Tol, with Mark

95

Gunzinger, Andrew F. Krepinevich & Jim Thomas, AirSea Battle: A Point of

Departure Operational Concept, Washington, DC: Centre for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, 2010.
14. Elkus & Burke, Operational Design: Promise and Problems, pp. 16
15. Justin Kelly & Mike Brennan, Alien: How Operational Art Devoured
Strategy, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, September 2009.
16. Although it does not employ an anti-positivist methodology, an
excellent exploration of some of the issues surrounding the differences between
perceptions and realities of victory is offered in: Ian Bickerton, The Illusion of
Victory: The True Costs of War, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2011.
17. Bousquet addresses this problem in far greater detail by means of
conducting a comprehensive critique of the Network Centric Warfare concept.
Bousquet, The Scientific Way of Warfare, pp. 215-33.
18. David L. Walker, Refining the Military Appreciation Process for
Adaptive Campaigning, Australian Army Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 2011,
pp. 96-98.
19. A decade earlier, the vogue term under discussion was joint, the
impetus then being to foster cooperation and collaboration between different
services of a single military. This approach has arguably been so successful
at the term joint is now generally accepted, and joint approaches to military
endeavors are commonplace.
20. PA Consulting Group, Dynamic Planning for Counterinsurgency
in Afghanistan, PowerPoint Presentation, dated 2009, available from http://
msnbcme- dia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/Afghanistan_
Dynamic_Plan- ning.pdf, accessed on May 1, 2012.
21. For an excellent short presentation on how to understand the utility of
the diagram, see: Eric Berlow, How Complexity Leads to Simplicity, TED: Talks
in Less Than Six Minutes, July 2010, available from www.ted.com/talks/eric_
berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity.html, accessed on May 15, 2012.
22. The few explorations undertaken to date include: Carl H. Builder The
Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore,
MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1989; Allan D. English, Understanding
Military Culture: A Canadian Perspective, Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens
University Press, 2004.
23. Coombs application of Flecks thought collectives to Canadas
adoption of the levels of war construct presents a rare example of an analysis
of this relationship, albeit that his study is both geographically and temporally
limited. Coombs, In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift, pp. 19-27.
24. Most prominently, see: Patrick Porter, Military Orientalism: Eastern
War Through Western Eyes, London: Hirst & Co, 2009.

96

25. United Nations (UN) Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United

Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines, New York, NY:
United Nations, January 18, 2008; United States Institute of Peace & U.S.
Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, Guiding Principles for
Stabilization and Reconstruction, Washington, DC: United States Institute of
Peace, 2009.
26. Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley, Understanding Management
Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London: Sage Publications, 2000, p.
1.

97

Chapter 6
Conclusion
Defining military doctrine as expressive of a militarys belief
system, this monograph has conducted an examination of the expansion
and significance of its written form. This examination occurred first
through an ontological and subsequently through an epistemological
lens and links have been established between doctrine on one hand and
professional military education, scientific discovery, the growth of the
modern state, the increasing institutionalization and bureaucratization
of society, and the evolution of thinking within philosophy and the
social sciences on the other. From this examination, it is discernable
that military doctrine is a product of its environment. Its a belief system
that has been shaped, often subconsciously, by a diverse and seldom
acknowledged array of factors.
The ontology of doctrine can be divided into four schools that can
be labeled the technical manual, tactical manual, operational manual,
and military strategic manual schools. The delineation of doctrinal
ontology into these schools is based on three factors. First, the scope of
the content and the intended audience broadens from one school to the
next. Second, the manner in which manuals in each of these schools is
applied varies, with the schools being respectively applied as instruction
manuals, training aids, guidance and as an instrument for analysis.
Third, each manual has a different type of relationship to a
militarys accepted institutional ontology. Manuals in the first school
do not engage with this ontology at all, focusing instead on describing
micro- level processes in isolation from outside factors. Manuals in the
second school offer only an implicit ontology. Those in the third offer
an explicit ontology, which initially viewed militaries as subordinate to
the state and as narrowly tasked with undertaking operations to defeat
the (conventional) military forces of other states. Although recognition
of the militarys subordination to the state has remained central within
this school, the range of military tasks envisioned has since expanded
to include several other roles (including irregular warfare and a variety
of operations other than war) and the various relationships militaries
have with other organizations (both government and non-government)
are now also addressed. Manuals in the fourth school are often used
as a means to examine ontological questions, posing answers to these

