INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Uni International 300 N. Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8526183 Herbert, Paul Hardy TOWARD THE BEST AVAILABLE THOUGHT: THE WRITING OF FIELD MANUAL 100-5, "OPERATIONS" BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY, 1973 - 1976 The Ohio State University PH.D. 1985 University Microfilms Internationa!300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Herbert, Paul Hardy All Rights Reserved TOWARD THE BEST AVAILABLE THOUGHT: THE WRITING OF FIELD MANUAL 100-5, OPERATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY, 1973 -1976 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Paul Hardy Herbert, B.S., M.A. **** The Ohio State University 1985 Reading Committee: Approved By Professor Allan R. Millett Professor Williamson R. Murray Professor Alan D. Beyerchen Advisor Department of History Copyright by Paul Hardy Herbert 1985 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I became interested in military history while a cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. Brigadier General (U. S. Army, Retired) Thomas K. Griess and Colonel Roy K. Flint, the former and current Professor of History respectively, selected me to serve on the faculty of the Department of History there. That selection made my graduate schooling possible. Colonel Flint, my other superiors at West Point, and especially my colleagues there encouraged me in my research and provided me the time to complete this work. Of those, I owe special thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Robert A. Doughty, Deputy Head of the Department of History, who encouraged me, loaned me materi­ als from his own research, read and critiqued much of what I have written, and, most important, always made me feel that original research and -writing were just as important as the myriad administrative matters that demanded my attention. The Office of the Dean at the Military Academy and the Association of Graduates funded my research in part. Colonel W. Scott Dillard, Associate Professor of History, read portions of the manuscript. I benefited from the staff and facilities of the USMA Library. To West Point, then, I owe a great deal. I did my graduate work at the Ohio State University begin­ ning in 1980. From the moment of my arrival there, my faculty advisors, Professors Allan R. Millet and Williamson R. Murray, encouraged me to pursue the doctorate. Both provided me with excellent counsel and teaching. Professor Millet suggested that I write about this particular topic and read and critiqued each chapter. I would not have completed this project without the attention and support I received at Ohio State. I was privileged to interview General (U. S. Army, Retired) William E. DePuy, General (U. S. Army, Retired) Paul F. Gorman, and General {U. S. Army, Retired) Donn A. Starry as part of my research. General Gorman was on active duty at the time but sacrificed a lunch hour between appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to see me. Each of these men gave me his time, frank and candid answers to my questions, and sound advice on other sources to investigate. General DePuy read portions of the ii manuscript. Lieutenant General (U. S. Army, Retired) John H. Cushman read portions of the manuscript and loaned me materials. I greatly appreciate their cooperation. Mr. John Romjue, historian for the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia, assisted me in working with the files there and provided me with excellent advice. Dr. Richard J. Sommers at the U. S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, provided me with similar assistance during several trips to Carlisle. The following individuals have helped me by loaning me materials, granting me interviews, or otherwise cooperating with this project: Captain Michael W. Cannon, U. S. Army; Colonel William G. Carter III, U. S. Army; Colonel (U. S. Army, Retired) John C. Gazely; Ms. Lucretia Lee, Army magazine; Colonel William Murry, U. S. Army; Mr. John Ratway, U. S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency; Brigadier General Bobby C. Richardson, U. S. Army; Lieutenant Colonel John P. Rose, U. S. Army; Colonel Samuel Wilder, U. S. Army. Ms. Elizabeth K. Ewanich patiently typed and prepared several drafts and the final manuscript. Finally, my wife Nancy and daughters Ellen Marie and Sally Jean taught me that tributes to families at the end of acknowledgement statements are no mere quaint tradition. Their patience, support, and sacrifice are as much a part of this work as my thoughts and words. Whatever success this work enjoys is a collective achieve­ ment. I owe thanks to all. Since only I put pen to paper, none should share with me responsibility for its short­ comings . iii VITA February 4, 1950 ...................Born - Dubuque, Iowa 1972 .............................. B.S., United States Military Academy, West Point, New York 1982 .............................. M.A. , The Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio 1982 - 1985 ......................Instructor and Assistant Professor of History, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: American Military History European Military History. Professor Williamson R. Murray U. S. Diplomatic History. Professor Marvin R. Zahniser Russian and Soviet History. Professor Allan K. Wildman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................ ii VITA ........................................ iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 II. THE GENERAL AND THE ARMY, 1941-1973..... 18 III. ASSESSING THE OCTOBER WAR, 1973-1975........... 53 IV. HARNESSING TRADOC, 1974 83 V. CONFLICTING IDEAS, 1974-1975 .................. 115 VI. HELP FROM OUTSIDE: THE GERMANS AND THE USAF . 136 VII. TRADOC WRITES THE MANUAL ..................... 173 VIII. TOWARD THE BEST AVAILABLE T H O U G H T .......... 223 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 252 V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 1976, the United States Army published its first post-Vietnam statement of doctrine in a wholly revised edition of Field Manual 100-5, Operations.^ This manual caused a doctrinal renaissance within the Army that con­ tinues through the 1980's. Ironically, that renaissance led to the displacement of the 1976 manual, an event the original authors largely did not anticipate and certainly did not intend. The fact that much of the Army's doctrinal thinking since 1976 has been both explicitly and implicitly a critique of the 1976 manual testifies to that document's historical importance. Furthermore, it begs the even more important question of how and why the Army came to publish the manual in the first place. To answer that question is the purpose of this study. One can define doctrine as "authoritative fundamental 2 principles by which military forces guide their actions." Thus, doctrine is important to an army because it provides a philosophical and conceptual point of departure for much of what an army does, especially influencing an army's 1 planning, organization, training, leadership style, tac­ tics, and development of weapons and equipment. These activities in peacetime and in preparation for future war lie at the heart of the military profession in modern societies. Doctrine further is an important element of leadership within an army. A well-conceived and clearly articulated doctrine can help leaders explain seemingly unrelated activities and can instill confidence throughout the organization. Thus, doctrine can have the most pro­ found effect on an army's performance in war. If an army's fate in war can be traced to its doctrine, then how an army translates ideas into doctrine can be no less important an issue than the doctrine itself. An army's translation of ideas into published doctrine is a relatively modern phenomena that is more important in recent times because it is more complex, more difficult and of more immediate consequence to the society that army serves. This has much to do with the rapidly intensifying technological and bureaucratic complexity of warfare that began in the late 19 th century, coupled in the American experience with an increased emphasis since 1947 on "readiness" in support of a foreign policy that has stressed containment, deterrence, and conflict control.