Implementing Military Doctrine

This thesis is about the relationship between written doctrine and the behaviour of armed forces. To the optimist, it might seem obvious that militaries behave in accordance with their doctrine – the authoritative nature of doctrine and obedient character of militaries suggest that what is prescribed in text should also be reflected in how the organisation operates. But to the sceptic, doctrine is doomed to be hopelessly out of touch with the realities of war and is likely to have limited, if any, impact on military behaviour. What is puzzling is that despite these binary and contrasting views there is variation in how doctrine is implemented, but previous research lacks both theory and empirics with which to explain such variation. This thesis is guided by the research problem of what is the relationship between doctrine and military behaviour? This is divided into three research questions: how is doctrine implemented, why does doctrinal implementation vary and what effects does varied implementation have on the utility of doctrine? These questions are addressed through four original essays and my primary contribution is a theoretical framework with three core components. I define doctrinal implementation and provide a typology of outcomes. I develop theory on doctrinal reluctance and four explanations as to why implementation varies. I discuss how varied implementation affects the utility of doctrine and identify a novel utility in the use of doctrine as a tool of debate. Beyond the theoretical framework, I also make an empirical contribution with novel data collected through interviews in the Norwegian and Swedish defence establishments. Taken together, this thesis further unpacks the relationship between doctrine and military behaviour, contributing to our understanding of the strategic functions of doctrine as a force multiplier, means of control and as a component in military transformation.