99

by way of establishing very general principles or a core conceptual

framework for military activities.
The relationship between each of the schools is complicated and
multi-faceted. It is also somewhat blurred and some manuals exhibit
characteristics attributable to multiple schools. Despite this, the division
of doctrine into four ontological schools is a useful mechanism for
examining its evolution over time. When this evolution is examined from
educational, scientific, and bureaucratic perspectives, the relationship
between military doctrine, the institutional development of militaries
themselves, and the changing nature of their relationship with society,
is elucidated. Given that ontology examines the nature of being and the
taxonomies used to define reality, it is unsurprising that the evolution of
doctrine has been closely linked to these relationships.
Yet even as doctrine has evolved into each of the four schools, it has
consistently been underpinned by ontological realism, a perspective that
emphasizes that the world beyond human cognition is structured and
tangible regardless of whether or not humans perceive and label it. The
taxonomies propounded in doctrine have not been about defining and
structuring reality. Rather, they have been about understanding reality
and ultimately manipulating it, the intent being to achieve military
victory as efficiently as possible. Where doctrine fails to sufficiently
address a militarys ontology or where the taxonomies that constitute
that ontology are inappropriate, adherence to doctrine can potentially
create a dissonance between tactical means and strategic ends, as
doctrine becomes susceptible to providing ill-suited guidance when
faced with situations outside of its remit.
Accompanying doctrines ontological realism has been its positivist
epistemology. This epistemology advocates a methodology wherein the
subject of study (warfare) should be observed from a neutral viewpoint,
with the results of the observation subsequently being assessed in a
rational, objective manner. This allows the assessor to determine the
universal laws governing relationships and, using this knowledge,
to subsequently manipulate these relationships to achieve a desired
end state (victory). By its nature this doctrine focuses on linear and
therefore predictable cause- and-effect relationships. It is both logical
and reductionist in its outlook. Its advantage is that it allows military
practitioners to establish processes, both rigid (such as doctrine
describing how to employ a weapons system) and flexible (such as
doctrine detailing a military planning process). These processes are
relatively easy to comprehend and follow, even in instances where
100

departure from them may be encouraged in certain situations. The

institutional belief system represented by this doctrine is one in which
warranted knowledge is that which can be mathematically measured
from an objective position.
Presently, doctrine may be (to paraphrase both Paparone and Kuhn)
on the cusp of a paradigm shift.1 This shift involves the emergence of
doctrine based upon anti-positivist epistemology. Disputing the existence
of objectivity altogether, anti-positivism emphasizes that everything
is relative and that any attempt come to an understanding can only be
undertaken from the perspective of a participant. All understanding is
therefore inherently subjective and is affected by several intangible
factors such as chance, perception, and human will. It is considered
difficult if not impossible to accurately determine cause-and-effect
relationships due to the concurrent interaction of multiple variables.
Although more difficult to understand and apply, anti-positivist doctrine
offers those who successfully do so the prospect of developing a greatly
enhanced understanding of the situation they are facing and of the
consequences of their actions, especially at the strategic and operational
levels. Design, featured in manuals such as the 2006 edition of Field
Manual (FM) 3-24 Counterinsurgency and the 2011 edition of Joint
Publication (JP) 5-0 Joint Operation Planning, is an example of the
application of anti-positivism within doctrine.
It must be emphasized that the shift to anti-positivism is still
embryonic, having commenced at most a few decades ago. The shift
may therefore turn out to be a chimera, especially given the longstanding and entrenched nature of positivist military thinking and antipositivisms relative difficulty to grasp. Indeed, current doctrine appears
to graft anti- positivist concepts onto existing positivist ones, without
deference to the epistemological confusionand resultant conceptual
perversionthat this causes. The conduct of a more detailed assessment
of this new doctrinal paradigm from an epistemological perspective
would be highly useful in determining whether to further develop or
to abandon anti-positivist approaches. At best, their continued ad hoc
application will translate into sub-optimal operational and, resultantly,
strategic outcomes. Such an assessment may also assist as a mechanism
for pruning existing concepts that either muddle these competing
epistemological approaches or which use the language of one but the
substance of another.
Ultimately, however, understanding the epistemology of military
doctrine is important for far broader reasons. Doctrine, expressive of a
101

militarys institutional belief system, is a gauge for the way militaries

view their role and therefore their institution, in relation to the states
and societies that sustain them. The emergence of each new school of
doctrinal ontology and more recently the inclusion of anti-positivist
concepts within doctrine, indicate changes in a militarys institutional
understanding of its relationship with state and society. These changes
have occurred for one of two reasons. First, formal (written) recognition
of the militarys role has replaced previously informal (verbal or
implicit) recognition. Second, following the conclusion of the Cold
War, changes in what states and societies expected of their militaries led
these militaries to re-evaluate their role altogether.
This belief system also explains why a military may prefer a certain
type of strategic approach and why it plans and conducts operations
the way it does. The incorporation of anti-positivist approaches into
doctrine has been partly due to the initial failure of positivist strategies
and tactics during the wars of the early 21st century. The proliferation of
new, anti-positivist doctrine, in particular the 2006 edition of FM 3-24,
was accompanied by a change in overall strategy, which had a positive
effect on the outcome of the war in Iraq in particular. This example
illustrates the epistemological link between strategy and tactics on one
hand and doctrine on the other.
The broad range of influences on military doctrine discussed in this
monograph demonstrate that for most of its 400 year history, most of
the factors that have influenced doctrine development have been at best
implicitly understood and at worst not understood at all. The ontological
and epistemological consideration of doctrine undertaken herein has
helped to shed light on these influences. Since everyone adheres to a
set of ontological and epistemological beliefs, whether they realize it
or not, the advantage to military practitioners, strategists, statesmen,
and doctrine writers of recognizing and understanding these beliefs is
that better doctrine, better strategy, and ultimately better operational
performance, will inevitably come of it.

