Hello folks,

First off, let me start by saying that attacking Price's credentials and other forms of ad hominen commentary in a public forum is using a tactic that I really "dislike". It is the intellectual equivalent of terrorist tactics designed to destroy the reputation of the person involved and, as a result, to smear their work with the same emotional connotations of "immorality". I will freely admit that such commentary has a cathartic effect when done in private, usually over a few beers, but doing it in public is just not good form; it detracts from the substantive issue of disagreements over the content while, at the same time, reducing the general discussion to something reminiscent of a school yard brawl amongst 5 year olds.

It is also a tactic that I would hope most people who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan would recognize, at least by analogy. In academic terms, David just set up an intellectual IED aimed at the CoG of most academics - their employability in universities and their ability to get research funding. Again, by analogy (which I will admit is always suspect ), engaging in public ad hominem counter-attacks is as productive of the general good as coalition forces placing IEDs in Taliban strongholds or insurgent held areas of Iraq.

The ultimate question, at least regarding the use of public ad hominem attacks, is whether or not "we" are better than "them".

On the copyright issue, the standard for fair use I have been given by my university is 250 words with citation. Higher amounts require permission of the copyright holder, which is frequently not the author. Citation of some type is mandatory, otherwise this constitutes theft of intellectual property. There are, as far as I know, two exceptions to that. The first exception is the "common knowledge" exception where something, such as a generic definition similar to many of those in first year text books, is held "in common" within the discipline. The second exception is parallel evolution of thought where the author reaches a conclusion (or concept or definition) from a different starting point and using different logic than that of the person whose work they supposedly plagiarized. A third, possible exception (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means!), would be the use of eminent domain over intellectual property.

I can certainly understand the requirement that a field manual be easily readable (which most academic writing isn't). I would be horrified if field manuals were held to academic standards. At the same time, a second publication of the manual by an academic press places the audience focus of the document in question. As Rex notes, there are some citations in the U of C published version, which I applaud, but I believe that the rest of the citations should have been included even if they were stripped out by the original publication committee. The audience for the U of C version is not the military in the field, although I am certain that a significant number of military personelle have purchased it, it is the general public. As Price notes:

"Some view the Manual as containing plans for a new intellectually fueled "smart bomb," and it is being sold to the public as a scholarly based strategic guide to victory in Iraq. In July, this contrivance was bolstered as the University of Chicago Press republished the Manual in a stylish, olive drab, faux-field ready edition, designed to slip into flack jackets or Urban Outfitter accessory bags." (1)
Despite his snide innuendo that it is only of interest to the military and survivalists, he is quite correct that this is a document that is being published for the general public by an academic press. The defense that the University of Chicago press appears to offer as noted by Price (1) is, in many ways valid - it is an historical document and should be published "as released" - to modify the text of an historical document, as Price suggests should have been done, would, in and of itself, constitute an academic abuse that, if any of my students did it, would call for their expulsion.

Given the importance of FM 3-24, I would, however, strongly urge that the authors consider the production of a "critical version" of the FM for publication by the University of Chicago.

Marc

Endnotes:
1. David Price, Pilfered Scholarship Devastates General Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual, Counterpunch, October 30th, 20007, available at http://www.counterpunch.com/price10302007.html dl:Nov 2, 2007