Military doctrine
Part of a series on |
War |
---|
Military doctrine is the expression of how
There are three broad categories of military doctrines: (1) Offensive doctrines aim to disarm an adversary, (2) Defensive doctrines aim to deny an adversary, and (3) Deterrent doctrines aim to punish an adversary. Different military doctrines have different implications for world politics. For example, offensive doctrines tend to lead to arms races and conflicts.[1]
Defining doctrine
NATO's definition of doctrine, used unaltered by many member nations, is:[3]
Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application.
In 1998 the Canadian Army stated:[4]
Military doctrine is a formal expression of military knowledge and thought, that the army accepts as being relevant at a given time, which covers the nature of conflict, the preparation of the army for conflict, and the method of engaging in conflict to achieve success ... it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, requiring judgement in application. It does not establish dogma or provide a checklist of procedures, but is rather an authoritative guide, describing how the army thinks about fighting, not how to fight. As such it attempts to be definitive enough to guide military activity, yet versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations.
A U.S. Air Force Air University staff study in 1948 defined military doctrine functionally as "those concepts, principles, policies, tactics, techniques, practices, and procedures which are essential to efficiency in organizing, training, equipping, and employing its tactical and service units".[5]
A U.S. Army essay written in 2016 similarly defined military doctrine as "consist[ing] of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)".[6]
In 2005
In 1965 the Soviet Dictionary of Basic Military Terms defined military doctrine as "a state's officially accepted system of scientifically founded views on the nature of modern wars and the use of the armed forces in them. ... Military doctrine has two aspects: social-political and military-technical."[8] The social-political side "encompasses all questions concerning methodology, economic, and social bases, the political goals of war. It is the defining and the more stable side." The other side, the military-technical, must accord with the political goals. It includes the "creation of military structure, technical equipping of the armed forces, their training, definition of forms and means of conducting operations and war as a whole".[9]
Development of doctrine
Before the development of separate doctrinal publications, many nations expressed their military philosophy through regulations.
United Kingdom
Field Service Regulations were issued by the War Office in 1909, 1917, 1923, 1930, and 1935. Similar publications under various names were subsequently published. Formal British Military Doctrine was first published in 1988 and in 1996 became British Defence Doctrine applicable throughout the armed forces.
France
The development of military doctrine in France came about in the aftermath of the nation's defeat during the
Prussia and German Empire
Prussian doctrine was published as Regulations for the Instruction of the Troops in Field Service and the Exercises of the larger Units of the 17th June, 1870. The doctrine was revised in 1887 and published in English in 1893 as The Order of Field Service of the German Army, by Karl Kaltenborn und Stachau, and once again in 1908 as Felddienst Ordnung ("Field Service Regulations").
Soviet Union
Soviet doctrine was greatly influenced by
United States
In the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, doctrine was defined by the War Department in "Field Service Regulations". In addition, many officers wrote military manuals that were printed by private publishers, such as Hardee's Tactics, used by both Confederate and Union forces. General George B. McClellan wrote a cavalry manual, Regulations and Instructions for the Field Service of the U.S. Cavalry, in 1862.
The General Staff became responsible for writing Field Service Regulations. They were published in 1908, were revised in 1913 and again in 1914 based on experiences of European powers in the first months of the war.
As late as 1941 U.S. Army doctrine was published in Field Service Regulations – Operations. This designation was dropped and replaced by U.S. Army Field Manuals (FM).
Relationship between doctrine and strategy
Military doctrine is a key component of grand strategy.[1]
NATO's definition of strategy is "presenting the manner in which military power should be developed and applied to achieve national objectives or those of a group of nations."[11] The official definition of strategy by the United States Department of Defense is: "Strategy is a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve national or multinational objectives."[12]
Military strategy provides the rationale for military operations. Field Marshal Viscount
Instead, doctrine seeks to provide a common conceptual framework for a military service:
- what the service perceives itself to be ("Who are we?")
- what its mission is ("What do we do?")
- how the mission is to be carried out ("How do we do that?")
- how the mission has been carried out in history ("How did we do that in the past?")
- other questions.[14]
In the same way, doctrine is neither operations nor tactics. It serves as a conceptual framework uniting all three levels of warfare.
