Should Military Governance Guidance Return to its Roots. A Doctrinal Comparison Between Field Manual 27-5 (1943) and Field Manual 3-05.40 (2006)(CSL Student Issue Paper, Volume S02-09, August 2009)

摘要

A comparison of the 1943 United States Army and Navy Manual of Military Government and Civil Affairs with the most recent (2006) United States Army Civil Affairs Field Manual reveals major changes in doctrine in the intervening sixty three years. While to some degree changing national and international conditions make many of those changes understandable, after reading the two manuals one can argue a need to recapture the 'military government' essentials found in the 1943 document. When the U.S. military is directed to intervene at the nation-state level to effect regime change, the requirement to conduct military government has remained. Leaving this function up to brigade combat team commanders to reinvent, without doctrine and training, invites inconsistency and a lack of connection to U.S. policy. The inevitable requirement for conducting military government and the discomfort of the U.S. government with that requirement have remained constant throughout U.S. military history. Current civil affairs doctrine principally reflects that political concern. As a result, the military is faced with having to exercise de facto military government without appropriate authority or training. Recent stability operations doctrine and the initiation of a State Department Civilian Reserve Corps only partially address the issue of how to properly control occupied territories, at least during and immediately after armed conflict. The next iteration of civil affairs doctrine should directly recognize the need for temporary military government, and establish a baseline against which the military can train, organize and equip to meet the need.