102

Note
1. Christopher R. Paparone, FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of
Postpositivism, Small Wars Journal, May 2008, available from http://
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs/temp/65-paparone.pdf, accessed on
February 17, 2011; Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd
ed., Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1996, pp. 10-11.

103

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Doctrine Manuals
Australian Defence Force, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication
Doctrine Foundations of Australian Military Doctrine, 1st ed., Canberra:
Defence Publishing Service, May 2002.
Australian Defence Force, Australian Defence Doctrine PublicationDoctrine Foundations of Australian Military Doctrine, 2nd ed.,
Canberra: Defence Publishing Service, July 2005.
British Armed Forces, Joint Warfare Publication 0-01 British Defence
Doctrine, 1st ed., London: Her Britannic Majestys Stationary
Office, 1997.
British Army, Field Manual Volume 1 Part 10, Countering Insurgency,
Army Code 71876, Warminster: Land Warfare Centre, October 2009.
Canadian Forces, Canadian Forces Joint Publication 01 Canadian
Military Doctrine, 1st ed., Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forces
Experimentation Centre, April 2009, available from www.cfd-cdf.
forces.gc.ca/cfwc-cgfc/ Index/JD/Pub_Eng/Capstone/CFJP_%20
01_Canadian_Military_Doctrine_En_2009_04_Web.pdf, accessed on
March 4, 2011.
Canadian Forces, Joint and Combined Operations, Ottawa: Canadian
National Defence Headquarters, 1995.
Directorate General Development and Doctrine, Army Doctrine
Publication: Land Operations, United Kingdom: British Army, May
2005.
Headquarters, Department of the Army & Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps, Field Manual 3-24/Marine Corps Warfighting Publication
3-33.5 Counterinsurgency, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, December 15, 2006.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 1 The Army,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 14, 2001.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 1 The Army,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 2005.

105

Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5 Operations,

Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 20, 1982.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5 Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1, 1976.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5
Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 14, 1993.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0 Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 14, 2001.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0 Operations,
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 22, 2008.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 5-0 The
Operations Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, March 2010.
Headquarters, Department of the Navy, Navy Doctrine Publication 1
Naval Warfare, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
March 28, 1994.
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Manual 1-1 (Volume 1), Basic
Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1992.
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Manual 1-1 (Volume 2), Basic
Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1992.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Fleet Marine Force Manual 1
Warfighting, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
March 6, 1989.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication
1 Warfighting, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June
20, 1997.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication
1-1 Strategy, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 12, 1997.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication
1-2 Campaigning, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, August 1, 1997.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication
106

1-3 Tactics, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July

30, 1997.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication
5-1 Marine Corps Planning Process, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 24 August 2010.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, Joint
Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military
and Associated Terms, as amended through August 2009.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, Joint
Publication 1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States,
May 2, 2007, Incorporating Change 1, March 20, 2009, available
from www.dtic.mil/
doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf, accessed on March 4, 2011.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Publication 1
Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 14, 2000.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Publication
1 Joint Warfare of the U.S. Armed Forces, Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, November 11, 1991.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Publication
5-0 Joint Operation Planning, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, August 11, 2011.
New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Defence Doctrine
Publication-Doctrine Foundations of New Zealand Military Doctrine,
1st ed., Wellington: Development Branch, Headquarters New Zealand
Defence Force, 2004.
Prepared under the Direction of the Chief of the General Staff,
Design for Military OperationsBritish Military Doctrine, London:
Her Majestys Stationary Office, 1989.
U.S. Air Force, Air Force Doctrine Document 1 Air Force Basic
Doctrine, Maxwell Air Force Base: Headquarters Air Force Doctrine
Centre, September 1997.
U.S. Army, FM 100-5 Field Service Regulations: Operations [first
issued 1941]. Fort Leavenworth: U.S. Army Command and General
Staff College Press, 1992.
UK Ministry of Defence, Joint Doctrine Publication 04 Understanding,
Shrivenham, UK: Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre,
December 2010.
107

Other Primary Sources

Australian Army, Adaptive Campaigning: The Land Force Response to
Complex Warfighting, Version 4.18, reproduced as Appendix 2 to Scott
Hopkins, ed., Chief of Armys Exercise Proceedings 2006, Duntroon:
Australian Army Land Warfare Studies Centre, 2006, pp. 143171.
Godefroy, Andrew B. ed., Land Operations 2021: Adaptive Dispersed
OperationsA Force Employment Concept for Canadas Army of
Tomorrow, Kingston, ON: Directorate of Land Concepts and Doctrine,
2007.
Krepinevich, Andrew F. Why AirSea Battle? Washington, DC: Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010.
Mattis, General J. N. U.S. Joint Forces Command Commanders
Guidance for Effects Based Operations, unpublished memorandum
dated 14 August 2008.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO-Russia Glossary of
Contemporary Political and Military Terms, Brussels: NATO-Russia
Joint Editorial Working Group, undated but promulgated online on
June 8, 2001. Available from www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/index.
htm, accessed on December 20, 2008.
PA Consulting Group, Dynamic Planning for Counterinsurgency in
Afghanistan, PowerPoint Presentation, dated 2009, available from
http:// msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/
Afghanistan_ Dynamic_Planning.pdf, accessed on May 1, 2012.
Tol, Jan van, with Mark Gunzinger, Andrew F. Krepinevich & Jim
Thomas, AirSea Battle: A Point of Departure Operational Concept,
Washington, DC: Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
2010.
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Doctrine Development, available
from http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/doctrine.asp, accessed on August 8,
2010.
U.S. Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, January 2012.
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United
Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines, New
York, NY: United Nations, January 18, 2008.

