native mistake in her hometown and all the expectations that came with it. she had left all that behind resolutely often after this gripping and saving and she was here in new york ready to remake herself in a new light. she had taken her fate into her own hands. >> beautiful writing and a beautiful narrative a wonderful conversation but unfortunately we have run out of time. i would like to thank

well, good evening, everyone. welcome to the national world war one museum and memorial located here in kansas city, missouri. my name is james taub and the public program specialist here for the museum. a memorial is my great pleasure to welcome you here tonight for women in warfare with lieutenant colonel nikki dean. now to introduce our speaker tonight, i will also say that the view she will be stating are not reflective of the united states army, the department of defense, the and general staff college or the combined arms center of the united states army. lieutenant colonel nikki dean has 21 years of active duty army service, including multiple tours to iraq and afghanistan by trade. she is an army helicopter pilot, but currently for her second time is an army doctor and writer. originally, she is from buffalo, new york and is very emotionally conflicted.

every time the chiefs and bills play each other, she has been stationed around the united states in germany and as well as in korea, which in her own words was super, super fun. she has multiple degrees and studies, both history as well as museum studies. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the stage. lieutenant colonel nikki dean. so thank you all for the extremely warm welcome. i will say it's a bit it's a bit daunting to be standing on this side of the podium as opposed to sitting out in the audiences where i usually am for this incredible institution, as james said, my name is nikki, and tonight i would like to talk with you about something that is incredibly important to the life that i have led for the last 20

years. as a soldier. but more importantly, to talk about an amazing insight into this constantly evolving and changing world, where i work, which is an us army doctrine. i have a fierce love and passion for what we produce out of the army more importantly, because more than just writing books or putting words down on paper, it's an opportunity to share the body of knowledge with new readers, to reach a whole new audience, especially in these changing and sometimes socially difficult times. it's an incredibly important work that we do. so i'm happy to share this incredible chance to talk with you tonight here in this amazing museum. and i promise you, if you're wondering out in the audience or if you're wondering out online whether or not this will ever relate back to world war one or operation somewhere in the european theater worldwide, i promise we're going to get there

by the end of the night. so first and foremost, before we really get into the meat and potatoes of this discussion, i think it helps a little bit to establish a baseline. we are talking about doctrine tonight, which i know sometimes can feel like a especially if you're a military member, a little bit of a dry topic, but i promise we're going to get there to something interesting in the end. we're going to talk a little bit about the things that are included in our doctrine, not just the concepts itself, but also the artifacts, the items that we include, things like quotes in vignettes. so we're going to talk a little bit about who gets quoted, why they get quoted and answer a really deep personal question for both me and actually for several service members that are out there. female service members. where are the women? we'll talk a little bit about the women that have informally influenced military doctrine

because surprise they did in fact, influence a lot of both. our theory of warfare and the body of knowledge itself and we'll also look to the future of women's words in war. we'll talk a little bit about women who are making inroads to shape how we view tactics and techniques, the ordered arrangement of forces and activities on the battlefield, which tends to be a very technical, but also to a certain extent very niche kind of world to live in and to write for. and i'll bring it back to probably one of the most important books that i had a chance to contribute, a very small amount to and to play a very small role in a very important team. i also need to state a caveat, which if you're listening and somebody is probably gong to try to call me about about the use of the word caveat, by the way, it's found in nato doctrine. so go to that. resource first. when we discuss women's roles in military history, in military

body of knowledge or in military doctrine, it opens up a can of worms. i understand it acknowledged that this can feel like a highly charged topic, but also along with it to recognize that there have been women's stories or that there have been stories of other communities that have been lost, words that have been lost, that potentially contribute or could contribute to a deeper discussion about it. the theory of warfare about tactics and techniques. there are historians. there are historians who are making a amazing, active effort to put that experience of why those words were missing into context. but more importantly, to attempt to find those lost in missing words, those historians are doing incredible work right now as we speak, and also to a certain extent, they've uncovered some truths that on occasion, even women who participate in the development of both geopolitical strategic use of military forces who

