Quinquepartite Combined Joint Warfare Conference
Quinquepartite Combined Joint Warfare Conference (QCJWC)
Record of Discussion
2-4 May 2017 at Ottawa, ON
Doctrine Sub-Group
Attendees:
Australia (AU)
Dr. David Connery Director Joint Doctrine Directorate
Canada (CA)
LCol Alastair Luft Branch Head, Joint Doctrine Branch
Maj Marco Vunak International Doctrine Section Head, JDB
New Zealand (NZ)
LCol (Ret’d) Simon Eaton Deputy Director Doctrine
United Kingdom (UK)
Col George Wilson Doctrine
United States of America (USA)
Mr. Peter Crouteau Doctrine
National Update briefs
1. CA. LCol Alastair Luft summarized the role and mandate of the Joint Doctrine Branch, activities over the past 12 months, and focus for the next 12 months. Several issues were identified that currently impede the production of joint doctrine and need to be resolved, including a lack of governance and oversight, inefficient processes, and distribution of resources. The brief led to several stand-alone discussions:
a. Relationship vis a vis NATO doctrine was discussed, to include a nation’s responsibility when acting as custodian and the possibility of the CAF adopting or adapting NATO joint publications. This model is currently under proposal as the way-ahead for the CAF. The UK (which employs a similar methodology) noted many benefits from their own involvement in the NATO joint doctrine process, including an ability to influence doctrine development.
b. The topic of how to ensure joint doctrine is useful and being delivered to the appropriate target audience was introduced. Delegates discussed several ongoing efforts, including engaging personnel at various stages of their professional development to emphasize the intellectual aspect of warfighting, outreach to schoolhouses, alternate methods to deliver and consume joint doctrine, such as through social media, and lastly, how to measure effectiveness.
2. AU. Dr. David Connery reviewed the AU defence hierarchy and discussed the merits of a decentralized doctrine hierarchy versus a centralized one under the VCDF. As part of future efforts, AU will examine reallocating resources from production of doctrine to increase outreach to defence members, which could encompass involvement at staff colleges and with new officers, use of social media, web hosting, and library platforms to increase accessibility of joint doctrine and collaboration. Additional points that came from the discussion included:
a. Due to a relocation of the Joint Doctrine Directorate to Canberra, heavy staff turnover is expected, forcing an examination of personnel management. This led to a discussion on the merits of contracting, how to structure contracts, and establishing a benchmark for quality based on what good doctrine looks like.
b. The concept of data fusion was discussed, including how it works, how it links lessons learned with doctrine, how where it fits in the overall process of doctrine development and pub review. Different ways to conduct data fusion were explained by delegates, including through Requests For Feedback (RFF), and consultation with academia.
3. NZ. LCol (Ret) Simon Eaton provided an overview of NZ joint doctrine, including the methodology of adopting, adapting or deriving joint publications. Activities over the past twelve months and focus for next twelve months was discussed, including publication development, campaign plan development, and revision of the NZ Joint Doctrine Policy. Several side discussions arose during the presentation, including:
a. The merits of including topics such as leadership in a joint doctrine hierarchy, which led to a discussion on indiv pubs (amphibious, Joint MP, planning).
b. NZ explained various initiatives in its joint doctrine communication plan, which include a monthly newsletter, briefings on the purpose and function of doctrine, other forms of outreach, e-readers, classification of pubs and availability.
4. UK. Col George Wilson summarized the UK joint doctrine architecture, activities over the past twelve months, and focus for the next twelve months, while also providing context regarding how The Report of the Iraq Inquiry (The Chilcot Report) has influenced stakeholder engagement. An explanation of UK’s use of and involvement in NATO joint doctrine was given, along with methods to involve stakeholders in doctrine development. Additional points that came out of this presentation include:
a. Discussion on a variety of existing and emerging publications, including Resilience, Modern Deterrence, Joint Theatre Entry, UAS etc. This led to a discussion of the difference of opinions regarding AJP 5-0 and COPD, and the components of interoperability.
b. UK discussed the impacts of personnel turnover and resultant challenge in maintaining continuity. This led to a discussion on doctrine regeneration and the benefits of linkages with Staff Colleges, both from an instructional standpoint, but also with a view to soliciting feedback on extant and developing doctrine.
c. The UK is developing a doctrine writing course, however it is not yet in place.
d. On the subject of measuring effectiveness, the UK doctrine gateway was explained, which led to delegates discussing different measures of effectiveness of assessing whether doctrine is used and by whom.