108

United States Institute of Peace & U.S. Army Peacekeeping and

Stability Operations Institute, Guiding Principles for Stabilization
and Reconstruction, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace,
2009.

Secondary Sources
Books and Monographs
Alger, John A. The Quest for Victory: The History of the Principles
of War, Contributions in Military History No. 30, Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1982.
Bacevich, A. J. The Pentomic Era: The U.S. Army between Korea and
Vietnam, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1986.
Bickerton, Ian, The Illusion of Victory: The True costs of War,
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2011.
Bonn, Kieth E. & Anthony E. Baker, Guide to Military Operations
Other Than War: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Stability and
Support Operations : Domestic and International, Mechanicsburg PA:
Stackpole Books, 2000.
Boot, Max, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of
American Power, New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Bousquet, Antoine, The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos
on the Battlefields of Modernity, London: Hurst and Co., 2009.
Brodie, Bernard, War and Politics, New York: MacMillan Publishing
Co., 1973.
Builder Carl H. The Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy
and Analysis, Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Burrell, Gibson & Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life,
Portsmouth: Heinemenn, 1979.
Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of
Living Systems, New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1997.
Chapman, Bert, Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook, Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International, 2009.
Clausewitz, Carl von, On War [1832], edited and translated by Michael
Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Clayton, Anthony, The British Officer: Leading the Army from 1660 to
the Present, Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education, 2007.
109

Cohen, Eliot A. Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and

Leadership in Wartime, New York: The Free Press, 2002.
Crane, Conrad C. Avoiding Vietnam: The U.S. Armys Response to
Defeat in Southeast Asia, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies
Institute, September 2002.
Creveld, Martin van, The Training of Officers: From Military
Professionalism to Irrelevance, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1990.
Davis II, Robert T. The Challenge of Adaptation: The U.S. Army in
the Aftermath of Conflict, 1953-2000, Fort Leavenworth KS: Combat
Studies Institute Press, March 2008.
Doughty, Robert A. The Evolution of U.S. Army Tactical Doctrine, 194676, Leavenworth Papers No. 1, Fort Leavenworth KS: Combat Studies
Institute, August 1979.
Drew, Dennis M. & Donald M. Snow, Making Strategy: An
Introduction to National Security Processes and Problems, Maxwell
Air Force Base: Air University Press, 1988.
Echevarria II, Antulio J. Rapid Decisive Operations: An Assumptions
Based Critique, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute,
November 2001.
Echevarria II, Antulio J. Toward an American Way of War, Carlisle: U.S.
Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004.
Ellis, John, The Social History of the Machine Gun, London: Pimlico,
1976.
English, Allan D. Understanding Military Culture: A Canadian
Perspective, Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press, 2004.
Evans, Michael, Forward from the Past: The Development of Australian
Army Doctrine, 1972 Present, Study Paper No. 301, Canberra:
Australian Army Land Warfare Studies Centre, August 1999.
Futrell, Robert, Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Volume I: Basic Thinking
in the United States Air Force 1907-1960, Maxwell Air force Base:
Air University Press, 1989.
Gat, Azar, A History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to
the Cold War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Holden-Reid, Brian, A Doctrinal Perspective: 1988-98, Occasional
Paper No. 33, United Kingdom: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute,
May 1998.

110

Holsti, Kalevi J. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International

Order 1648-1989, Cambridge Studies in International Relations No.
14, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991,
Huntington, Samuel P. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and
Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1959.
Jackson, Aaron P. Doctrine Development in Five Commonwealth
Navies: A Comparative Perspective, Papers in Australian Maritime
Affairs No. 33, Canberra: Sea Power CentreAustralia, 2010.
Jackson, Aaron P. Doctrine, Strategy and Military Culture: MilitaryStrategic Doctrine Development in Australia, Canada and New
Zealand, 1987-2007, Trenton, ON: Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare
Centre, 2013.
Jacob, Margaret C. The Enlightenment: A Brief History with
Documents, Boston: Bedford/St Martins, 2001.
James, Glenn E. Chaos Theory: The Essentials for Military
Applications, Newport Paper No. 10, Newport, RI: Naval War College,
1996.
Johnson, Phil & Joanne Duberley, Understanding Management
Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London: Sage Publications,
2000.
Kelly, Justin & Mike Brennan, Alien: How Operational Art Devoured
Strategy, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute,
September 2009.
Krepinevich, Andrew F. The Army and Vietnam, Baltimore, MD: The
John Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Kretchik, Walter E. U.S. Army Doctrine: From the American
Revolution to the War on Terror, Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas, 2011.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.,
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1996.
Leonhard, Robert R. The Principles of War for the Information Age,
Novato, CA: Presidio, 1998.
Lock-Pullan, Richard, U.S. Intervention Policy and Army Innovation:
From Vietnam to Iraq, New York, NY: Routledge, 2006.
Lynn, John A. Battle: A History of Combat and Culture, Cambridge,
MA: Westview, 2003.
111