talked and thought about tactics in order, deployment of forces, sometimes those women were historically accepted because of certain reasons. they were amplified for certain reasons, and also to a certain extent. sometimes they behaved as gatekeepers as wrong or right. it is just the way that that historical experience is so what about doctrine like deleted off with this about once a year, once a year, someone will send me this. as james pointed out, i've spent two tours in the military working on doctrine, both aviation doctrine and capstone doctrine. this always ends up in either usually on social media in a direct message, typically from a junior officer who is either experienced same doctrine for the first time or experiencing this meme for the first time. and they think it's hilarious. personally, i love it, i love

it. i love that. also, some of my peers who are a little bit older in the military and have been around the block a time or two, also find it funny. and to a certain extent a little bit poignant. but at the same time, i don't think that there is a single officer, nco, warrant officer, civilian professional out there that would actually say that, hey, they are going to completely issue doctrine and doing it. it's it's just not how we work as a military. so what is doctrine? well, to put it plainly, in order for us to have this discussion, we kind of have to establish, like i said, that common framework that common frame of reference, because it's going to help us foster a mutual understanding about the current operating environment, where the books that we write as an army exist. doctrine is, as i've said a couple of times now, it's the body of knowledge. it's what guides us, guides military forces, but not just that. it's a common language that we

all speak. it's even spoken by those of us who don't necessarily wear the uniform. it is a codification of principles of fundamentals, tactics, techniques, even procedures to a certain extent. and it is often viewed as a start point, never an end. it is a largely descriptive thing in the way that it's written. sometimes needing to be prescriptive, but only when absolutely necessary. and usually in very close keeping to the way that we've structured our doctrine or our body of knowledge. the taxonomy that we use for the books that we write. and most importantly, this is absolutely important to know. it's always evolving. it's not a stagnant book that is written. and then dumped on a shelf. and hopefully a lieutenant finds it someday. it is periodically updated. we periodically update books and it's important because the experiences that we learn are ones that are constantly feeding

into the way that we update these principles. procedure, tactics and techniques. i have said on a number of occasions to make it easier for myself to understand, as as both a writer and a user of doctrine. and doctrine is the best bad idea we have for a moment in time with the force in being for a war in the future that we hope we never have to actually fight. but i actually heard it most recently from a professor at the school of advanced military studies. dr. alice butler. smith a far more poignant way, and it kind of stuck with me. she said at one point. to me, doctrine is an artifact, and so that hit hard. and she's right. she's right. it exists at a moment in time for the army. it captures and demonstrates an evolution of ideas when we look at it holistically across the entire time period that those manuals have existed and evolved

because we said they are constantly evolving and most importantly, and this was one that it didn't really hit me until she said that it provides a very definitive insight into our values as an institution at a particular moment in time. so where does that leave us? well, if we're going to talk about doctrine as an artifact, perhaps it's time to reframe that idea a little bit and look at a doctrinal manual like a museum, like this museum, actually, in a way, each item, each thing that we have, the concepts that are discussed, the vignettes that provide historical context, the quotes that are a manifestation of the material that's covered are all of the artifacts, the things that we collect together. and when we go to museums to find commonalities throughout history, using those bits of materials that we see behind

vitrines, behind glass, we understand ourselves in the world, its birth, same way with doctrinal manuals. to a certain extent, we, the united states military, our allies, our joint sister services, even to a certain extent, historians and also amateur enthusiasts and military. we, all of us go to doctrine to find the common lexicon that we can speak. and i know that you know that we know that. we all know that that thing that we're talking about means the same thing. but also it helps us it helps us better understand how how we all do the ordered arrangement of forces and activities to a common standard or to a common and state. so why put quotes and doctrine? that's a great question. i often ask myself that question and i know for a fact i've been cornered on several occasions, cornered on social media, and asked why would we put that stuff in there?

well, we put quotes and doctrine because we want to show that certain principles, certain techniques, certain tactics, and show them in context and show them that, hey, this stuff has existed throughout the course of history. i think it was one point, mark twain, who said history doesn't rhyme or history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. it's fairly poignant to be able to see that reflected in a historical quote that leads into some material that is going to be introduced to a brand new reader for the first time. it also, to a certain extent, shows the fundamentals of how we do offense, defense and stability in context. somebody famous somewhere once did those things. so therefore, i'm learning them now as i read the doctrine itself, it also, i will admit it breaks up the monotony of reading sometimes, which can be a painfully dense book and introduces historical experiences that are kind of

distilled into this memorable turn of phrase. it's it's a nice breakup. it's a nice esthetic to put in a book and selfishly, as an amateur story in military historian, it encourages curiosity. it encourages us to learn more, especially especially at a time in which we see individual males who are coming into their own as tacticians. it encourages us to look at ourselves and to reflect and see if our institution reflects the values that we ourselves hold dear. so for me, in my work and the place where i work, it began with the draft of a book. like i said, periodically we go through the process of redrafting doctrine. it's a common occurrence. the update to fm radio, which is a cornerstone of army doctrine, is a book that really ultimately governs the development and the refinement of tactics and techniques across the army.

