The following content is compiled from reference [1].

Research on the U.S. Military Doctrine System

In the U.S. military's military theory system, doctrine is the most important element. Doctrine establishes the fundamental principles for various military activities and guides the U.S. military in coordinating unified actions during joint operations and individual service operations to achieve common objectives. This article explores the essential nature of U.S. military doctrine, reviews the development history of U.S. military doctrine, investigates the current state of the U.S. doctrine system, and looks ahead to future development trends, with the aim of providing a reference for deeper understanding of the U.S. military doctrine system and conducting related research.

Overview of the U.S. Military Doctrine System

Content of U.S. Military Doctrine

U.S. military doctrine is divided into five categories: principles, tactics, techniques, procedures, and terminology and symbols. According to U.S. military terminology definitions, principles are descriptive, comprehensive, and fundamental rules or assumptions that guide how to think about and conduct military operations; tactics are the orderly deployment of various force elements when conducting military operations, and the execution of a tactic may require the combined use of multiple techniques and procedures; techniques are non-prescriptive methods for performing military tasks and functions, with a level of detail between tactics and procedures, requiring flexible selection based on actual conditions; procedures are standard, detailed steps that describe how to perform specific military tasks, are prescriptive, and contain standardized information formats and control parameters; terminology and symbols are the unified language and graphics that should be used during military operations, serving as the carrier of U.S. military theory.

Sources of U.S. Military Doctrine Content

The content of U.S. military doctrine comes from two sources. The first is the summarization of past wars. The U.S. military attaches great importance to drawing lessons from military experience. All U.S. military services have established dedicated experience summarization departments. Best practices, lessons learned, and lessons summarized from military operations or training can be proposed for inclusion in doctrine and promoted to guide U.S. military operations for the next five years. The second is the conception of future wars. Typically, senior military personnel, drawing on years of military experience and combining their keen sense of changes in technology and operational domains, propose thinking methods and modes of action that the military may need to change in the next 5 to 15 years.

Development History

The U.S. tradition of establishing doctrine for military personnel dates back to the Civil War period, but formal military doctrine appeared in 1905, marked by the publication of the Field Service Regulations (FSRs). Subsequently, the U.S. military began continuously advancing military theory and doctrine development. In 1939, FSRs were replaced by U.S. Army field manuals. During World War II, the U.S. Army developed the first military dictionary to improve interoperability between the military and Allied forces. In 1948, that dictionary was transformed into the first U.S. joint dictionary.

After World War II, the U.S. military rapidly pushed forward the revision and improvement of service doctrines. These service doctrines became the content basis for the early 29 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publications. However, at that time, the U.S. military did not clearly define each service's responsibilities for joint doctrine, and lacked a unified long-term development plan for joint doctrine.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation granting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff full responsibility for the development of U.S. joint doctrine. Shortly thereafter, the Chairman delegated the responsibility for joint doctrine and terminology standardization to Joint Staff J7. Over the following decades, the joint doctrine development system brought together top researchers from the Department of Defense, laying an important foundation for the construction of modern U.S. joint doctrine.

On September 10, 2001, based on the strategic guidance and traditional warfare concepts of the time, Joint Staff J7 published JP3-0 Joint Operations and Joint Doctrine "Keystone" and "Cornerstone" Introduction. However, the very next day, the 9/11 attacks rendered certain aspects of these two documents outdated. Policy changes made by the U.S. government in response to 9/11 and the Second Iraq War directly prompted the Department of Defense to conduct large-scale updates to joint doctrine. Among these, the update of JP1-0 Joint Personnel Support took nearly 5 years, JP2-0 Joint Intelligence took nearly 7 years, JP3-0 Joint Operations took nearly 5 years, JP4-0 Joint Logistics took nearly 6 years, JP5-0 Joint Planning was updated twice, 5 years after 9/11 and 2 years after the end of the Iraq War, and JP6-0 Communication System took over 4 years to update.