Mder, Markus, In Pursuit of Conceptual Excellence: The Evolution

of British Military-Strategic Doctrine in the Post-Cold War Era,
1989- 2002, Studies in Contemporary History and Security Policy
No. 13, Bern: Peter Lang, 2004.
Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power: Volume II: The Rise of
Classes and Nation-States, 1760-1914, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993.
McAllister Linn, Brian, The Echo of Battle: The Armys Way of War,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
McNaugher, Thomas L. Marksmanship, McNamara and the M16 Rifle:
Organizations, Analysis and Weapons Acquisition, RAND Paper No.
P-6306, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, March 1979.
Middlemiss, Danford W. & Denis Stairs, The Canadian Forces and the
Doctrine of Interoperability: The Issues, Policy Matters Occasional
Paper Series, Vol. 3, No. 7, Montreal, QC: Institute for Research on
Public Policy, June 2002.
Naveh, Shimon, In Pursuit of Military Excellence: The Evolution of
Operational Theory, London: Frank Cass, 1997.
Okros, Alan, Leadership in the Canadian Military Context,
Canadian Forces Leadership Institute Monograph 2010-01,
Canada: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, November 2010.
Osinga, Frans P. B. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of
John Boyd, London: Routledge, 2007.
Porter, Bruce D. War and the Rise of the State: The Military
Foundations of Modern Politics, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1994.
Porter, Patrick, Military Orientalism: Eastern War Through Western
Eyes, London: Hirst & Co, 2009.
Ricks, Thomas E. The Gamble: General Petraeus and the Untold
Story of the American Surge in Iraq, 2006-2008, New York: Allen
Lane, 2009.
Schneider, James J. The Structure of Strategic Revolution: Total War and
the Roots of the Soviet Warfare State, Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1994.
Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Vego, Milan, Joint Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice, Newport
RI: U.S. Naval War College, 2007.
112

Weigley, Russell F. The American Way of War: A History of U.S.

Military Strategy and Policy, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 1973.
Westenhoff, Charles M. Military Airpower: A Revised Digest of
Airpower Opinions and Thoughts, Maxwell Air Force Base: Air
University Press, 2007.
Wight, Martin, Systems of States, Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press, 1977.
Williams, Michael, Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to
Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Chapters in Edited Works

Bassford, Christopher, Doctrinal Complexity: Nonlinearity in
Marine Corps Doctrine, in F. G. Hoffman & Gary Horne, eds.,
Maneuver Warfare Science 1998, Washington DC: Department of
the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, 1998.
Black, Jeremy, The Military Revolution II: Eighteenth-Century War,
in Charles Townshend, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern
War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Carver, Michael Conventional Warfare in the Nuclear Age, in Peter
Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the
Nuclear Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Childs, John, The Military Revolution I: The Transition to Modern
Warfare, in Charles Townshend, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History
of Modern War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Codner, Michael, British Maritime Doctrine and National Military
Strategy, in Centre for Defence Studies, Kings College London,
Brasseys Defence Yearbook 1996, London: Brasseys, 1996.
Echevarria II, Antulio J. American Operational Art, 1917-2008, in John
Andreas Olsen & Martin van Creveld, The Evolution of Operational Art:
From Napoleon to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Comte, Auguste, Plan of the Scientific Operations Necessary for
Reorganizing Society [1822]. Reproduced in: Lenzer, Gertrud, ed.,
Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, New York, NY:
Harper & Row, 1975.
Gabel, Christopher R. Preface, in U.S. Army, FM 100-5 Field Service
Regulations: Operations [first issued 1941]. Fort Leavenworth: U.S.
Army Command and General Staff College Press, 1992.
113

Gooch, John, Introduction: Military Doctrine in Military History, in

John Gooch, ed., The Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, Occasional
Paper No. 30, Camberly: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute,
September 1997.
Hattendorf, John B. Introduction, in John B. Hattendorf, ed., U.S.
Naval Strategy in the 1990s: Selected Documents, Newport Paper No.
27, Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 2006.
Hayden, H. T. Introduction: The History and Execution of Marine
Corps Doctrine, in H. T. Hayden, ed., Warfighting: Maneuver Warfare
in the U.S. Marine Corps, London: Greenhill Books, 1995.
Kipp, Jacob W. The Tsarist and Soviet Operational Art, 1853-1991,
in John Andreas Olsen & Martin van Creveld, The Evolution of
Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
Klepak, Hal, Some Reflections on Generalship Through the Ages, in
Bernd Horn & Stephen J. Harris, eds., Generalship and the Art of the
Admiral: Perspectives on Canadian Senior Military Leadership, St.
Catherines, ON: Vanwell Publishing, 2001.
Langlois, Anthony J. Human Rights, in Martin Griffiths, ed.,
Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics,
Abingdon: Routledge, 2006.
Makkreel, Rudolf, Wilhelm Dilthey, in Edward N. Zalta, ed.,
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2012 edition,
forthcoming. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
sum2012/entries/ dilthey/, accessed on April 13, 2012.
Moller, P. Richard, The Dangers of Doctrine, in Maritime Security
Working Paper No. 5, Halifax: Dalhousie University, December 1996.
Moreman, Tim, The Greatest Training Ground in the World: The
Army in India and the North-West Frontier, 1901-1947, in Daniel
P. Marston & Chandar S. Sundaram, A Military History of India
and South Asia: From the East India Company to the Nuclear Era,
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Romjue, John L. The Evolution of American Army Doctrine, in
John Gooch, ed., The Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, Occasional
Paper No. 30, Camberly: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute,
September 1997.