it also influenced is joint services and to a certain extent it influences allied doctrine as well as part of the draft and review process. prior to official publication, we send our drafts out to an audience. we send them out to typically a universal or a wider army staff or wider army, a an audience. and we release them out and wait for feedback from those individuals. we get some pretty good feedback on occasion. it's kind of important because we as authors, we're just humans writing books and to kind of remove some preconceived notions about what a doctrine writer is for the united states military. we all approach it with a varied background and we come from numerous branches and this is across the spectrum of operations or across the spectrum of the force that blend of service members and army civilians who also contributed to it. most of them have prior military

experience and while most of us deeply appreciate military history, we're not solely historians in and of ourselves, but what we do is work with the existing body of knowledge will look at experimentation and evaluation of operations that are going on, and then will look to see whether or not we need to evolve based off of feedback from the force. also, because we are humans as writers, we tend to fall prey to our own inherent biases and lenses that have to admit that straight off the bat, as it's the normal person doing their job from day to day, i myself, i'm no different. i contributed to this book as we prepared in a very small way, but as i was studying and reading and developing and gathering all of the things that i needed to write a more balanced and comprehensive approach to land forces and maritime operations, and what

wound up occurring to me was i felt back to looking for some artifacts from some old familiars. i went back to nimitz, i went to corbett, i went to salim to think about extended operations, and i went to even a certain extent, kennedy looking for things that would help bring a certain manifestation of the material i was covering. so it could lead it off. it could wet somebody. the appetite for history, i, i am a female service member and i did not recognize my own gap and i didn't even do it when i was sitting and thinking and writing about the principles of war to recognize one's own gap. as any writer knows, we all have to begin with a draft at some point. that's how writing works. taking feedback and asking for feedback is absolutely crucial. so when feedback came back to

the space, it came from a really unusual space actually. it came from a tweet on social media asking why in a manual filled with artifacts, perfect artifacts that were distilling this material that we were introducing, where there are no women, which prompted me to ask my own questions about how women have influenced and are influencing military operations in the army's body of knowledge. today. so i did what any person who is a gen x but borderline millennial might do. i took to twitter, i asked and formed a tweet on twitter and tossed it out to a bunch of individuals and twitter did not disappoint at all. what i got back was genuinely insightful and encouraging. this was something that was

worth it to actually begin the process of asking the team that was writing for three. so would they be amenable? would they want to include or would they think that it would be appropriate? silly question me to ask because that team was already leading the effort to begin the process of including women and include the ideas of women about tactics and techniques into the book itself. they had already preemptive struck and were making sure that they were finding somebody that would best reflect the organization but also reflect the manual that we were writing. so a little bit about putting in quotes and manuals because obviously women have often influenced military operations, but to actually put a quote in a book, in a military book, of all things, we have to sort of as doctrine writers, we want to lay down the foundation of what we thought would be good. we wanted to have a quote or a many quote honestly or

vignettes, historical image. you got to eventually determine who makes the cut because we can't have all the things, all the artifacts in the museum, some stuff we're just not going to be able to hold. but most of all, there was an important reason to look at who best manifest first or who best represents the material that we were covering. so the team that was leading this effort actually established some pretty, pretty amazing parameters. they sat down and said that somebody it had to be this new generation of tacticians. we didn't necessarily want to have somebody who was mythical as much as joan of arc. and to see our amazing and provide a wealth of inspirational words, we wanted to have somebody where they they really wanted to have somebody that was realistic, somebody who was authentic and approachable, somebody who even i if i were a young lieutenant again, could aspire to be like somebody that i could feel influence to go off