Content, Characteristics, and Limitations of the U.S. Military Doctrine System

Joint Doctrine

According to U.S. federal law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for establishing joint doctrine for all U.S. armed forces. Specific responsibilities and business processes are explained in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 5120.02 and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual CJCSM 5120.01. The positioning of U.S. joint doctrine is to provide foundational guidance that promotes operational coordination for U.S. military forces. During the development process, joint doctrine references related service doctrines and multi-service doctrines, but joint doctrine is at a higher level, and service doctrines and multi-service doctrines must remain consistent with joint doctrine. The administrative management body for joint doctrine is Joint Staff J7.

The joint doctrine structure includes three levels: "Keystone" publications, "Cornerstone" publications, and Core doctrine publications. According to the joint doctrine framework published in April 2024, "Keystone" publication JP1 is divided into two volumes, covering joint operations theory and joint force composition respectively. There are 60 Core doctrine publications, focusing on the joint operations domain (52) and joint logistics domain (8).

Service Doctrine

Army

The U.S. Army considers doctrine to contain professional knowledge that career soldiers must be familiar with. For the collective, doctrine serves as the basis for the U.S. Army's transformation and development. U.S. Army doctrine has undergone various publications including Doctrine Manuals (DM), Field Service Regulations (FSR), Field Manual Interim (FMI), and Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP). In 2019, to achieve its own transformation, the U.S. Army decided to merge Army doctrine publications and Army doctrine reference publications to reduce redundancy, while continuing to revise Army Field Manuals (FM) and Army Technique Publications (ATP). Currently, U.S. Army doctrine is divided top-down into ADP, FM, and ATP.

ADP is the U.S. Army's top-level doctrine, containing fundamental principles related to land operations to promote coordinated and unified action among Army combat forces, ultimately supporting the achievement of national strategic objectives. FM content focuses primarily on Army tactics and procedures, providing more specific training and operational guidance for the Army in line with ADP principles. ATP primarily introduces experience and practices accumulated by the Army in the process of fulfilling its mission, executing combat tasks, and performing functional duties. These are not mandatory content, but they provide a higher theoretical starting point for promoting unified understanding and efficient communication across all levels of the Army.

The U.S. Air Force doctrine structure is divided top-down into basic doctrine, operational doctrine, and tactical doctrine. Basic doctrine is divided into two volumes. From the Air Force's perspective, it describes the Air Force's positioning and special attributes within the entire U.S. armed forces system, clarifies the fundamental principles for the application of Air Force power, and summarizes the Air Force's basic operational modes. Operational doctrine refers to Air Force Doctrine Publications (AFDP), which more specifically describe the composition of Air Force forces and refine the principles of Air Force basic doctrine in relation to specific Air Force operational activities. For different Air Force operational objectives, AFDP provides specific guidance on training, deployment, and use. AFDP plays an important bridging role, connecting tactical doctrine with basic doctrine, ensuring that the strategic vision of Air Force senior leadership can be expressed discretely at the tactical level. At the same time, because the Air Force plays a major role in joint operations, AFDP is more consistent in content with joint doctrine compared to other levels of Air Force doctrine. Tactical doctrine refers to Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (AFTTP), which describe how to appropriately use Air Force assets and facilities, whether individually or as a group, to achieve specific tactical objectives.

Space Force

In July 2020, the U.S. Space Force's "Keystone" doctrine was officially published. Currently, the Space Force doctrine system is divided top-down into "Keystone" doctrine, "Cornerstone" doctrine, operational doctrine, tactical doctrine, and notes.

The Space Force's "Keystone" doctrine refers to the Space Keystone Publication (SCP). Similar to the top-level doctrine of other services, as the basis for developing subordinate doctrine, SCP primarily introduces definitions of the space domain, the nature of space military capabilities and operations, the composition of space military forces, and the basic application principles of space forces. Both the Space Force's "Cornerstone" doctrine and operational-level doctrine are called Space Doctrine Publications (SDP), with the goal of providing more specific military operations guidance for space operations. The Space Force's "Cornerstone" doctrine is numbered "SDPX-0," and currently the U.S. Space Force has published 6 "Cornerstone" publications. Operational doctrine is numbered "SDPX-XX," and has currently published SDP3-99 Joint All-Domain Operations, with subsequent plans to publish Space Awareness and Battlefield Environment Management doctrine. Tactical doctrine is currently still under development and is typically an unclassified document. Space Force Doctrine Notes (SDN) do not contain formal doctrine content; their function is to record issues and possible solutions in Space Force doctrine for the reference of doctrine writers and revisers.