Doctrine reflects the judgments of professional military officers, and to a lesser but important extent
Factors to consider include:
- military technology
- national geography
- the capabilities of adversaries
- the capability of one's own organization[16]
Military doctrine by country
China
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2008) |
According to French newspaper Le Monde, the Chinese nuclear doctrine is to maintain a nuclear force allowing it to deter and respond to a nuclear attack. However, new evolutions show that China could allow use of its nuclear arsenal in more situations.[17]
France
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2012) |
Following the defeat of the
We have then, a doctrine. All the brains have been limbered up and regard all questions from an identical point of view. The fundamental idea of the problem being known, each one will solve the problem in his own fashion, and these thousand fashions, we may very well be sure, will act to direct all their efforts to a common objective.[18]
Prior to WWI, France had an offensive military doctrine.[19]
In the aftermath of WWI, France adopted a defensive military doctrine where the Maginot Line played a central role in its deterrence of Germany.[20]
Germany
Prior to WWI, Germany had an offensive military doctrine exemplified by the Schlieffen Plan.[21] Germany also devoted considerable resources to building a fleet of battleships, which provoked fears among European powers.[22] During World War II, Germany deployed an operational strategy sometimes referred to as Blitzkrieg in its offensives against Poland and France.
German military doctrine incorporates the concept of Auftragstaktik (Mission-type tactics), which can be seen as a doctrine within which formal rules can be selectively suspended in order to overcome "friction". Carl von Clausewitz stated that "Everything in war is very simple but the simplest thing is difficult". Problems will occur with misplaced communications, troops going to the wrong location, delays caused by weather, etc., and it is the duty of the commander to do his best to overcome them. Auftragstaktik encourages commanders to exhibit initiative, flexibility and improvisation while in command.[23]
India
The current combat doctrine of the Indian Army is based on the effective combined utilization of holding formations and strike formations. In the case of an attack, the holding formations would contain the enemy and strike formations would counter-attack to neutralize enemy forces. In the case of an Indian attack, the holding formations would pin enemy forces down whilst the strike formations attack at a point of Indian choosing.[24][25]
India's nuclear doctrine follows the policy of credible minimum
India has recently adopted a new war doctrine known as "Cold Start" and its military has conducted exercises several times since then based on this doctrine. "Cold Start" involves joint operations between India's three services and integrated battle groups for offensive operations. A key component is the preparation of India's forces to be able to quickly mobilize and take offensive actions without crossing the enemy's nuclear-use threshold. A leaked US diplomatic cable disclosed that it was intended to be taken off the shelf and implemented within a 72-hour period during a crisis.
Israel
Strategic doctrine
Israel's military doctrine is formed by its small size and lack of
Israel's emphasis on operational offense was espoused by its first prime minister,
If [the Arabs] attack us as they did this time, we shall transfer the war to the gates of their country. ... We do not intend to conduct ... a static defensive war at the venue where we were attacked. If they attack us again, in the future, we want the war to be waged not in our country, but in the enemy's country, and we want to be not on the defensive but on the attack.[30]
The basic philosophy of Israel was not to initiate war, unless an act of war was carried out against us. We then lived within the lines prior to the Six-Day War, lines that gave no depth to Israel—and therefore, Israel was in a need, whenever there would be a war, to go immediately on the offensive—to carry the war to the enemy's land.[31]
Tactical doctrine
IDF command has been decentralized since the early days of the state, with junior commanders receiving broad authority within the context of mission-type orders.[32] Israeli junior officer training has emphasized the need to make quick decisions in battle to prepare them appropriately for maneuver warfare.[33]
Russia and the Soviet Union
The Soviet meaning of military doctrine was very different from U.S. military usage of the term. Soviet Minister of Defence Marshal Andrei Grechko defined it in 1975 as "a system of views on the nature of war and methods of waging it, and on the preparation of the country and army for war, officially adopted in a given state and its armed forces".[citation needed]
In Soviet times, theorists emphasised both the political and "military-technical" sides of military doctrine, while from the Soviet point of view, Westerners ignored the political side. However, the political side of Soviet military doctrine, Western commentators Harriet F Scott and William Scott said, "best explained Soviet moves in the international arena".[34]
Soviet (and contemporary Russian) doctrine emphasizes
Former Soviet/Russian doctrine sacrifices tactical flexibility and adaptability for strategic and operational flexibility and adaptability; tactical personnel are trained as relatively inflexible executors of specific, detailed orders, while the operational-strategic level of Russian military doctrine is where most innovation takes place.[citation needed]
The Soviet response to problems of nuclear strategy began with classified publications. However, by 1962, with the publication in the Marshal of the Soviet Union Vasily Sokolovsky's volume, Military Strategy, the Soviets laid out their officially endorsed thoughts on the matter, and their ideas on how to cope with nuclear conflict.[vague]
Sweden
In the 2000s and early 2010s, the
The
United Kingdom
For some 280 years the British Army did not have a formal 'Military Doctrine', although a huge number of publications dealing with tactics, operations and administration had been produced. However, during his tenure as Chief of the General Staff (1985–89) General Sir Nigel Bagnall directed that British Military Doctrine was to be prepared, and tasked Colonel (later General) Timothy Granville-Chapman (an artillery officer who had been his Military Assistant in Headquarters 1st British Corps) to prepare it. The first edition of British Military Doctrine (BMD) was published in 1988. It led to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force developing their own maritime and air-power doctrines. However, in 1996 the first edition of British Defence Doctrine (BDD) was published, drawing heavily on the BMD. The Army adopted BDD as their Military Doctrine. The fourth edition of BDD was published in 2011; it uses the NATO definition of doctrine.
