Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
I DO think plagiarism is an important thing, and while I recognize both the accidental and cultural elements of how it happened, it was nonetheless an easily avoided mistake. The Army's response, I think, is an ineffectual and even counterproductive one, lacking the absolutely essential "mistakes were made, we apologize, and we'll fix it in any future editions". Perhaps they're thinking ahead to civil suit liability (and yes, plagiarism can be grounds for a civil suit), but even then I think an "honest mistake" approach would be better. The official response also smacks somewhat of a "yes we left our left flank open, but then we often do that and its unfair of our opponents to exploit the opening..." which I find no more convincing in political damage-control or the debate over doctrine than I would on a battlefield.ss).
I disagree. I think plagiarism is a concept that applies to scholarly writing, not government documents. I believing critiquing military doctrine because it doesn't meet academic standards makes no more sense than critiquing an academic article because it doesn't include actionable policy recommendations. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If a mistake was made, it was allowing the University of Chicago Press to reprint the thing. That opened the manual to charges that it should be judged by academic standards.