Currently, U.S. Navy doctrine is divided into four levels top-down: Naval Doctrine Publication (NDP), Naval Warfare Publications (NWP), Naval Tactical, Technical, and Procedures (NTTP), and Naval Tactical Reference Publications (NTRP). Among these, NDP describes the composition of U.S. maritime forces and their doctrinal theory for conducting military operations. NDP applies to all U.S. maritime forces, including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard, and is jointly signed and published by all three. NDP has a total of 5 publications: one "Keystone" publication, NDP1 Naval Warfare, and four "Cornerstone" publications. NWP content is more specific, covering various naval operational missions, helping naval operational commanders better coordinate different naval organizations and better utilize the roles of different component forces, emphasizing that the Navy must be able to conduct efficient and sustainable military operations in all maritime areas globally. NTTP provides naval operational commanders, especially tactical-level commanders, with methods for employing maritime military forces in contested environments, used to coordinate different force units for orderly deployment and maneuver, thereby bringing enormous maritime battlefield advantages to operational commanders. NTRP is primarily data-oriented, mainly including icons, theoretical materials related to naval operations (such as oceanography, acoustics, electromagnetics, etc.), and system operation guides.

Marine Corps

According to the U.S. Department of Defense Marine Corps Order MCO 5600.20, Marine Corps doctrine is divided into five categories: Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications (MCDP), Marine Corps Warfighting Publications (MCWP), Marine Corps Tactical Publications (MCTP), Marine Corps Reference Publications (MCRP), and Marine Corps Interim Publications (MCIP).

MCDP is the highest-level doctrine of the Marine Corps, containing fundamental principles and institutional thinking about war and the conduct of major military activities. According to official statements, MCDP is the philosophical foundation of the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps spirit. MCDP currently has 8 core doctrine publications, with some core publications having subordinate expanded doctrine. MCWP is the overall and fundamental operational doctrine used by the Marine Corps when resorting to war or other designated missions, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). MCWP reflects how the Marine Corps fights and executes its missions to support national strategy and objectives. Changes to MCWP affect corresponding MCTP and MCRP documents at lower levels, with an update cycle generally not exceeding 6 years. MCTP is publications containing focused or specific TTP related to specific functions, domains, or topics. Each MCTP corresponds to one MCWP and must, on the basis of compliance, provide further detailed explanation of that MCWP, typically revised every 6 years. MCRP targets company-level combat units or individual Marines. This type of publication includes TTP used to ensure the success of specific missions. MCRP may or may not have corresponding MCTP or MCWP, with an update cycle generally of 4 years. MCIP is publications introducing new or emerging military theory. Its overall purpose is to disseminate new TTP based on lessons learned, training, and experimentation results. If content in MCIP has not been incorporated into MCWP or MCRP after a period of time, it will be canceled or replaced.

Once MCIP is published, it can be used temporarily in training and actual combat, with an update cycle generally of 3 years. The U.S. Coast Guard's administrative leadership line originates from the President, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, and is managed by the Coast Guard Commandant. In wartime, together with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, it receives command and control from the President, Secretary of Defense, and theater commanders. Coast Guard doctrine is divided into four levels top-down: Principles and Traditions, Institutional Doctrine, Operational and Coordination Doctrine, and Operational and Coordination Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. The first level, Principles and Traditions, refers to Coast Guard Publication 1, U.S. Coast Guard Principles (CGPUB 1). This doctrine primarily introduces the Coast Guard's mission, force composition, operational modes, development history, and basic working principles. The second level, Institutional Doctrine, is divided into 9 doctrine publications according to the Coast Guard's departmental structure. The third level doctrine refines each area of the second level. The fourth level doctrine refers to Coast Guard TTP, with each document belonging to a corresponding third-level doctrine publication.