and research and know more about. it prompted a question in me to a deeper question, especially as they were beginning that heavy lifting about whether or not women had ever influence military operations and militaries body of knowledge prior to this. and when i say military, it's primarily this western idea of military theory and military theory of victory. so no spoiler alert women do influence the body of knowledge, right? so when i started, i was lucky enough to be able to start with a woman who was thinking very, very deeply at times on war. it is no secret that contests very vulnerable. mary von clausewitz influenced the work of un war. it's various translation has to include the temporary translation that we use over the command in general. staff college currently it would

not be we would not be able to give you a translate option if it were not for her efforts in championed her husband's work and continuing on the effort to actually bring it to publication following his passing in 1831. the preference of most editions that you can get today is translations. she actually wrote. she said those who knew of our happy marriage and who knew we shared everything. not only joy and pain, but also every occupation, every concern of daily life will realize the task of this kind could not occupy my beloved husband without at the same time becoming thoroughly familiar to me, following clausewitz's death in 1831, marie's choice to publish the manuscript on war provided western military world with what i would say is probably one of the most influential theories of warfare that is still studied to this very day. one american academic actually

did the math and provided it to me. clausewitz is the most quoted individual in army doctrine in military doctrine, currently. and while marie's work and choice to publish on war largely unaltered, by the way, was kind of controversial after her husband's death, what quickly became recognized by most military historians was just how important she was in influencing the ideas of carl von clausewitz. what he wrote, what he codified from his experiences on the battlefield. i'd say by about 2012, an incredible treasure trove of his personal correspondence began to be included into the academic body of knowledge and more importantly, they were discovered by the tireless work of a woman author and woman military historian vania estima of a bélanger. in her published work, marie von clausewitz, the woman behind the making of un war. in 2016, she opened up a door to the relationship between husband

and wife as they mutually developed what i would consider or what i personally would consider one of the most influential books and how we think about a theory of victory today. in the end, i would say marie's efforts to to share this mutually shaped manuscript and advocate for her husband's rightful place in history is probably irrevocably shaped. the fabric of western military theory. i'm probably alone in that, but actually i suspect i'm not really that alone. and to a certain extent she has continued to shape it throughout the 20th century. today, my much like this woman. so for advancing ourselves into the 20th century, there are few women who have influenced the idea of geopolitical theory quite e way rtrude lowe the end bell has she briefly worked alongside lawrence. in fact, she actually worked in the region two years ahead of him before he arrived.

a man who let's face it, the seven pillars became one of the more influential works of that era, for as challenging, as complicated as western influence in the middle east is, given the outcomes of what we now know, research and archivists primarily working at the british national archives, is recently begun comparing and contrasting. bell's work and lawrence's work using military public records and also personal correspondence and what they have found is pretty significant. one such a story in doing this work is dr. juliet desplat. she's the head of modern overseas intelligence and security records of the national archives in kew gardens. what she found about bell and whether or not her military work influence theory was pretty compelling. actually, it's enough to say that geopolitically she influenced without question her ability to influence diplomacy. regional politics, shape

regional alliances, all of it is unquestioned. what is definitely known and what is definitely seen is that she poignantly shaped intelligence gathering doctrine. she also had an opportunity or had numerous opportunities to participate and you put her a i'm sorry, geographical surveys and expanded the understanding of how we interrelate human terrain and physical terrain together to be able to understand a deeper cultural context of people that we work with. this is for a lot of folks, the foundation of what we consider counter insurgency security, force assistance and foreign internal defense doctrine. today, human doctrine, primarily human intelligence doctrine and technique, could find an excellent ally in gertrude bell, a woman who definitely influenced the way that we can think, despite some of the challenges that existed in her life moving forward into the 20th up, i apologize.

i advanced a little quickly there, moving forward to the 20th century, it's wonderful to have a chance to talk about this woman, especially since in the area where i work is command and control doctrine. rear admiral grace marie hopper is an incredible, incredible person. she is the naval reserve's manifestation of ada lovelace of hedy lamarr, of katherine johnson and she did it all in a naval uniform, working for the naval reserve. so she is most known for her quote, which coincidentally snuck its way into british doctrine. most recently, the most damaging phrase is we've always done it this way. she is the mother of machine independent programing languages, most notably cobol. which coincidentally is still in use today. and cobol is not the particular language of a discuss today about her or anything about that, because that would quickly outstrip my puddle. deep knowledge of of a i of did

