Where do you draw the line between doctrine vs. real-life experience? How do you integrate the two?

2016-07-16T21:55:13-04:00

Where do YOU draw the lie and how do you integrate the two? Examples are encouraged.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:00 PM

2016-07-16T22:00:09-04:00

Please explain about "where do YOU draw the lie"? I don't understand the question Sir.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:01 PM

2016-07-16T22:01:37-04:00

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.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:09 PM

2016-07-16T22:09:41-04:00

Edit: "draw the line" not lie.

In other words, where do you tend to lean and in what situations?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:30 PM

2016-07-16T22:30:55-04:00

There are no lines only the environment. Ex: If you understand movement and maneuver or sustainment doctrinally then you will apply it differently to the situation or environment that you are training in or are fighting in. SSG Foster correctly asserts that doctrine serves as our baseline of understanding. Next, the environment in which your unit is in while require you to adapt and that is where TTP and lessons learned come into play.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2016 10:51 PM

2016-07-16T22:51:25-04:00

Back when 3-21.8 was still an FM, it had a V shaped ambush. Now while it did mention you need wire tight direct fire control measures, I'm going to draw the line and not do a V shaped ambush.

Response by 1SG Cameron M. Wesson made Jul 16 at 2016 11:10 PM

2016-07-16T23:10:29-04:00

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member Ok.... as a force developer... doctrine is what drives the remainder of the DOTMLPF-P (look it up).... the Lessons Learned.... those real life experiences... help refine... and redefine... doctrine. So its not a "line that gets drawn"... its a cyclic process that also that results in ATPs and ATTPs... that helps further train and educate the force.

My example of differenceS.... is the emplacement of the claymore per 21-2 and the assoc T/C/S.... and having placed them in actual ambush.... you do not test the claymore in the ambush position... you test them before you ever leave the PB or AA.

Hope it helps

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 16 at 2016 11:27 PM

2016-07-16T23:27:42-04:00

Considering your situation, my first question is - Do you have a reading list? If not develop one. My first recommendations would be to acquire the Tom Clancy guided tour series: Airborne, Armored Cav, Marine, Fighter Wing, Submarine, Carrier, and Special Forces and then Tom Clancy's command study series: Into the Storm, Battle Ready, Every Man a Tiger, and Shadow Warrior's and last his war gaming book - SSN Strategies of Submarine Warfare. To round things out, I would then suggest that you read and study "The Canal Builders" by Julie Greene and "The Path Between the Seas" by David McCullough, you might be surprised at what you could learn from these last two. Then I would look for a good book on military logistics and a book on supply and demand logistics as conducted by UPS and FedEx.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 17 at 2016 1:21 AM

2016-07-17T01:21:45-04:00

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 Private RallyPoint Member 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.

Response by COL Johnny Powers made Jul 17 at 2016 1:50 AM

2016-07-17T01:50:58-04:00

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.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Jul 17 at 2016 2:59 AM

2016-07-17T02:59:55-04:00

Four observations:
1. Doctrine isn't just "made up" by dreamers. It comes from groups of SMEs including combat vets, Lessons Learned, and then it's signed by generals only after senior commanders staff it out. Lots of real world experience goes into it.
2. Very often, SM who have been in a couple of branches in a couple of wars in a couple of hemispheres become senior people and think the doctrine is wrong, when really they don't have enough perspective to understand that the doctrine has more experience and a bigger world view than they have.
3. Doctrine is meant to be implemented with personal judgment. To put it crassly, "Rules are for people who don't know what they're doing.
4. Very often, when I went against the rules, years later I found out--or figured out--that the rule was there for a good reason.

You can't integrate your own experience into doctrine unless you really understand the doctrine.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2016 8:24 AM

2016-07-17T08:24:15-04:00

Doctrine for me has always been the starting point. It is a base to build from. For example, I was an infantry squad leader prior to commissioning. In ATP 3-21.8 there is doctrine for battle drill 6. For the most part it works. However, experience on the battle field has shown that in some ways we needed to adapt in order to be more successful. Instead of ignoring doctrine, I use what works, then tweak and add what enhances it. I cannot think of a time I found doctrine to be completely useless, but I have little experience outside of being a battalion planner, PL, and squad leader. Perhaps other echelons have run into this issue more than I and can comment on it.

Response by CSM William Payne made Jul 17 at 2016 8:53 AM

2016-07-17T08:53:15-04:00

When I was a command sergeant major at the command level of the Army Reserve I served on the Army Reserve CSM Board of Directors (BOD) and also had input into policy decisions through the SMA to the Army Chief of Staff. I was also called to Fort Myers to participate on panels developing drafts to replace outdated and obsolete Army Doctrine, Policies and Regulations. These drafts would go through several iterations before being approved by the Chief of Staff. FM-7 Training for Full Spectrum Training, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, AR 670-9 updates are a few examples of panels that I participated in.

And these panels were not just comprised of senior staff officers and sergeants major long removed from line units providing this input. These panels included Soldiers of all ranks and disciplines. If you ever wondered what some of the responsibilities of those winners of Army "Best of" competitions, include this on that list. Best Warrior, Drill Sergeants of the Year, Instructors of the Year, Recruiters of the Year winners are regular participants on these panels. Other high speed Soldiers selected from line units are also brought in for input. Including SMEs on the subject being addressed is always an integral part of developing new policy.

The battlefield is a constantly changing environment. Lessons learned from the front are the driving force for Doctrine Change. A major issue for changing doctrine is the flash to bang time it takes to develop, approve, update and implement new changes to the field. But that process is evolving also. That's one of the reasons that you don't see as many paper manuals being distributed any more. By the time you go through the expense to print and distribute new manuals, they may already be outdated.

So the thought process that all Army Doctrine is written by strictly by civilian PH.Ds with no military experience in a vacuum in some back room of the Pentagon is ludicrous.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 17 at 2016 6:29 PM

2016-07-17T18:29:09-04:00

There's several lines we're dealing with. Doctrine at the top talks about orientation, focus, and goals (hate the last word). Training gives you skills to perform the inherent tasks to accomplish the doctrinal stuff. Real life experience (includes mentoring) gives you a better grip on what skills are applied when, where how much, with who, etc. One of the most important skills is knowing when to do nothing. Lack of that skill creates Crusader Rabbits. They bog the organization down with unnecessary churn.

BTW, the most evil word you see in this stuff is "goals". The second most evil word relates to what we do and that is "try". Both are weak when it comes to "This will be the outcome next Tuesday, no excuses." I always made sure my Command was given achievable outcomes and the resources to do it. None of this PC "unfunded mandate" crap. Do things that create the outcome. Trying is not a strategy. You can't point back to goals; only outcomes.

Response by SSG Thomas Gallegos made Jul 17 at 2016 8:32 PM

2016-07-17T20:32:04-04:00

Follow Doctrine, unit SOP. Don't hesitate to lean on your Plt. Sgts. In today's Army you have many younger Joes that have real world experience. Don't over think things.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 11:33 AM

2016-07-18T11:33:23-04:00

Doctrine is the basics, versus real life experience is developed base off of current lesson learned which is more in depth My opinion..

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 5:39 PM

2016-07-18T17:39:33-04:00

Follow doctrine up to that point where it prevents you from meeting the commander's intent and completing your mission. At that point, adapt.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2016 10:11 PM

2016-07-18T22:11:00-04:00

We learn through training, experience, and education. It's a continuous process in which one area complements the other, so there's no line per se. Example: My former BDE CDR wrote the current battle drill six based off of his experience in Somalia (Battle of Mogadishu) as a company CDR. Integration: The battle drill used from ARTEP 7-8 wasn't suitable for conditions in Somalia. Using the ARTEP as the fundamental basis for entering and clearing a room, he was able to modify the battle drill based on the OE.

You stated you were warned that doctrine will not fit most situations. Yes, doctrine is "a way' and not "the way". You will use your judgment, training, and education when you lack the experience. You will be charged with making decisions in unanticipated situations. The mission command philosophy allows you to exercise discipline initiative when existing orders no longer fit the situation. In the aforementioned example, the company CDR applied judgment and took actions he felt was best suited to accomplish the mission.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-07-19T09:32:31-04:00

There is no line. Doctrine is how we do things under assumed/hypothetical circumstances. It serves as the basis to train, equip and array the force. As soon as we're on mission, we are adapting to the situation and threat, using our capabilities to meet the commander's intent.

Successful operations require adaptive, flexible, problem solving leaders to do what is necessary to meet the commander's intent. In other words, leaders who figure out what works.

Leaders need to understand not only what doctrine says, but why it is as it is, which is why knowing the history is so important.

Response by LtCol Mac McCarty made Jul 19 at 2016 9:37 AM

2016-07-19T09:37:31-04:00

Doctrine is (generally) written by the survivors. "In this situation, we did thus and so and it worked." You then teach doctrine, but throw in the need to analyze each situation for itself. In booby-trap country, walk to the left of a tree may be the doctrinal answer--the one that usually woks, but remember to look for trip wires and go the other way if you see one!

Response by COL David W. Spence made Jul 19 at 2016 9:47 AM

2016-07-19T09:47:16-04:00

In armor officer terms...doctrine is the school solution (i.e., proven principles, strategies) of 'how to fight'; whereas real-life experience comes by doing what you've got to do to win. They're not always the same. You've got to be smart enough and flexible enough to bend if necessary and do what is required to keep your troopers alive and complete your mission. One might look at doctrine as a blueprint and at real-life experience as an engineering change order (ECO)...a modification...to improve your odds in favor of achieving a desired result or outcome (end state).

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2016 10:26 AM

2016-07-19T10:26:33-04:00

doctine is mean to have everyone speak the same language and have a common frame of reference. We miss use doctrine and confuse it with TTP's or regulation. You don't get convicted under the UCMJ for not following doctrine. With that being said, it is important to know when you are deviating from doctrine or not because everyone is working off the same lexicon based on Doctrine.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2016 1:13 PM

2016-07-19T13:13:19-04:00

As the NCOIC of Phase 1 of the SF Qualification Coursein 2014, I, with the help of my team, Co and Bn leadership, and SWCS Doctrine division, rewrote a large portion of our POI. These great men had served in a multitude of positions under several different commands. I thought it was vital to hear what everyone had to say and to ensure no opinion was dismissed. We had a ton of experience and buckets of opinion, but in the end we were able to apply logic and come up with a viable and relevant POI that would cover the areas necessary for advancing to phase 2 and set the students up for long term success. I guess time will tell whether we made the right changes. I guess the bottom line is, you need a liberal application of common sense when balancing doctrine and experience.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jul 19 at 2016 7:05 PM

2016-07-19T19:05:29-04:00

Reality has a way of drawing that line. Up to you to figure out what reality is.

Response by CPT Ken Shelton made Jul 20 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-07-20T11:32:01-04:00

I was a lieutenant on active duty in 75-78 and reserves until 84. Doctrine is always first until it involves keeping soldiers alive. Then whatever it takes to keep my platoon alive is what I am going to do.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jul 23 at 2016 1:03 PM

2016-07-23T13:03:15-04:00

LT Everett... To answer your question effectively, you should study the unpublished works of COL John Boyd, the maverick fighter pilot whose theorems on dogfighting tactics led the F-15, the F-16, the F/A-18, the A-10, and a revolution in USMC doctrine. (YouTube has some super videos of Boyd's presentations). But in a nutshell, never accept "Doctrine" at face value...challenge all assumptions.

LT, ALL warfare is ADAPTATION. There are two forms of adaptation: Anticipation, and Improvisation. Anticipation is the ability to imagine what the enemy is capable of and what he will do and then forming a response BEFORE you engage him -- this is why good planning is important (and don't confuse good planning with the MDMP). Improvisation is how you react when your "doctrine" and your plans fall apart on initial contact with the enemy. There are no cook book/school house solutions to any given tactical challenge because warfare is too interactively complex to be reduced to such...the enemy will not conveniently roll over and follow your recipe when victory and/or death are in play.

It is OK to have doctrine, but the day you set it to paper, it becomes dogma -- and it stifles adaptation if one is not careful. The proponents of doctrine as dogma will often use the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) -- do NOT fall for it!

In order to successfully adapt, you must have plenty of tools in your tool kit. ALL Doctrine is based on the "real-life" experiences gained in past conflict...and this is a two-edged sword...what worked in the past conflict will not always apply in the present situation. However, it may provide a point of departure for you to successfully adapt.

Boyd provides an example of this in his famous "Snowmobile Exercise" (Google it). Boyd would ask his audience to join him on a mental exercise: “Imagine that you are in Florida riding in an outboard motor boat, maybe even towing water skiers. Imagine that you are riding a bicycle on a nice spring day. Imagine that you are a parent taking your son to a department store and that you notice he is fascinated by the toy tractors or tanks with rubber caterpillar treads.

Now imagine that you pull the skies off but you are still on the ski slope. Imagine also that you remove the outboard motor from the motor boat, and you are no longer in Florida. And from the bicycle you remove the handlebar and discard the rest of the bike. Finally, you take off the rubber treads from the toy tractor or tanks; this leaves only the following separate pieces: skis, outboard motor, handle bars and rubber treads.

He then asks; what emerges when you pull all this together? SNOWMOBILE

The message is obvious; to discern what is happening, we must interact in a variety of ways with our environment. We must be able to look at the world from numerous perspectives so that we can generate mental images or impressions (orientation) that correspond with, “what’s happening now?”

The second step of Boyd's OODA Loop -- Orientation -- involves using your mental intuition to gauge the situation through the mental, spiritual, emotional, and cultural filters you were raised with to arrive at an appropriate solution to the problem at hand. If your filters are narrow, then your solutions will prove narrow -- and predictable. In order for you to successfully build a proverbial "snowmobile" you have to equip your mind with the necessary prototypes from which to clip out parts of other "real-life" experiences that do not fit your current situation and then synthesize them into a plan -- your own snowmobile -- to get you out of the jam you presently find yourself in.

This means you should study your own doctrine, other people's doctrine and -- most importantly -- history. That means do not rely strictly on what you were taught at the Army schoolhouse. You have to start reading on your own. And don't just read... STUDY what you read. Make index notes in the margins and write down what you think about what you are reading on the blank pages in the front and back of the book (with page references). Connect those notes with other notes in other books you've read.

As you continue in your career, you teach your junior leaders and Soldiers to do the same... and them have the faith to allow them to make their own "snowmobiles."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 11:59 PM

2016-07-31T23:59:29-04:00

use doctrine to teach and train the fundamentals and use real world experience and lessons learned to develop your TACSOP and TTPs