Fixing Army Doctrine: A Network Approach

If we wanted to fix doctrine, you have to pick a force structure and stick with it

Ok, the network diagram is neat. This would be good for the branch proponents of the individual manuals to ensure it is adequately staffed and cross referenced.

I have to call BS on people not knowing doctrine. Never, in any other time, have we direct access to pubs. Google and a CAC! That’s all you need. When I was a LT, having a hard copy of your own manual was a big deal. you had to seek out and find others that had other manuals you needed. It took effort to learn on your own.

You don’t have to read them all. Depending on branch, you likely have about a dozen you need to be conversant in. If you have a specific mission, then you read up on it.

The old numbering system was better. The new pubs hierarchy makes it harder than it has to be.

Obsolete manuals are largely a side effect of the continuous force structure change since before 9/11. The doctrine makes sense if you knew which force structure it went to, then you could interpolate between old and new to get the job done. For a while, the Army did not have a urban ops manual. I used a bootleg MOUT manual to train with. Old pubs aren’t a problem if you know what you are looking at. Better than doing it from scratch. Further, reviewing pubs for publication is painstaking. All corners of tradoc, forscom, and cocoms get pulled in. I was in a METL review for Sustainment Brigades for about 6 months, no kidding. It is a huge investment and not just the guys at the school house.

The modular force really dumped the apple cart on pubs.

Thanks for sharing