data mapping network integration command post integration and then i realized that common operating pictures and command post integration and distribute operations that is my bailiwick or one of them when it comes to developing doctrine. in the 1970s, she had advocated to the department of defense specifically to replace these large centralized computer systems with distributed smaller computers. and what this does is allows a user interface to work with a computer node and therefore begin accessing common databases across a network. this influences the way we do distributed operations today for command post. more importantly, the idea of requiring and vetting and testing standards for computer systems and components makes sure that we have increasing interop or ability, which is important for both multinational operations and joint operations. today. also, we cannot think about the modern battlefield, which is data centric and computer

centric without the idea that this woman contributed directly to our our concepts of distributed operations or concepts of survivability, especially for command posts, and after ragtag t the idea of mission type orders and decentralized operations or decentralized execution relies on commanders. commanders who rely on computers and ultimately rely on grace. hopper's influence. like i said, these three women are not directly quoted. some in our allies doctrine have managed to make it in, but never were. but they have an influencing and lasting impact on the way that we think of the body of knowledge, the way that we think of how we develop military doctrine, the way that we think of how we develop military operations. so, so what about the future? what about where we currently sit, put our influencers aside for just a second and think about the women who are currently discussing military

operations right off the bat. there is an opportunity to champion and i know that in the future there will be tons of women influencing this discussion. people like olivia garrard, whose work on the annotated guide to tactics, which is an edited and annotated guide using carl von clausewitz theory of the combat to be able to break down some of these more complex theories and actually present them in a way that's usable and understandable and engaging for young leaders today in the military, most of you who work here or who have participated in events here are familiar with amy fox. she is a historian who talks about learning to fight, primarily focused on the british military and the ability to adapt training doctrine, how to do evolutions and modernization on the battlefield, and modernization of forces in training. she is absolutely critical to the way that we would look at training doctrine currently. also, there are other folks out

there that are doing just routine military work or routine defense work. one of the people that i talked about is a matter of fact, the academic that both brought the idea that maybe women should be coded in doctrine. and also the one who pointed out the clausewitz is the most quoted man, elena wicker. recent page ph.d. candidate focuses a lot of her studies, specifically on the idea of the military lexicon. the language that we use, and some of the patterns that develop into jingo, how it can be used and how it can be misused across the military. this was just a few off the top of my head, honestly, there is a litany of other women historians and women theorists that are out there shaping the way that we view the world to be able to look at them, to be able to see what they have included in their own work, and to be able to include it in other military doctrine, or to be able to recognize that military doctrine, to show how it could potentially shape the material

and introduce the material that we cover. it is an amazing opportunity. i have also been asked, where are the women? eisenhower. where are the women patterns? the women pershing arms, the generals that we all want to see quoted in big, bold letters across the top of any chapter. i am proud to say those individuals are coming. most of those young people, as a matter of fact, for the last ten years, we've only recently had women integrated into the combat arms. this is important to know because those individuals that will become the future patterns in eisenhower's that we quote so prolifically, they're in their platoon commands or they're in their platoon leadership positions right now. they're in their company in battery commands. they are learning how to employ forces and they're developing experiences to a certain extent, even the battalion and brigade commanders, my counterpart is in aviation, air defense, sustainment, communications.

those individuals are in those commands right now, and they are developing the experiences that will become crucial to them as they become division corps commanders of the future. the people that will actually become significant tacticians on the battlefield, the ones that will be watched closely for the words that they share along with it. women. women have always actually been advocating for the body of knowledge that we have. 20% of the doctrine writers in the united states military honor, about 20% are women. women writers. along with it this barely scratches the surface. and to professional military journals and to military press houses, all of it contributing to the chance to find these missing stories, these missing words across the united states military and across military historians and thinkers. so what about the book that we

drafted? honestly, it's fitting that we're here at the national world war one museum to discuss who i'm going to discuss next. barbara wortham. tuchman was born in january of 1912. in new york city. she was a radcliffe grad. and this barely the surface into the honorary doctorates for literature that she achieved throughout her storied career as a history in, she has written numerous distinguished books novels or not novels. i apologize numerous distinguished books and articles and distinguished herself as a historian in her own right, not just a historian, but a military theorist as well. 1963, as most of you know, her pulitzer prize winning book, the guns of august, was unveiled and followed sharply on its heels in 1971. she also contributed, again with stilwell and the american experience in china, earning her second pulitzer. she wasn't just a pulitzer prize

winning writer. she was also a very astute thinker, a deep thinker that in april of 1972 was requested to speak to the army war college. on the subject of generalship of all things. her speech was copied and published in the journal parameters. the journal that is still produced by the school house today. that speech was remarkable and the stat and the statement that it made about general as leaders on the battlefield addressing complex operational environments and using most importantly, the language of the men that she was addressing at the time. i didn't know that this speech existed. it was introduced actually by the leadership that was working on f.m. three oh at the time, and when i actually got a chance to write it, i agreed with my teammates that it gave me chills for how accurate and how relevant it felt today.