114

Sheffield, Gary, Doctrine and Command in the British Army: An

Historical Overview, in Directorate General Development and
Doctrine, Army Doctrine Publication: Land Operations, United
Kingdom: British Army, May 2005.
Showalter, Dennis E. Prussian-German Operational Art, 17401943, in John Andreas Olsen & Martin van Creveld, The Evolution
of Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
Shy, John, Jomini, in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy:
From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1986.
Spiller, Roger J. In the Shadow of the Dragon: Doctrine and the U.S.
Army after Vietnam, in Jeffrey Grey & Peter Dennis, eds., From
Past to Future: The Australian Experience of Land/Air Operations,
Canberra: Australian Defence Force Academy, 1995.
Strachan, Hew, Operational Art in Britain, 1909-2009, in John Andreas
Olsen & Martin van Creveld, The Evolution of Operational Art: From
Napoleon to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Weigley, Russell F. American Strategy from its Beginnings through
the First World War, in Peter Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy:
From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1986.
Williams, John Allen, The Postmodern Military Reconsdered, in
Moskos, Charles C., John Allan Williams & David R. Segal, eds., The
Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Edited Works
Centre for Defence Studies, Kings College London, Brasseys Defence
Yearbook 1996, London: Brasseys, 1996.
Gooch, John, ed., The Origins of Contemporary Doctrine, Occasional
Paper No. 30, Camberly: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute,
September 1997.
Grey, Jeffrey & Peter Dennis, eds., From Past to Future: The Australian
Experience of Land/Air Operations, Canberra: Australian Defence
Force Academy, 1995.
Griffiths, Martin, ed., Encyclopedia of International Relations and
Global Politics, Abingdon: Routledge, 2006.

115

Hattendorf, John B. ed., U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1990s: Selected

Documents, Newport Paper No. 27, Newport, RI: Naval War College
Press, 2006.
Hayden, H. T. ed., Warfighting: Maneuver Warfare in the U.S. Marine
Corps, London: Greenhill Books, 1995.
Hoffman F. G. & Gary Horne, eds., Maneuver Warfare Science 1998,
Washington DC: Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, 1998.
Horn, Bernd & Stephen J. Harris, eds., Generalship and the Art of the
Admiral: Perspectives on Canadian Senior Military Leadership, St.
Catharines, ON: Vanwell Publishing, 2001.
International Institute for Strategic Studies, Complex Irregular
Warfare: The Face of Contemporary Conflict, The Military Balance,
Vol. 105, No. 1, 2005.
Lenzer, Gertrud, ed., Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential
Writings, New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1975.
Marston, Daniel P. & Chandar S. Sundaram, A Military History of
India and South Asia: From the East India Company to the Nuclear
Era, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Moskos, Charles C., John Allan Williams & David R. Segal, eds., The
Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Olsen, John Andreas & Martin van Creveld, The Evolution of
Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
Paret, Peter, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the
Nuclear Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Townshend, Charles ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Journal Articles
Banach Stefan J. & Alex Ryan, The Art of Design: A Design
Methodology, Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 2, March/April 2009, pp.
105-115.
Bullock, Xander & Bruce Vitor, Design: How, Not Why, Military
Review, Vol. 90. No. 2, March/April 2010, pp. 102-108.
Cardon Edward C. & Steve Leonard, Unleashing Design: Planning
and the Art of Battle Command, Military Review, Vol. 90, No. 2,
March/ April 2010, pp. 2-12.
116

Cebrowski Arthur K. & John J. Garstka, Network-Centric Warfare:

Its Origin and Future, Proceedings, Vol. 124, No. 1, January 1998,
pp. 28-35.
Clay, John S. The Fifth Service Looks at Doctrine, Joint Force
Quarterly, No. 14, Winter 1996-7, pp. 29-33.
Codner, Michael, Purple Prose and Purple Passion: The Joint
Defence Centre, RUSI Journal, Vol. 144, No. 1, February/March
1999, pp. 36-40.
Coffman, Edward M. The Long Shadow of The Soldier and the State,
Journal of Military History, Vol. 55, No. 1, January 1991, pp. 69-82.
Cook, Martin L. Revolt of the Generals: A Case Study in Professional
Ethics, Parameters, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Coombs, Howard G. In the Wake of a Paradigm Shift: The Canadian
Forces College and the Operational Level of War (1987-1995),
Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, 2010, pp. 19-27.
Cox, David & Andrew ONeil, Professional Military Education in
Australia: Has it All Gone Terribly Right? Australian Defence Force
Journal, No. 171, 2006, pp. 57-74.
Davidson, Ketti, From Tactical Planning to Operational Design,
Military Review, Vol. 88, No. 5, September/October 2008, pp. 33-39.
Elkus, Adam & Crispin Burke, Operational Design: Promise and
Problems, Small Wars Journal, February 2010. Available from
http:// smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/362-elkus.pdf,
accessed on April 16, 2012.
Elkus, Adam, Complexity, Design, and Modern Operational Art:
U.S. Evolution or False Start? Canadian Army Journal, Vol. 13, No.
3, Autumn 2010, pp. 55-67.
Evans, Michael, From Kadesh to Kandahar: Military Theory and
the Future of War, Naval War College Review, Vol. LVI, No. 3,
Summer 2003, pp. 132-150.
Feld, M. D. Middle-Class Society and the Rise of Military
Professionalism: The Dutch Army 1589-1609, Armed Forces and
Society, Vol. 1, No. 4, August 1975, pp. 419-442.
Goddard, David, Max Weber and the Objectivity of Social Science,
History and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1-22.
Gray, Colin S. Concept Failure: COIN, Counterinsurgency, and
Strategic Theory, Prism, Vol. 3, No. 3, June 2012, pp. 17-32.
117

Greenwood T. C. & T. X. Hammes, War Planning for Wicked Problems:

Where Joint Doctrine Fails, Armed Forces Journal, December 2009,
available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/12/4252237,
accessed on April 16, 2012.
Haas, Peter, Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International
Policy Coordination, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1,
Winter 1992, pp. 1-35.
Jablonsky, David, U.S. Military Doctrine and the Revolution in
Military Affairs, Parameters, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1994, pp. 18-36.
Jackson, Aaron P. Getting it Right? Military-Strategic Level
Doctrine Development in New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of
Defence Studies, Vol. 3, August 2008, pp. 11-17.
Jackson, Aaron P. Moving Beyond Manoeuvre: A Conceptual
Coming- of-age for the Australian and Canadian Armies, Australian
Defence Force Journal, No. 177, November/December 2008, pp. 85100.
Jackson, Aaron P. The Emergence of a Doctrinal Culture within the
Canadian Air Force: Where it Came From, Where its at and Where to
From Here? Part One: Doctrine and Canadian Air Force Culture Prior
to the End of the Cold War, Canadian Air Force Journal, Vol. 2, No.
3, Summer 2009, pp. 38-46.
Johnston, Paul, Doctrine is not Enough: The Effect of Doctrine on
the Behavior of Armies, Parameters, Vol. XXX, No. 3, Autumn 2000,
pp. 30-39.
Kaplan, Fred, The End of the Age of Petraeus: The Rise and Fall
of Counterinsurgency, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 92, No. 1, January/
February 2013, pp. 75-90.
Krauthammer, Charles, The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Affairs,
Vol. 70, No. 1, Winter 1990-1, pp. 23-33.
Lauder, Matthew, Systemic Operational Design: Freeing Operational
Planning from the Shackles of Linearity, Canadian Military Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 4, 2009, pp. 41-49.
Locher, James R. Has it Worked? The Goldwater-Nichols
Reorganization Act, Naval War College Review, Vol. LIV, No. 4,
Autumn 2001, pp. 95-115.
Lock-Pullan, Richard, How to Rethink War: Conceptual Innovation
and AirLand Battle Doctrine, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 28,
No. 4, August 2005, pp. 679-702.
118

Mann, Steven R. Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought, Parameters,

Vol. XXII, No. 3, Autumn 1992, pp. 54-68.
McMaster, H. R. On War: Lessons to be Learned, Survival, Vol.
50, No. 1, February-March 2008, pp. 19-30.
Mitchell, Paul T. EBO: Thinking Effects and Effective Thinking,
Pointer, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2007, pp. 50-58.
Owen, William F. Essay: The War of New Words: Why Military
History Trumps Buzzwords, Armed Forces Journal, November
2009, available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/11/4114043,
accessed on April 17, 2012.
Paparone, Christopher R. Design and the Prospects for Decision,
Small Wars Journal, November 2010, available online from http://
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/598-paparone.pdf,
accessed October 2, 2012.
Paparone, Christopher R. FM 3-0: Operations on the Cusp of
Postpositivism, Small Wars Journal, May 2008, available from http://
smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/65-paparone.pdf,
accessed on February 17, 2011.
Perez Jr., Celestino, A Practical Guide to Design: A Way to Think
About It, and A Way to Do It, Military Review, Vol. 91, No. 2, March/
April 2011, pp. 41-51.
Romjue, John L. The Evolution of the AirLand Battle Concept, Air
University Review, May-June 1984. Available from www.airpower.
maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/may-jun/romjue.html,
accessed on November 30, 2009.
Rotmann, Philipp, David Tohn & Jaron Wharton, Learning Under
Fire: Progress and Dissent in the U.S. Military, Survival, Vol. 54, No.
1, August-September 2009, pp. 31-48.
Schaefer, Christof, Design: Extending Military Relevance, Military
Review, Vol. 89, No. 5, September/October 2009, pp. 29-39.
Taw, Jennifer Morrison, Stability and Support Operations: History
and Debates, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2010,
pp. 387-407.
Taylor, R. K. 2020 Vision: Canadian Forces Operational-Level
Doctrine, Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, Autumn 2001,
pp. 35-42.

