Posted on Jul 16, 2016
Where do you draw the line between doctrine vs. real-life experience? How do you integrate the two?
15.8K
108
62
6
6
0
Where do YOU draw the lie and how do you integrate the two? Examples are encouraged.
Doctrine
Officers
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
11
11
0
The best way is training and teaching. When ever you train new or young Soldiers you train the doctrine and then you incorporate real life experience like lessons learned and actually application. Soldiers who have seen and/or been through a lot in the Army over a career adds the pictures to Army doctrine, poetically speaking. Soldiers need a combination of book smarts and actually experience, either if it's from training or real world experience.
(11)
(0)
SPC Kirk Gilles
Right. I help provide small arms instruction. Occasionally, Been There-Done That soldiers (who I do admire and respect) will attempt to countermand the instruction with "We did it this way in Theater..." Some of those combat shortcuts can be safety concerns on a controlled range.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kirk Gilles - I was a Reflective Fire Training NCO during my 2nd OIF deployment and we had seniors saying it should be done this way or that way. The key different was experience and researching lessons learned. If you're giving instruction try to request or implement a way to have access to safety issues that may support or contradict your training. It's a balance of giving and receiving information that teaches Soldiers. When safety concerns come up try to understand why they entered those situations and get feedback on how they worked out.
This would be a good example, LTC West of 1CAV OIF 2003-2004. He chose controversial actions that effected his career but was the actions worth the outcome?
This would be a good example, LTC West of 1CAV OIF 2003-2004. He chose controversial actions that effected his career but was the actions worth the outcome?
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
2LT Everett I encourage you to have confidence in what you are taught during training. Chances are you will arrive at your unit with a better understanding of the current doctrine than any of the NCOs or Soldiers in your unit. You understanding of doctrine (which is based on TTPs derived from training and combat experience) will provide you a foundation to apply the lessons you learn during your application of the doctrine during training (you will learn to adapt your doctrinal training to the environment and circumstances presented by the situation and the enemy). So the line is not really a "line".....instead it is an every moving target that you adjust fire on (you need to know how to call for and adjust fire LT......your most powerful weapons are your mind and your radio). Pay attention to your Soldiers, NCOs and fellow Officers and strive to never repeat mistakes. Understanding and mastering doctrine will allow you to one day write the doctrine used by those who follow in your footsteps.
(8)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Thank you for the response, sir. I used to CFF for a living as a 13F. No worries there! I did take advantage of the past year, learning all the doctrine I was taught. I even became annoying to the instructors in ARC because I asked so many questions. I didn't care. I figured I owed it to my future men to learn as much as I could before going to the line. I know for a fact that I have more doctrinal knowledge than any of my classmates. With that being said, we were constantly coached on doctrine and warned that it will not fit most situations. That we are to learn it so that we have a foundation to veer from. The Army moves slow though. And this doctrine is not always current. For instance, just recently (since the ATP/ATTP started coming out) the doctrine finally placed some emphasis on COIN in manuals outside of the COIN manuals. This kind of info would have helped build that foundation in a more diverse set of principles. The point I am getting at is that if doctrine is going to be our "base" of knowledge to make decisions from, then it needs to be 1. Written by or in conjunction with current Soldiers 2. Up-to-date
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT(P) (Join to see) - As a current Instructor/Writer at the Counterintelligence Officers Course I would like to throw in my two cents. As Instructors we must teach CTLs that are categorized for schoolhouse training. I am pretty sure that your Instructors should not be telling you to go against doctrine, even though they are trying to help you. CTLs and doctrine are discussed and set during an annual CTSSB (may be different for your CMF). SMEs from across the force come to discuss issues such as outdated doctrine, new trends, and new ways to do things. If problems are not brought up, it will never be fixed. I know people don't like PCSing to Fort Huachuca but being a yes man/woman and not talking ruins it for the force. When the CTSSB states a change must be made, it is usually pushed down to Instructor/Writers, who hopefully have the knowledge and experience to make the changes or additions. A problem we have is the ability to supply an Instructor/Writer with the knowledge base and recent experience to write the new doctrine.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
CPT(P) (Join to see) SSG Robert Webster SGM (Join to see) COL Johnny Powers
Too often Doctrine is written by people that have limited or NO real life experience. The US Army hires civilians to write doctrine, and institutional knowledge. This is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. From my time, many of the doctrine writers were Vietnam Veterans with Combat experience, but that experience was dated and for a specific theater and set of parameters. They had the advantage of longevity, but the disadvantage of age, NOT age as in physical age, but rather age as in the age of their experience. That is why we too often as not write doctrine for tomorrow based on combat actions that may be 20 or 30 years old. And we all know that once doctrine is in pace it can be harder to get rid of that than to get rid of an X-Wife. There needs to be a balance, an equal number of CURRENT Warfighters and Civilian writers in EVERY OFFICE. At Fort Benning the support units that wrote training support packages and Infantry doctrine all had a civilian there. These were competent men, but they needed to have a coworker that was still an ACTIVE "Green Suiter" with OPERATIONAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE to add to the mix.