NATO underpins the defence of the UK and its Allies, while also providing deployable expeditionary capabilities to support and defend UK interests further afield. However, until recently, most NATO doctrine has been mirrored by equivalent, but different, national Joint Doctrines. This has often caused a dilemma for UK Armed Forces committed to operations as part of a NATO-based coalition.
In 2012, the Chief of Defence Staff and Permanent Undersecretary for Defence issued direction on how the UK contribution to NATO could be improved, stating that 'We should use NATO doctrine wherever we can, and ensure coherence of UK doctrine with NATO wherever we cannot.'
The 2014 edition of Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 0-01 UK Defence Doctrine reflects this change in policy.
However, the British Army had formal publications for a long time, and these amounted to its doctrine. Field Service Regulations (FSR), on the Prussian pattern, were published in 1906 and with amendments and replacement editions lasted into the Second World War. They required each arm and service to produce their own specific publications to give effect to FSR. After the Second World War FSR were replaced by various series of manuals, again with specific training pamphlets for each arm and service. These deal with operational and tactical matters.
The current capstone publication for the army is Army Doctrine Publication Operations alongside maritime and air-power equivalents and joint warfare publications all under the umbrella of BDD. The four layers constituting "land doctrine" are summarised as:
- British Defence Doctrine – provides philosophy
- Joint (and Allied) Operational Doctrine and Capstone Environmental Doctrine (JDP 01 Joint Operations Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine AJP-01 Allied Joint Operations Archived 2011-08-15 at the Wayback Machine ADP Operations – provides principles
- Joint Functional and Thematic Doctrine such as JDP 5-00 Campaign Planning and JDP 3-40 Security and Stabalisation provide doctrine on specific areas or themes. JDP 5-00([2] Archived 2011-04-14 at the Wayback Machine) JDP 3-40([3] Archived 2011-05-16 at the Wayback Machine)
- Army Field Manual (two volumes) – provides practices
- Land component handbooks and special to arm publications – provide procedures
The Army Field Manual comprises Volumes 1 (Combined Arms Operations) in 12 parts led by "Formation Tactics" and "Battlegroup Tactics", and Volume 2 (Operations in Specific Environments) in 6 parts (desert, urban, etc.).
BDD is divided into two parts: "Defence Context" and "Military Doctrine". Defence Context deals with two matters. First, the relationship between Defence policy and military strategy, and—while highlighting the utility of force – emphasizes the importance of addressing security issues through a comprehensive, rather than an exclusively military, approach. Second it expounds the Nature of and the
The Military Doctrine states that it comprises national Joint Doctrine, Higher Level Environmental Doctrine, Tactical Doctrine, Allied Doctrine and doctrine adopted or adapted from ad hoc coalition partners. The part deals with three matters. First it describes the likely employment of the British Armed Forces in pursuit of Defence policy aims and objectives. Next it explains the three components of fighting power (conceptual, physical and moral components) and the criticality of the operating context to its effective application. Finally it describes the British approach to the conduct of military operations—"the British way of war". This includes mission command, the manoeuvrist approach and a warfighting ethos that requires accepting risks.
The BDD is linked to a variety of unclassified policy documents such as Defence White Papers and Strategic Defence Reviews, as well as classified Strategic Planning Guidance. The current, 2011, edition of BDD is underpinned by recent developmental and conceptual publications such as The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007–2036 and The High Level Operational Conceptual Framework, which comprises specific army, navy and air force publications.[36]
United States
Sources
The
Key concepts
Most modern US doctrine is based around the concept of
Offensive operations defeat and destroy enemy forces, and seize terrain, resources, and population centers. They impose the commander's will on the enemy. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations.
