Some Doctrinal Questions for the United States Army

Abstract

In a US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC) Historical Monograph Series publication titled From Active Defense to AirLand Battle: The Development of Army Doctrine 1973-1982 (June 1984), author L. Romjue describes William S. Lind, then a legislative aide to Senator Gary Hart, as early dissenting voice to the active defense doctrine in the July 1976 US Army Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations. Lind's article below was received by Military Review on 7 July 1976. In October 1976, Armed Forces Journal ran an article by a John Patrick titled Banned At Fort Monroe, Or The Article The Army Doesn't Want You To Read along with a nonattributed response by TRADOC. Patrick's article took TRADOC to task concerning alleged attempts to suppress Lind's article. The published TRADOC response notes that: 19 July, a member of the staff and faculty, USACGSC [US Army Command and General Staff College], discussed publication of Lind's article in Military Review with TRADOC Commander General William E. DePuy. General DePuy's guidance was that it would not serve any useful purpose to have the article published in the Military Review in advance of the FM's distribution to the field. Military Review records show that Lind was sent a check for $50 in December 1976, a practice common at the time, and the article was printed in the March 1977 edition. General Donn A. Starry, generally considered the father of AirLand Battle would not assume command of TRADOC until July 1977, and the new FM 100-5 espousing AirLand Battle would not be issued until August 1982. Although Lind's criticisms were largely discounted by Romjue in his monograph, most, if not all, were addressed and rectified by the revised FM 100-5 of 1982. Author's Foreword Following my briefing by General DePuy on February 11, 1976, I wrote Some Doctrinal Questions for the United States Army and sent it to TRADOC for response. I received no response from them, so submitted the piece to the Marine Corps Gazette, which accepted it for publication. Then, in the early summer of 1976, Military Review telephoned me and said that they would like to publish the article. I explained that it had already been accepted by the Gazette. They argued strongly that they should be allowed to publish it, as it was a critique of Army doctrine. After some discussion, I agreed to see if I could withdraw it from the Gazette, on the condition that Military Review would guarantee me that they would print it. They gave me that guarantee, and the editor of the Gazette graciously allowed me to withdraw the piece from his journal. Shortly thereafter, I received from Military Review a check for the article, plus a letter stating that they now had the rights to it but that they would not publish it. I returned the check to them with a letter stating that I would not sell them the rights. In the fall of 1976, I wrote an article under a pseudonym for Armed Forces Journal with the title (if l remember it correctly) Banned at Fort Monroe, Or The Article The Army Doesn't Want You To Read. In TRADOC's response they admitted to suppressing my critique of their new Field Manual If I recall rightly, one of the reasons they gave was that it would cause confusion in the Army. Eventually, toward the end of 1976, Military Review again approached me with a request to publish the article. This time, with their check they sent a letter promising that it would be published. I accepted their offer, and the piece appeared in the March 1977 issue.-William S. Lind THE US ARMY currently is engaged in revising many aspects of its doctrine. These revisions reflect major changes in perceptions both of the threat and of army capabilities. The revisions are important because doctrine itself is important. On 1 July 1976, the Army issued a new version of Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations. Because this manual sets forth the basic concepts of US Army doctrine, it deserves close attention. …