A Clarification for Leaders, Instructors, and Ceremonial Teams
Drill and Ceremonies (D&C) is often dismissed as “just tradition” or “just training.” That classification is incomplete.
D&C is not operational warfighting doctrine. But it functions as institutional service doctrine—the body of standards that governs how a military service visibly represents authority, discipline, and national legitimacy.
That distinction matters.
What Doctrine Actually Means
Operational doctrine governs how forces fight and employ power. Each service publishes formal doctrine series:
- U.S. Army (ADP series)
- United States Marine Corps (MCDP series)
- United States Navy (NDP series)
- United States Air Force (AFDP series)
Drill and Ceremonies does not appear in those doctrinal series.
Instead, it is codified in prescriptive manuals such as:
- TC 3-21.5
- MCO 5060.20
- AFPAM 34-1203
These publications dictate exact movement, formation alignment, flag protocol, weapons handling, and ceremonial procedures.
They are binding. They are standardized. They are not optional.
Where Drill Actually Lives
Drill originated as a battlefield control system in the 18th century. By the late 19th century, technological change made linear formations tactically obsolete. Drill transitioned from combat necessity to institutional expression.
Today, drill governs:
- Formation discipline
- Rank authority visualization (formation commander, NCO, squad leaders, etc.)
- Color guard standards
- Funeral honors execution
- Flag precedence and display
When a service presents a color guard at a funeral or national event, it is not performing “tradition.” It is expressing lawful authority on behalf of the United States. That expression must be standardized. Standardization is doctrinal in function.
Federal Law Connects to Drill
Military funeral honors are mandated by Congress under 10 U.S.C. § 1491. Services must provide a detail, folding of the flag, and the sounding of Taps. Those procedures are executed according to service drill manuals.
In other words: Federal law → Service policy → Drill manual → Ceremonial execution.
Drill is the operational bridge between statute and ceremony.
Why This Classification Matters
When D&C is treated as “just tradition,” the result is:
- Local improvisation
- Unauthorized innovations
- Mixed standards in joint ceremonies
- Symbolic inconsistency
Ceremonial performance is public-facing. It reflects directly on professionalism and legitimacy. Operational doctrine preserves combat effectiveness. Institutional doctrine preserves visible authority and public trust. Drill and Ceremonies belongs in the second category.
Commands Are Given, Not Merely Called
Another common weakness in drill language is the casual phrase “calling commands” (read article here publishes 28 Jul 2026). It is not entirely wrong in ordinary conversation. Commands are spoken, projected, and timed. The voice matters. The cadence matters. The preparatory command and command of execution must be clear, distinct, and properly placed.
But doctrinally, commanders give commands.
That distinction is important. A command is not merely a verbal cue. It is an order. The individual in charge of the formation is not simply announcing the next movement; he or she is exercising command authority over the formation. The formation responds because it has been directed to act.
This is why drill manuals use language such as “give the command” rather than merely “call the command.” The commander gives the preparatory command to identify the movement or action that is coming, and then gives the command of execution to direct when that action begins. The command structure itself reflects authority, timing, discipline, and obedience.
This may seem like a small linguistic point, but it affects how people understand drill. When commands are treated as something merely “called out,” drill becomes easy to reduce to performance cues. When commands are understood as orders given within a command relationship, drill retains its proper military character.
There is a difference between calling cadence and giving commands.
Cadence may be called to regulate step and maintain rhythm. Commands are given to direct the formation. One supports movement; the other exercises authority.
That is why command voice is not just volume. It is not yelling. It is not theatrical projection. It is the disciplined vocal expression of authority, clarity, timing, and control. A commander who gives commands properly is not performing for an audience. He or she is directing a formation.
In drill and ceremonies, words matter because authority matters. A command is given, received, and executed. Calling may describe the vocal act, but giving describes the command relationship.
“It’s Only a Training Circular*” Is Not a Defense
*Or pamphlet, whatever you choose.
One of the more common arguments against using the Army’s drill and ceremonies manual as an authoritative source is that TC 3-21.5 is “only” a Training Circular, not an Army Regulation (go ahead and insert USAF language in there “Pamphlet is not an Instruction”). The implication is that because it is not an Army Regulation, it is somehow optional, casual, or nearly meaningless.
That argument misunderstands the Army publishing system.
An Army Regulation establishes policy. A Training Circular generally does not create policy in the same way. However, that does not mean a Training Circular is without authority. Army Regulation 25-30 places Training Circulars within the Armywide doctrinal and training publication program. It states that Armywide doctrinal and training publications standardize doctrine and training practices for the Army, and includes TCs among the formats used for those publications. In other words, TC 3-21.5 may not be punitive law, but it is still the Army’s authenticated standard for drill and ceremonies training and performance.
That distinction matters. Not punitive does not mean not authoritative.
This becomes especially important when people attempt to pull a procedure out of its assigned ceremonial context and use it however they prefer. Two common examples are the firing party (article here) and flag folding (article publishes 11 June 2026).
The firing party procedures in TC 3-21.5 are not presented as a general-purpose ceremonial firing display. They are placed in the funeral section of the manual. That context is not incidental. The firing party is a funeral honors element, not a detachable dramatic effect to be inserted into any ceremony because someone thinks it looks impressive. Taking the firing party information from the funeral section while ignoring the funeral-honors context is not “following the manual.” It is selectively borrowing from the manual while discarding the very context that gives the procedure its purpose.
The same principle applies to flag folding. TC 3-21.5 identifies flag folding and presentation as part of the military funeral honors process. Department of Defense funeral honors guidance likewise identifies folding and presenting the flag, along with the playing of Taps, as part of the minimum military funeral honors detail.
That does not mean every American flag everywhere must be folded into a triangle. It means that when the triangular fold is used as a military funeral honors procedure, it belongs to that ceremonial context and must be performed according to the appropriate standard. Civilians are not universally required to fold the flag in that manner, and non-funeral situations do not automatically become “military funeral honors” simply because a folded flag is present.
This is where the misunderstanding usually begins. People confuse legal compulsion with ceremonial authority. They argue that because a Training Circular is not an Army Regulation, they are free to use the procedures as they see fit. But drill and ceremonies are not governed only by what can be punished under regulation. They are governed by published standards, assigned ceremonial meaning, institutional precedent, and disciplined execution.
The manual’s category title does not erase its function.
TC 3-21.5 is not meaningless because it is called a Training Circular. It is the Army’s official drill and ceremonies standard. When it places a procedure in a specific ceremonial setting, that placement matters. A firing party is not a patriotic sound effect. A military funeral flag fold is not a general-purpose flag-handling requirement. Both are ceremonial actions with defined meaning, and both must be understood inside the doctrine that gives them that meaning.
The problem is not that people consult TC 3-21.5. The problem is that they consult it selectively, detach procedures from their assigned context, and then claim the manual supports what they wanted to do all along.
The Precise Answer
Drill and Ceremonies is not operational warfighting doctrine. It is institutional service doctrine governing ceremonial representation, formation discipline, and symbolic authority. Doctrine governs action. Drill governs representation. Representation sustains legitimacy. And legitimacy sustains the force.
If you would like a deeper academic treatment of this subject, see ICS Doctrine Clarification Series DCS 00-101.