5. USA. Mr. Peter Croteau reviewed the organization, development process, and hierarchy for US doctrine within the context of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s three priorities for the force and the 4+1 global security challenges. Activities and priorities for the next year were covered. The briefing also included:
a. A demonstration of various doctrine development tools, such as the Joint Electronic Library (JEL), JEL+, DOCNET and the All Partners Access Network (APAN) site, where documents and administration for the QCJWC and Doctrine sub-groups is conducted. A brief overview was given of the Air Land Sea Application Center (ALSA), which works to develop solutions to multi-agency interoperability issues IAW established doctrine. The presentation on tools finished out with a discussion on the NSO and various NATO tools and applications.
b. The US explained national timelines for developing doctrine vs reviewing existing doctrine.
National Special Interest Presentations
6. CA. Child Soldiers: LCol Luft gave an explanation of the history, development, and content of the recently published Joint Doctrine Note (JDN), Child Soldiers. Other countries have a similar concept wherein JDNs are used for new or emerging doctrine, and the UK have recently developed a primer for the Full Spectrum Approach as a means to set context and serve as a precursor to doctrine development.
7. NZ. Deep South Primer: LCol (Ret) Eaton elaborated on a primer being an introductory tool to provide a baseline of information to facilitate understanding of a specific issue. The Deep South Primer itself was initiated following the NZ 2016 White Paper and examines NZ and the international community’s history with Antarctica, as well as the geopolitical considerations that would have to be considered in the event that the NZDF was called upon to operate in the region.
8. UK. Full Spectrum Approach (FSA) / STRATCOM: Col Wilson presented two special interest topics:
a. FSA was introduced as a concept that gives UK departmental employees direction on how to work with other departments, with a view to increasing efficiency, reducing self-censorship, and creating wider and more qualitative stakeholder engagements. In addition, the methodology illustrates the use of a primer as a high level conceptual synopsis not necessarily aimed at a military reader. The UK is concurrently developing a FSA Joint Doctrine Note, which is aimed at a military audience.
b. Strategic communications and the UK JDN on StratCom was discussed in light of delays in the NATO pub on the same subject, as well as ongoing differences of opinion on policy and terminology. This led to on the context of the media environment and how the public consumes that information. The UK will continue to develop their JDN with a view to eventually merging with the NATO publication.
9. AU. Joint Doctrine Return on Investment: Dr. Connery introduced an open discussion on several concepts related to production of doctrine.
a. The group discussed how to develop joint doctrine officers and what makes good doctrine officers, such as personnel pursuing future education. Suitable personnel could possibly be offered incentives such as post-graduate programs, affiliations with academia, and linkages with staff colleges and career progression. Qualifications such as experience at the joint level and having completed staff college are ideal, but could be waived in the case of unique subject matter expertise.
b. The group also discussed various organizational management models, such as the role of a doctrine coordinator and having stand-alone editorial staff charged with harmonization and standardization of publications.
General Discussion Points
10. In preparation for the closing plenary, the group discussed the following topics:
a. Linkage of doctrine to supporting processes such as lessons, concepts, and force development.
(1) Procedural steps such as data fusion events enables lessons to connect with doctrine from the beginning of the development process.
(2) Linking doctrine to concepts is more difficult, especially regarding emerging concepts, such as robotics, where there may be little to no established work from which to draw. That said, there is potential for either doctrine to link to concepts by capturing best practices in emerging areas, or for concepts to fill doctrinal gaps. The utility of a range of products, such as primers and JDNs, becomes clear in supporting the interplay between concepts and doctrine.
(3) For capability development, extant doctrine should be considered in assessing capability gaps, but also in ensuring that new capabilities are delivered in tandem with new doctrine to explain how operations are impacted.
b. Exploration of common areas of interest for collaboration.
(1) There may be value in having a central theme for the QCJWC, although it may be difficult to encompass all three QCJWC subgroups. If a central theme is selected, a follow-on task of developing a terminology lexicon would be required. An alternative may be to assign themes to each subgroup.
(2) There is likely limited value of producing a FVEY publication given other forums and resources, such as NATO AJPs, as well as the likelihood of FVEY specific operations.
______
AJN Luft
Lieutenant-Colonel
Joint Doctrine Branch Head
CFWC
Chair, QCJWC Doctrine Subgroup
4 / 5