119

Thomas George M. & John W. Meyer, The Expansion of the State,

Annual Review of Sociology, No. 10, 1984, pp. 461-482.
Tritten, James J. Developing Naval Doctrine From the Sea, Joint
Force Quarterly, No. 9, Autumn 1995, pp. 110-113.
Vego, Milan N. A Case Against Systemic Operational Design, Joint
Force Quarterly, No. 53, 2nd Quarter 2009, pp. 69-75.
Vohr, J Alex, Design in the Context of Operational Art, Marine
Corps Gazette, Vol. 94, No. 1, January 2010, pp. 39-42.
Walker, David L. Refining the Military Appreciation Process for
Adaptive Campaigning, Australian Army Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter
2011, pp. 85-100.
Wass de Czege, Huba, Systemic Operational Design: Learning and
Adapting in Complex Missions, Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 1,
January/February 2009, pp. 2-12.
Yingling, Paul, A Failure in Generalship, Armed Forces Journal, May
2007, available from www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198,
accessed on October 28, 2009.

Other Secondary Sources

Berlow, Eric, How Complexity Leads to Simplicity, TED: Talks in Less
Than Six Minutes, July 2010, available from www.ted.com/talks/eric_
berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity.html, accessed on May 15,
2012.
Maltz, Richard, The Epistemology of Strategy, paper presented at
the XX Annual Strategy Conference, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle
PA, April 17, 2009.
Nagl, John The Evolution and Importance of Army/Marine Corps
Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency, Small Wars Journal Blog Post,
June 27, 2007, available from http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/theevolution-and-importance-of-armymarine-corps-field-manual-3-24counterinsurgency, accessed on April 5, 2012.
Nort, Richard M. van, The Battle of Adrianople and the Military
Doctrine of Vegitius, The City University of New York: Unpublished
PhD Dissertation, 2007.
Schamburg, Gary R. Cloud Patterns: An Operational Hierarchy?
Unpublished monograph, Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced
Military Studies, Academic Year 1994-5.
Sheets, Thomas E. Training and Educating Marine Corps Officers
120

for the Future, unpublished monograph: U.S. Army War College, April
1992, available from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249432.pdf,
accessed on September 30, 2012.
Sorrels, William T., Glen R. Downing, Paul J. Blakesley, David
W. Pendall, Jason K. Walk & Richard D. Wallwork, Systemic
Operational Design: An Introduction, unpublished monograph:
School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Army Command and
General Staff College, academic year 2004-5, available from www.
dtic.mil/cgi-bin/ GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479311, accessed on April 11,
2012.
Stofka, Jonathan M. Designing the Desired State: A Process and
Model for Operational Design, unpublished Masters thesis: Marine
Corps University Command and Staff College, academic year 200910, available from
www.mcu.usmc.mil/Student%20Research/STOFKA%20-%20
MMS%20Paper%20AY%202010.pdf, accessed on April 10, 2012.

121

Author Biography
Dr Aaron P. Jackson is a Doctrine Desk Officer at the Australian
Defence Force (ADF) Joint Doctrine Centre. In this appointment
he has been project manager and/or lead author of six doctrine
publications, including Australian Defence Doctrine Publication
(ADDP) 00.1Command and Control, edition 2, and ADDP 5.0
Joint Planning, edition 2. He has also contributed in various ways
during the development of fifteen other joint doctrine and related
publications, including interagency projects such as the Guide to
Defence and Australian Federal Police (International Deployment
Group) Interoperability for Offshore Operations, for which he was
the ADFs primary representative and key content authority, and a
contributing author. Aaron has also served in the Australian Army Reserve
for over ten years. He has deployed on operations in Timor Leste and
has served on exercise or exchange in the United States, New Zealand
and the Philippines. He holds a Doctorate of Philosophy (International
Relations) and is appointed as a Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia
Institute, Griffith University, Australia. He is the author of Doctrine,
Strategy and Military Culture: Military-Strategic Doctrine Development
in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, 1987-2007 (Canadian Forces
Aerospace Warfare Centre, 2013), Keystone Doctrine Development in
Five Commonwealth Navies: A Comparative Perspective (Sea Power
Centre-Australia, 2010), and several peer-reviewed journal articles
and other academic papers.
Authors note: My thanks to Drs Alan Okros and Eric Oullet, and to Colonel
Howard Coombs PhD, for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts. I would also
like to offer a special thank you to Dr Paul T. Mitchell, who volunteered a lot
of his time to act as an unofficial mentor to me during the development of this
monograph. Any errors are, of course, my own.

123

Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Visit our website at:
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp