1991Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Requires access

The Evolution of U.S. Army Doctrine: from Active Defense to Airland Battle and Beyond

Jeffrey W. Long

Open publisher page 24 citations

Abstract

This study explains the recent evolution of U.S. Army doctrine. During the last two decades, the Army revised its capstone manual--FM 100-5, Operations--three times: in 1976, 1982, and 1986. A fourth revision is underway in 1991. This thesis chronicles the change in doctrine by analyzing the differences between the four versions of FM 100-5. It then employs five external factors (the change in technology, strategy, threat, domestic political context, and resource base) and four internal factors (the Army's organizational interests, the process of doctrine development, the bureaucratic politics within the Army, and the cognitive psychology of the Army's leaders) to explain the recent change in doctrine. The thesis concludes that in 1976 constraining external factors forced the Army to adopt a doctrine that was at odds with its internal needs. The early Reagan years, in contrast, permitted a return to a doctrine that better served the Army's interests. Though environmental changes call that doctrine into question in the nineties, the Army resists significant changes to a doctrine that satisfies its internal needs. The U.S. Army's current doctrine addresses organizational preferences better than operational requirements.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study explains the recent evolution of U.S. Army doctrine. During the last two decades, the Army revised its capstone manual--FM 100-5, Operations--three times: in 1976, 1982, and 1986. A fourth revision is underway in 1991. This thesis chronicles the change in doctrine by analyzing the differences between the four versions of FM 100-5. It then employs five external factors (the change in technology, strategy, threat, domestic political context, and resource base) and four internal factors (the Army's organizational interests, the process of doctrine development, the bureaucratic politics within the Army, and the cognitive psychology of the Army's leaders) to explain the recent change in doctrine. The thesis concludes that in 1976 constraining external factors forced the Army to adopt a doctrine that was at odds with its internal needs. The early Reagan years, in contrast, permitted a return to a doctrine that better served the Army's interests. Though environmental changes call that doctrine into question in the nineties, the Army resists significant changes to a doctrine that satisfies its internal needs. The U.S. Army's current doctrine addresses organizational preferences better than operational requirements.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study explains the recent evolution of U.S. Army doctrine. During the last two decades, the Army revised its capstone manual--FM 100-5, Operations--three times: in 1976, 1982, and 1986. A fourth revision is underway in 1991. This thesis chronicles the change in doctrine by analyzing the differences between the four versions of FM 100-5. It then employs five external factors (the change in technology, strategy, threat, domestic political context, and resource base) and four internal factors (the Army's organizational interests, the process of doctrine development, the bureaucratic politics within the Army, and the cognitive psychology of the Army's leaders) to explain the recent change in doctrine. The thesis concludes that in 1976 constraining external factors forced the Army to adopt a doctrine that was at odds with its internal needs. The early Reagan years, in contrast, permitted a return to a doctrine that better served the Army's interests. Though environmental changes call that doctrine into question in the nineties, the Army resists significant changes to a doctrine that satisfies its internal needs. The U.S. Army's current doctrine addresses organizational preferences better than operational requirements.

Key concepts: Doctrine, Military doctrine, Battle, Political science, Politics, Law, Context (archaeology), Management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Evolution of U.S. Army Doctrine: from Active Defense to Airland Battle and Beyond — Research Paper | ScholarLens