The best example I have of this came from the 2005 Infantry Conference at Fort Benning. SGM (Join to see) and I were walking through Building Snore (Building 4) looking at some of the exhibits of new equipment from Natick Labs and the Soldier Center. There was a mannequin wearing all the at the time "New" MOLLE gear. As Sergeant Major and I were looking at it, the civilian asked us what we thought of this NEW Lightweight Equipment that was able to carry more stuff and .... I asked him if he had ever been an Infantryman, and when he said no, I asked him if he had ever been a Soldier. Again, he answered NO. "Have you worn this gear for an extended period of time to see how it fits, rides wen you carry it on a forced march or anything like that?" Again no. So I looked at him and said, "Sir, it is really pretty gear and I hope it works, but understand that if you put a pouch or pocket someplace that a Sergeant Major with nothing better to do and a Hummer to ride in will figure out SOMETHING to put there to fill it up, likely as not to be something we will NEVER use (Like an Aluminium Mess Kit left over from World War Two that we are still issued and I NEVER used in 24 years in over two decades in the Infantry). Sir Please remember that 75 pounds of Lightweight Equipment is STILL 75 POUNDS when it is on your back." Such is it with Doctrine Vs Experience. Civilian Doctrine Writers make lots of money, but the Soldiers that need to be doing it are looking over their shoulders for the QMP notice.
Too often Doctrine is written by people that have limited or NO real life experience. The US Army hires civilians to write doctrine, and institutional knowledge. This is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. From my time, many of the doctrine writers were Vietnam Veterans with Combat experience, but that experience was dated and for a specific theater and set of parameters. They had the advantage of longevity, but the disadvantage of age, NOT age as in physical age, but rather age as in the age of their experience. That is why we too often as not write doctrine for tomorrow based on combat actions that may be 20 or 30 years old. And we all know that once doctrine is in pace it can be harder to get rid of that than to get rid of an X-Wife. There needs to be a balance, an equal number of CURRENT Warfighters and Civilian writers in EVERY OFFICE. At Fort Benning the support units that wrote training support packages and Infantry doctrine all had a civilian there. These were competent men, but they needed to have a coworker that was still an ACTIVE "Green Suiter" with OPERATIONAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE to add to the mix.
The best example I have of this came from the 2005 Infantry Conference at Fort Benning. SGM (Join to see) and I were walking through Building Snore (Building 4) looking at some of the exhibits of new equipment from Natick Labs and the Soldier Center. There was a mannequin wearing all the at the time "New" MOLLE gear. As Sergeant Major and I were looking at it, the civilian asked us what we thought of this NEW Lightweight Equipment that was able to carry more stuff and .... I asked him if he had ever been an Infantryman, and when he said no, I asked him if he had ever been a Soldier. Again, he answered NO. "Have you worn this gear for an extended period of time to see how it fits, rides wen you carry it on a forced march or anything like that?" Again no. So I looked at him and said, "Sir, it is really pretty gear and I hope it works, but understand that if you put a pouch or pocket someplace that a Sergeant Major with nothing better to do and a Hummer to ride in will figure out SOMETHING to put there to fill it up, likely as not to be something we will NEVER use (Like an Aluminium Mess Kit left over from World War Two that we are still issued and I NEVER used in 24 years in over two decades in the Infantry). Sir Please remember that 75 pounds of Lightweight Equipment is STILL 75 POUNDS when it is on your back." Such is it with Doctrine Vs Experience. Civilian Doctrine Writers make lots of money, but the Soldiers that need to be doing it are looking over their shoulders for the QMP notice.
(7)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
CPT (Join to see) - Ma'am I will take it then that I did NOT see what I saw my last 5 years in the Army at Fort Benning. I hallucinated those meetings where someone from the Military-Industrial Complex was trying to convince civilians that the best way to cover the dismount battle drills for the Bradley and Stryker was an Anti-Personnel Javelin Missile, at $65,000 bucks a pop while those in Green Suits suggested a 7.62mm MINIGUN fired remotely from the Stryker weapons station at .39 cents a round....
Yes, I am sure that those meetings took place, as did the meetings to discuss the re-introduction of heavy machine gun training AFTER Jessica Lynch happened....training that had been cancelled because some person in a suit and tie thought it was extraneous and could be replaced with 8 hours of Consideration of Others Training.
Sorry, I was not sleeping and dreamed it nor was I hallucinating. Doctrine needs to be written by WARFIGHTERS.
Yes, I am sure that those meetings took place, as did the meetings to discuss the re-introduction of heavy machine gun training AFTER Jessica Lynch happened....training that had been cancelled because some person in a suit and tie thought it was extraneous and could be replaced with 8 hours of Consideration of Others Training.
Sorry, I was not sleeping and dreamed it nor was I hallucinating. Doctrine needs to be written by WARFIGHTERS.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - you are confusing army doctrine and army acquisition policies and procedures. They are not the same thing. Not remotely. Colorful examples are getting you lots of pats on the back from others who have also confused the two topics...shrug. That doesn't change the facts. I am not saying you didn't experience what you did, just that none of the stories related to doctrine which was the original topic.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
CPT (Join to see) - No Ma'am, again I am not confusing the two.
Army DOCTRINE was that Heavy Machinegun training was NOT needed but more CO 2 WAS, So M-2 and MK-19 training was eliminated for IET Soldiers UNTIL it became obvious that it had been a bad call.
In the Acquisition of a $65,000 anti-personnel Javelin WOULD BE FOLLOWED by DOCTRINE of how to employ it, written by someone that in too many cases has NEVER been under fire.
Captain, Doctrine is written in all too often instances by someone that has never been in a Green Suit, never been under fire, who has not done the job...Or if they have it was decades ago. My point is to have Green Suit wearing SOLDIERS, Officer and NCO write Doctrine, so we do not have to constantly reinvent the road wheel.
Army DOCTRINE was that Heavy Machinegun training was NOT needed but more CO 2 WAS, So M-2 and MK-19 training was eliminated for IET Soldiers UNTIL it became obvious that it had been a bad call.
In the Acquisition of a $65,000 anti-personnel Javelin WOULD BE FOLLOWED by DOCTRINE of how to employ it, written by someone that in too many cases has NEVER been under fire.
Captain, Doctrine is written in all too often instances by someone that has never been in a Green Suit, never been under fire, who has not done the job...Or if they have it was decades ago. My point is to have Green Suit wearing SOLDIERS, Officer and NCO write Doctrine, so we do not have to constantly reinvent the road wheel.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Roger Ayscue - you aren't using the term properly and clearly don't want to hear that you are wrong. TTPs aren't doctrine. Purchasing is not doctrine. And yes, those fields are in fact dominated by civilians with no military background. If you would let go of the word "doctrine" you'd have a valid observation, but as long as you want to insist you are talking about Army doctrine, you are wrong as I and several other senior officers have taken the time to point out to you.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google