coincident like that 1972 edition of parameter is, which is volume two, issue number one, if you're interested in googling it. her speech ran alongside an article on leadership from omar bradley, and it also ran against an article which caught my eye, which is the impact of societal change. the us army by william houser. that one felt extremely poignant because you literally could have removed much like tubman's article and speech. you could have removed dates and references to the vietnam war and literally reprinted it in journals today, and it would still be incredibly relevant and incredibly poignant to some of the things the military is continuing to work through. so 50 years later, 50 years later, a group of army doctor writers are putting their finishing touches on three operations, which is a capstone book to the united states army, and determining which quotes in which vignettes would make the cut. and they decided and settled

through some pretty amazing leadership and some pretty amazing research that to foster young, young females, young tacticians in the future. it was time to include her ideas, her thoughts. this is the team that did it. i contributed, like i said, just a small, small portion to this. and i am really, really proud to be a female service member who has worked alongside some of these individuals. it takes really insightful, forward thinking leadership historically minded leaders also to kind of advocate for that change, to overcome challenges. and the army doctrine community, specifically the organization where i work is really fortunate to leadership like that. it also helps to a certain extent that we had some very, very diligent doctrine writers, some individuals that were

willing to work hard, that were also willing to cooperate to get to get the best representation for their book, the best representation for the material that we were covering. and more importantly, to actually partner with the tuckman and state to be able to put words that were extremely poignant to the material that they were discussing. in truth, it helps to be able to see oneself as a female service member, the work that these gentlemen did to be able to see myself better reflected in the institution and i'm so proud to know them and to know the work that they did to do this. so where do we go from here? i suppose there's a question to be asked about what what remains to be done in finding the theories that are out there and as i said before, they're historians that are doing incredible work. but along with it, it takes fostering from the community. it takes mentorship and growth. i am lucky enough to work with

an organization and to work with a team that is absolutely committed to the idea that there is something good about doing historical research and looking to the past as well as the present and future to determine how the army's body of knowledge needs to evolve and for that, i'm deeply grateful to work where i do and to work in the army at the current time that i do. i think there's a there's a question to be asked about how do we find foster the next female eisenhower? how do we find somebody who is going to have the words that best is still army operations, tactics, techniques all into a few meaningful words that will introduce a chapter and i'm happy to know that that work is going to be done well into the future. and in the end, i think the team did fme through operations for the united states army has added this incredible important artifact to the museum. that is our doctrine but most importantly, it's a representation of the future of the institution in itself.

and i think honestly, it is simply a start for where we will be going in the future. i'd like to thank you for your time today and for your interest in listening to this. i know most people look at military doctrine and it's kind of of a dry sort of topic, but the ability to be able to share this, to know that there is growth that is occurring, especially in something that is so small and seems so minuscule, but it is so incredibly important. and i can't thank you as the audience and also the national world war one museum, enough for the work and for the attention tonight. if you have a question for lieutenant colonel dean, please feel free to step up to either of the two microphones provided or if you need a little bit of extra assistance, i'll be moving

around with an additional microphone. and also, if you're watching us online on youtube, feel free to type your question into the chat box. the museum educator is monitoring that and they will be read off here in person. and i'll start off with the first one because we're just little over youtube questions, but my question actually revolves around your sort of your allusion to the next generation of leaders. the first female eisenhower or the first female patton, currently serving a junior officer. do you think that there experience in the recent wars in iraq and afghanistan will give them a sort of different view than other soldiers who have not had that experiences is something to build on. the fact that they came out of a massive counter insurgency operation versus the patents, the eisenhower's who had fought in a traditional war in europe.

i would hope so. honestly, i genuinely hope that the the influence of the operations that we've currently done and the places that we've currently served, i would love to think that those those experiences continue to reflect and they continue to mature within that individual, whoever she might be whoever they might be. i want them to continue to grow as a doctor and writer, as somebody that is going to eventually leave the army and vacate my seat so that somebody else can come in because we're supposed to work ourselves out of a job that's the whole point. i hope that they retain that unique experience and it allows it to continue to grow, especially as we talk about the idea of consolidation, of gains in military doctrine, that that will become one of those crucial, crucial tidbits or a crucial ideas that we cannot leave behind. question for you from somebody

here on the internet. they said, thank you, lieutenant colonel dean. this was eloquent. how did you get into the job of doing what you do? great question. the military is coming around or the army is coming around to this idea of how we manage talent and actually giving a chance to to individuals who display certain key skills or certain key mindsets. so i had an opportunity at one point as i was leaving out of out of a job where i was training and assisting in mobilizations for our icrc, our reserve component soldiers. and all of a sudden i saw a job pop up on what we know as aid to. it's almost like a job search. next thing you know, i was getting a chance to contact the combined arms doctor and directorate and the amazing colonel retired, which creed to ask if it would be possible for

me to use the skills that i had learned as an aviation doctor and writer and come back and work with the doctor and community again. boy, i can't thank him enough for for the benefit that he gave me because he's also given me a chance to really work with some incredible individuals and more importantly, to work and champion the body of knowledge for new readers. it's absolutely an amazing opportunity. ma'am, thank you for your present tonight. this question addresses your experience more as a doctor and writer with fm three hour show codifying multi-domain operating environment and including the new definition of human environment. how do you foresee the army reconcile failing a generally gender blind doctrine base with the inescapable fact that the environment is gendered? oh, that's a great question. and like i said, is, as a woman, as a female service member, it's difficult to balance two ends against that male right.

the lens that you have as a woman, as a woman service member, regardless of where you came from previously, you're always to have that. and it's important to be able to recognize that it's an opportunity you to examine and examine the work of others, examine the history of others, and put it in context. the approach that a doctrine writer and female doctor writer takes may not be inherently different from from her male counterparts or from their male counterparts. but ultimately, you bring a different perspective. you bring a perspective on the idea of of integration, partnership of team, building, of how we do planning, of how we structure certain, integrating functions, all of it. right. the idea that that even inherently speaking, women provide a certain perspective or a different perspective because of the way that they've come,

especially when you're only on the active service, i believe it is 17% currently that serve as as women service members. you can't escape it. but at the certain same time, i'd say it eventually we all of us end up starting to kind of join into the group, think a little bit, recognizing when that is happening, much like it did for me. the idea of always falling back to the old favorites of maritime operations. it recognizing when that's happening, that's that's the kicker. that's the key. does that answer your question? thank you. you're welcome. hey, i guess my question is a little bit more generic than i just kind of curious. what does your writing process look like, whether it's in the collaborative stage or in the parts where you're just kind of working on on your own? and then i guess the second part, is there another subject matter that you're looking at

now for just another thing that you're interested in for the future? so two parts to it. i will say most of us as doctors, i can only speak for myself and what i like to do or what i would prefer to do. a lot of us, what we'll do is we'll come together. you look at what the process is going to be for the evolution of a book. recognize that, hey, the book itself is either, oh, we've got to get something new in there or maybe it's time for us to change or perhaps the book itself is is amazing and needs no at all. that process of doing the research behind it or doing the work behind it to examine lessons learned exercises that are going on. information is coming back from the field itself. usually that resides in the of the person that is assigned proponents of early authorship of the manual. and a lot of times it is a collaborative thing. we we none of us who work in a group office together can escape sharing ideas. in fact, some of the best ideas

that i have gotten about the small things that i'm working on right now have come from my coworkers. so that collaborative environment is primarily fostered by the leadership that work at the combined doctrine directorate is is crucial to us ensuring, first of all, we cover gaps if something is missing or we recognize when certain changes or certain things are absolutely necessary within a manual, and then eventually somebody somewhere has got to sit down and put pen to paper and begin the process of writing. that is also a collaborative thing. everything that we write, everything that i've written, i've shared and had amazing feedback. god, because sometimes it's not all journals, but when it comes together from a team like what we have at the commander doctrine directorate, eventually it's a beautiful, polished gem. by the time it leaves and then it changes again. me personally, for stuff that i am working on, it is as i'm preparing to transition out of the military and retire in the next few months, i am still on