Stability operations encompass various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted abroad to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. Civil support operations are support tasks and missions to homeland civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities. This includes operations dealing with the consequences of natural or manmade disasters, accidents, and incidents within the homeland.
Under President
This doctrine remained in place until 1989–90, when President George H. W. Bush ordered the "Base Force" study which forecast a substantial cut in the military budget, an end to the Soviet Union's global threat, and the possible beginning of new regional threats. In 1993, President Bill Clinton ordered a "Bottom-Up Review", based on which a strategy called "win-hold-win" was declared—enough forces to win one war while holding off the enemy in another conflict, then moving on to win it after the first war is over. The final draft was changed to read that the United States must be able to win two "major regional conflicts" simultaneously.
The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".
The general policy objectives are to (1) assure allies and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary.
United States Department of Defense
The Department of Defense publishes Joint Publications which state all-services doctrine. The current basic doctrinal publication is Joint Publication 3-0, "Doctrine for Joint Operations".
United States Air Force
Headquarters,
United States Army
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is responsible for developing Army doctrine. TRADOC was developed early in the 1970s as a response to the American Army's difficulties in the Vietnam War, and is one of the reforms that improved Army professionalism. Currently the capstone Army doctrinal document is Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations (published October 2011).
The Naval Warfare Development Command (NWDC) Doctrine Department coordinates development, publication, and maintenance of United States Navy doctrine. Currently the basic unclassified naval doctrinal documents are Naval Doctrine Publications 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. NWDC is also the United States Navy lead for NATO and multinational maritime doctrine and operational standardization.
United States Marine Corps
The Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) has responsibility for United States Marine Corps doctrine. The capstone doctrinal document is Warfighting (MCDP1),[37] along with MCDP's 1-1, 1–2, and 1–3 (Strategy, Campaigning, and Tactics, respectively). MCDP 1-0 (Marine Corps Operations) translates the philosophical-based capstone/keystone publications into operational doctrine.[38]
United States Coast Guard
Headquarters, United States Coast Guard, published Coast Guard Publication 1, U.S. Coast Guard: America's Maritime Guardian, which is the source of USCG doctrine.
SFR Yugoslavia
With the passing of the National Defense Law of 1969,
Starting from the
The most likely scenario in the doctrine being used was a general war between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In such a situation, Yugoslavia would remain non-aligned, and it would not accept foreign troops of either alliance on its territory. The doctrine recognized the likelihood that one side or the other might try to seize Yugoslav territory as a forward staging area, to ensure lines of communication or simply to deny the territory to enemy forces. Such action would be considered aggression and would be resisted. Regardless of ideology, the occupiers would be considered Yugoslavia's enemy.
Territorial Defense Forces
The
The TO concept focused on small, lightly armed
The TO was helped by the fact that most of its citizen-
The TO organisation was highly decentralized and independent. TO units were organized and funded by the governments in each of the Yugoslav constituent republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.
See also
- Strategy
- Grand strategy
- Naval strategy
- Operational level of war
- Military strategy
- Principles of war
- Military tactics
- Foreign policy doctrine
- Military science
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0-8014-1633-0.
- ^ NATO, Allied Joint Doctrine, Allied Joint Publication (AJP)-01(D), Preface, published December 2010, archived 15 August 2022, accessed 2 January 2022
- ^ NSA 2013, p. 83.
- ^ Canada Department of National Defence. The Conduct of Land Operations B-GL-300-001/FP-000, 1998: iv–v.
- ^ Evaluation Division, Air University. "To Analyze the USAF Publications System for Producing Manuals", staff study, 13 July 1948, quoted in Futrell, Robert Frank. Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force, 1907–1960. December 1989, Air University Press
- )
- ^ Gary Sheffield, 'Doctrine & Command in the British Army, A Historical Overview', Army Doctrine Publication Land Operations, DGD&D, British Army, May 2005, p. 165
- ^ Moscow: Voenizdat, 1965, quoted in Odom, 1988
- ^ M. V. Frunze", Krasnaya Zvezda(Red Star), November 4, 1984, quoted in Odom, 1988
- ^ Jacobs, Walter Darnell (2012). Frunze: The Soviet Clausewitz 1885–1925. Springer Science & Business Media.
