As I alluded to in my comments, doctrine is one of those words that really throws people. Somebody could say, as an example, that a certain tactic—how we do a thing—constitutes a doctrine. That's not really true. Doctrine is a higher-level piece; it's how we solve problems. It's things like mission command, understanding a commander's intent, giving subordinates resources.
Training for full spectrum operations, the example you referred to on slide 4, I wouldn't necessarily call that doctrine. Those are principles that underscore our environment. Doctrine is not something that you would find, as an example. Many soldiers would express it that way. I'm trying to simplify a complex piece.
When I think of conducting land operations, those principles are embedded there. As I move down to that particular level of doctrine, it is embedded. From some perspectives, what you see there is part of it.
The thing to remember about doctrine is that it's layered. We have capstone manuals and then we work down, all the way down through a series of levels to the appropriate arm. How does armoured reconnaissance conduct its mission set? How do the engineers conduct their mission set? There are many different levels.
I find that sometimes people want to use doctrine to wrap it all together, and that sometimes is not helpful.