the sidelines and watching some of my peers do incredible work on things like information advantage, multi-domain operations tactics and the production of a tactics manual or the reproduction of a tactics manual. i am also a i participate and host a podcast with code breaking doctrine and it's focusing on bringing doctrine into the or bringing it out to a new generation using different media techniques and providing a conversational tone on how and how we share the body of knowledge with professionals. lieutenant colonel, if you could share, some understanding of doctrine that might help the american public in what the world looks like on a military front today. one we have. oh, that's a good one. you know, the funny thing is, is

army doctrine is not a secret. i'm going to let you all in on this email. anything about it, it's publicly available. there is some stuff that is hidden behind firewall, obviously, for reasons of of controlled information. but there is a large component of our body of knowledge is a available to anyone around the world. you can go to the army publishing directorate website and literally scroll through directives, through the doctrinal publications, their training circulars and training doctrine. you can literally see everything about the theory of warfare or the theory of victory that the army uses and how it approaches operations. it's it's none of it hidden, which is fine because sometimes it feels like it's hidden from new readers, but it's even better when i find out that civilians, that individual who would not be considered the traditional audience for doctor

theory, very curious and extremely excited to be able to to read the books that we write. as my boss has often heard me say, probably a little too frequently, sir, what good is a book if nobody reads it? i feel like that's an opportunity to share with everyone, to share with a greater american populace. your your forces are not arbitrary. the forces that are out there doing operations are not doing it arbitrarily. like you said, we never just do it on the fly. we are, in fact, very deliberate in the way that we do tactics, techniques and procedures. and we have proof on a website which is available on your phone. lt's. so you've worn a lot of different hats in your time. what was something you were surprised by when you shifted from being the person that was receiving doctrine to being the person that was writing doctrine? and is there anything that you wish you could convey to just the average person in the army

about what your process and what work is like? oh, so going from a reader of doctrine where i was the person that shared the meme, i was the person that thought that was hilarious. you know, of course, the enemy enemy would never figure it out because we don't use doctrine. lo and behold. yes, we do. as i continue to advance in my career, i found out just how incredibly important the body of knowledge was, especially when it came to my work as an army aviator working with ground forces. it was absolutely imperative that i understood the offense, defense tactics, techniques that they were using because it built their sops, it built their battle drills. and once i understood and was able to communicate with them with ground forces more seamlessly, more holistically, it created a better end state overall, tactically, but also to a certain extent. if i could go back and tell my younger self to read doctrine as

as a young officer, i would probably say don't just don't, just read the stuff that is oriented on you. don't just read the things that are about your service, but in fact read about your peers across the force itself, actually engage and use their books because that's that's where we actually get into this idea of combined arms operations. once we understand how our sister organizations or our peer organizations to the right and left fight, then we can begin the process of genuinely integrating arms and that that is powerful. that's where the army is powerful. hello. i actually have two questions for. one, you mentioned maritime operations. so is that targeted toward a potential future antagonist? and you mentioned nimitz first or i'm thinking of that theater. and then also, how has the ukrainian situation affected? did you put doctrine on pause for a moment and kind of take a

step back and look what's happening today? and how does that impact on what you're doing? so i can only speak to those two things from my own opinions, from my own perspective. obviously, when i stand back and look at i'll answer your second question first. when i look at the the current operations that are going on in ukraine, as many of my peers do, when we think about about operations in general, we're looking at and observing those lessons from both sides, partly because it gives us and illuminates those those tactics and techniques and puts them in context of a real battlefield. we are ourselves constantly self assessing, constantly looking back to ensure that we are doing the best we can for our own soldiers and by looking at lessons learned of other battlefields, of other wars, of other operations that are going on. every professional, every professional across, not just the united states military, but our joint and allied as well. they're all doing it as far as

speaking to the work on land operations in a maritime dominant environment. well, there's a large portion of the world that is covered by water. it stands to reason that looking at history and looking at the historical perspectives of how we've done operate nations, especially during the second world war, and also to a certain extent in the first world war as well, gives us an insight into how we can evolve our understanding of amphibious operations, joint forcible entry and so forth. that's always important. it helps us shape the way we train and helps us shape the way we think about operations that may occur in the future. just get into your question, sir. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, if you would join me one more time and thanking lieutenant colonel nikki dean.