- ^ NSA 2013, p. 136.
- ^ United States Southern Command Command Strategy 2016. www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/files/0UI0I1177092386.pdf, accessed 1-29-2008
- ^ British Defence Doctrine, Edition 3, 2008
- ^ Grint and Jackson, 'Toward "Socially Constructive" Social Constructions of Leadership', Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010.
- ISBN 9780801453793.
- ISBN 0-8014-9427-3, p. 13
- ^ "Les Etats-Unis inquiets du développement de la capacité nucléaire chinoise." Le Monde, 25 May 2007 [1]
- ISBN 1-4289-9319-3
- S2CID 153783717.
- JSTOR 2539120.
- S2CID 153783717.
- ISSN 0963-6412.
- ^ Martin Samuels, "Erwin Rommel and German Military Doctrine, 1912-1940," War in History (2017) 24#3:308-35.
- ^ Cold Start Doctrine. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved on 2013-07-21.
- ^ "Indian Army/ भारतीय थलसेना Bharatiya Thalsena". Archived from the original on 2 January 2012.
- ^ India's Nuclear Doctrine and Policy. Idsa-india.org. Retrieved on 2013-07-21.
- ^ "Strategic Doctrine – Israel". Federation of American Scientists. 25 May 2000. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
- ^ ISBN 9780965856461. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
- ISBN 9780810865006. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
- ^ Quoted in Sadeh, p. 53.
- ^ "Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin Interview with Bill Boggs". YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-11. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
- ^ Sadeh, p. 55.
- ^ William S. Lind (1985). Maneuver Warfare Handbook. Westview Special Studies in Military Affairs (Kindle ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.. Location 1044.
- ^ Scott and Scott, 1979, pp. 37, 59
- ^ a b Rolander, Nicolas (6 March 2014). "Sweden Mulls "Doctrine Shift" in Defense After Russian Incursion in Ukraine". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 8 March 2014.
- ^ "UK Defence Doctrine (JDP 0-01)". www.gov.uk. 19 December 2014.
- ^ "Warfighting" (PDF). U.S. Marine Corps. 20 June 1997. MCDP1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 November 2013.
- ^ "LibApps Login @ Library of the Marine Corps". guides.grc.usmcu.edu. Archived from the original on 2 November 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
Bibliography
- Chapman, Bert (2009), Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9780313352331, retrieved 2021-04-16
- Austin Long. The Soul of Armies: Counterinsurgency Doctrine and Military Culture in the US and UK. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 2016.
- NSA, (NATO STANDARDIZATION AGENCY) (2013), AAP-6(V) NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-07-18, retrieved 2021-04-16
- Christopher P. Twomey. The Military Lens: Doctrinal Difference and Deterrence Failure in Sino-American Relations. Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press, 2010.
- History
- Robert M. Cassidy. Peacekeeping in the Abyss: British and American Peacekeeping Doctrine and Practice after the Cold War. Westport, CT–London: Praeger, 2004.
- Aaron P. Jackson. The Roots of Military Doctrine: Change and Continuity in Understanding the Practice of Warfare. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2013.
- Elizabeth Kier. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998 (reprint 2017).
- Matthias Strohn. The German Army and the Defence of the Reich: Military Doctrine and the Conduct of the Defensive Battle 1918-1939, 2nd revised edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
- Soviet
- Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, eds. Soviet Military Doctrine from Lenin to Gorbachev, 1915-1991. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992.
- Raymond L. Garthoff. Deterrence and the Revolution in Soviet Military Doctrine. Brookings Institution Press, 1990.
- JSTOR 20043776.
- Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott. The Armed Forces of the USSR. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1979.
- Harriet Fast Scott and William F. Scott. Soviet Military Doctrine: Continuity, Formulation, and Dissemination. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1989.
External links
- Joint Electronic Library
- UK Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre
- Navy Warfare Development Command (NWDC)
- Military Analysis Network
- Air War College accessed September 27, 2006 – literally thousands of online texts and links to off-site sources
- Quadrennial Defense Review Report. September 30, 2001 Archived December 25, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
- US Military Doctrine since the Cold War accessed June 24, 2009
- Fred Kaplan "The Doctrine Gap. Reality vs. the Pentagon's new strategy."
- Pentagon Rethinking Old Doctrine on 2 Wars- The New York Times, March 14, 2009.
- Joint Doctrine Ontology: A Benchmark for Military Information Systems Interoperability, Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense and Security, 2015