Army Doctrine from Arms Control to Marching Bands
The U.S. Army has issued several new doctrinal or regulatory publications that may be of interest beyond their intended audience (all pdf).
A new Army regulation “provides a broad overview of [arms control] treaties and agreements with which the U.S. Army must implement and comply.” See “Army Arms Control Implementation Policy,” Army Regulation 525-92, 2 August 2010.
A newly updated Field Manual provides guidance on “site exploitation.” That term refers to “systematically searching for and collecting information, material, and persons from a designated location and analyzing them to answer information requirements, facilitate subsequent operations, or support criminal prosecution… A site, in general, is a location that potentially contains valuable information. Site exploitation operations doctrine describes a systematic and comprehensive approach to obtaining information of value from a site for exploitation.” See “Site Exploitation Operations,” Army Field Manual 3-90.15, 8 July 2010.
Army bands, known to some as “music performance teams (MPTs),” are the subject of another newly updated Field Manual. “Bands provide music for ceremonial and morale support within full spectrum operations to sustain warriors and to inspire leaders… Army bands of the 21st century are organized, trained, and equipped to conduct concurrent operations in supporting multiple objectives with targeted musical styles.” See “U.S. Army Bands,” Field Manual 12-50, 7 July 2010.
No one will be surprised if we end up with a continuing resolution to push our shutdown deadline out past the midterms, so the real question is what else will they get done this summer?
Rebuilding public participation starts with something simple — treating the public not as a problem to manage, but as a source of ingenuity government cannot function without.
If the government wants a system of learning and adaptation that improves results in real time, it has to treat translation, utilization, and adaptation as core functions of governance rather than as afterthoughts.
Coordination among federal science agencies is essential to ensure government-wide alignment on R&D investment priorities. However, the federal R&D enterprise suffers from egregious siloization.