Influences of the Canadian Armed Forces on the revision of US Army Field Manual 3-24.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, the United States Army published FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency because of the growing insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The impacts of this new doctrine were profound not only in the United States military, but also with its policy and strategy makers, the media, and throughout American society. FM 3-24's ideas also resonated within Western military communities. The doctrine defined the paradigm by which Western society would conduct counterinsurgency at the beginning of the 21st century. Yet, eight years after its publication, the US Army updated and released a new version of its counterinsurgency doctrine. This monograph will argue that Canadian doctrine and its operations in Afghanistan in 2009-2010, was a critical influence on the 2014 revision of FM 3-24, Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies. This project's foundations are in the social sciences and uses a process-tracing approach to analyze a single case study. Blending ideas of social constructivism, scientific investigation in the form of paradigms, and an analytical, historically based model of doctrine, the monograph explains how Canada influenced a key aspect of American counterinsurgency doctrine. For it was Canadian doctrine and military operations in southern Afghanistan that saw the CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD approach transform into the current SHAPE-CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD-TRANSITION framework. Counterinsurgency campaigns and the associated debates about capabilities and capacities, from 2005 to 2014, used the CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD approach as a nucleus to the narrative. Considering future counterinsurgency operations will likely us the SHAPE-CLEAR-HOLD-BUILD-TRANSITION framework as the nexus for future dialogue and debate, and it is clear that Canada has had a significant impact upon its greatest ally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".