Multi-Service Doctrine

In 1975, when the United States ended the Vietnam War, the Department of Defense found that Army and Air Force coordinated combat operations on the battlefield were feasible and efficient, and that this collaborative relationship should not be improvised during wartime but should be developed during peacetime routine military construction. In the same year, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the U.S. Air Force Tactical Air Command (TAC) jointly established the U.S. Army-Air Force Applications Center (ALFA), which was responsible for researching joint Army-Air Force operations concepts and doctrine. In 1987, with the formal joining of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, the organization was renamed the U.S. Army-Navy-Air Force Applications Center (ALSA). The ALSA Center is responsible for aggregating military experience and lessons learned from all services, providing multi-service doctrine (MTTP) to combat personnel to improve multi-service joint capabilities at the tactical level. The service exchange and cooperation mechanism established by the ALSA Center is an important and successful attempt. Although it focuses on tactical-level problem research, it equally provides rich theoretical content and unified construction ideas for higher-level U.S. military joint doctrine development.

There are many factors that affect the development of the U.S. military doctrine system. These factors may come from different aspects such as management systems, strategic environments, and science and technology. For example, the 9/11 attacks brought tremendous changes to U.S. joint intelligence and joint operations doctrine; similarly, the establishment of the Space Force directly created a new operational doctrine system; furthermore, the development and application of unmanned equipment technology in the Ukraine crisis are prompting the U.S. military to urgently research new tactical doctrine. Facing possible future military conflicts, the U.S. military doctrine has the following noteworthy development trends.

Oriented Toward Fifth-Generation Warfare

William Owens defines fifth-generation warfare as information-centric warfare. According to this theory, current military conflicts between nations have entered the fifth-generation warfare form. The confrontation between nations is a comprehensive political, religious, and social group confrontation, rather than a single military confrontation. For fifth-generation warfare, the U.S. military has always emphasized the comprehensive use of national military, political, economic, and informational power in joint operations doctrine. To this end, the U.S. military updated JP3-04 Information in Joint Operations in September 2022; the U.S. Army published its first doctrine on information, ADP3-13 Information, in November 2023; the U.S. Air Force updated AFDP3-13 Information in Air Force Operations in February 2023; and the U.S. Marine Corps published new MCDP8 Information in June 2022. The U.S. military believes this is only the beginning. These doctrines provide a unified thinking foundation, and subsequently they will continue to publish a series of doctrine under the information theme.

Oriented Toward Military Allies

U.S. joint doctrine has solidified valuable joint military operational experience. Its content has laid an important foundation for assisting NATO member states in implementing collective defense, crisis management, and security cooperation activities. Early NATO Allied Joint Publications (AJP) were constructed based on U.S. joint doctrine. Subsequently, NATO used it as a blueprint to establish its own allied joint doctrine system. Although the United States does not fully accept NATO's joint operations concepts and terminology, believing that it is difficult for member state representatives to maintain pure motivations and unified understanding when participating in the development of AJP, especially as Warsaw Pact countries begin joining NATO, through years of磨合, the United States has gradually recognized the importance and necessity of military allies in future military operations. Whether in direct battlefield cooperation or in areas such as intelligence sharing, a great deal of consensus is needed. Therefore, in the future, the U.S. military's Joint Staff J7 plans to better coordinate with NATO and other allies, providing combat personnel with more organized and logical AJP and JP documents, thereby better supporting joint operations.

Oriented Toward Content Control

Reviewing the development history of U.S. military doctrine, more and more doctrine is being considered sensitive, with reasons including sensitive doctrine subject areas or doctrine content involving overly detailed tactical movements. These non-public doctrines are no longer commonly seen at the tactical level, and some important top-level publications are also no longer publicly released. In the future, the U.S. military will further tighten control over the release of doctrine content. At that time, both hard copy and online browsing will face more stringent permission reviews.

References

[1] 徐通, 武宁, 李丹. Overview of the U.S. Military Doctrine System[J]. Military Digest, 2025(3): 59-63.