In the field of war studies there is an ongoing debate about the understanding of the doctrine. A common understanding of the doctrine is important not only within the field of research but also because it creates a common language among its users which reduces the risk of misunderstandings. Harald Høiback, an important player in the matter, claims that a nations prolonged geostrategic situation predicts its doctrines content with regard to its function. These functions are to act as tools of command, education and change. The main aim of this essay is to make a contribution to the debate by testing Høiback´s predication. In a case study of the Swedish strategic doctrines MSD12 and MSD16, Høiback´s predication is tested using qualitative text analysis. The main finding of this essay is that a doctrine can change its function as tool of command faster than Høiback's assertion predicts.

The military concept of asymmetric warfare has become both popular and ambiguous in military scientific discourse. Even though the debate amongst scholars has been focused on what kinds of power may cause a conflict to become asymmetric, the concept is also often used to describe unconventional war against former colonial nations.   The purpose of this study is to compare how asymmetric warfare has been described by the Swedish Armed Forces, in military theory literature and the article which founded the concept. By concept analysis, asymmetric warfare is analysed through John Gerrings metatheory.   The result shows that the concept is indeed ambiguous and broad in its meaning. The scientific literature describes the concept as debated and imprecise; the Swedish Armed Forces describe asymmetry in warfare as inequality of motives between two actors. This study contributes to the military discourse by highlighting the concept of asymmetric warfare as uncertain in its meaning. It also explains what approach the Swedish Armed Forces takes to the concept.

Det finns flera teorier som försöker beskriva och förstå doktriner. Flera av dem har identifierat den kommunikativa aspekten av doktrin, men ingen av teorierna har ett utvecklat ramverk för att kunna analysera detta. Denna studie ställer frågan hur doktrin kan förstås utifrån teori om strategisk kommunikation och syftar till att se om Høibacks teori om doktrin går att komplettera med aspekten kommunikation. Studiens frågeställning besvaras genom en idéanalys av Militärstrategisk Doktrin 2011 (MSD12) och Militärstrategisk Doktrin 2016 (MSD16). För att genomföra analysen används teori om strategisk kommunikation. Slutsatsen är att båda doktrinerna går att beskriva och förstås utifrån teori om strategisk kommunikation och att strategisk kommunikation med fördel kan användas för att komplettera Høibacks teori.