“Desperate People with Limited Skills”

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

In that case, the culpability lies with the University of Chicago Press, not the authors of the manual. The concern of the authors was saving the lives of soldiers and attaining U.S. national security interests, not meeting scholarly standards.

I've got to show you how to edit long quotes ! I agree totally that the "flaw", if there is one, does not lie with the authors. I'm not even sure if it lies with U of C press either - an historical document shouldn't be "corrected", so it is, IMO, open to honest debate. I do like the idea of either a "critical edition" or a fully referenced version being made available.

In some ways, it boils down to intended audience. Field manuals are aimed at soldiers - they are written in a specific genre and language style that has to be neat, clean, logically laid out and, above all else, easily translatable into do's and don'ts in the field.

The genres of academic writing don't really fit this bill. In some circles, "applicability" of an article in the non-academic world is a hindrance, and not only in Anthropology! (references provided on request!). One of the (many) conflations I see in the Price article (op. cit) is that he applies scholarly standards from one discipline to a multi-disciplinary work that was not targeted at a scholarly audience. I could as easily criticize his writing for not being accessible to the internet audiences he is writing for because he did not use the culturally appropriate symbolic form of communications - i.e. emoticons - and that would be an equally "valid" critique.

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

As I've mentioned, in my opinion it was a mistake to publish something that was never intended as a scholarly work with a university press. Knowing most of the authors of the manual, I myself think there are probably better uses of their time than trying to address the complaints of Dr. Price, et. al. As others have noted in this thread, though, his issue was not really the absence of citations. He was just using that as a trojan horse for his personal ideology.

Agreed. Then again, I would like to point out that he is also providing me with invaluable, open source (with full references made ), data for an article I am thinking of writing on the similarities in rhetorical strategies between the current extremist anti-military Anthropologists and Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Spenger (see here). The pattern of social interaction has so many similarities at the rhetorical level that I believe it would be an important piece of research drawing in, as it does, the confluence of rhetoric, professional knowledge and new technologies .

Marc

[selil]

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article. Though a lab manual might have some references, the concepts, ideas, and even language found in a chemistry lab manual isn't going to be cited verbatim. Ideas and lanague are going to be reported as actionable items that the student or audience are going to do. Not research. Looking through my technology lab manual for TCP/IP nowhere does it cite Vint Cerf when discussing the principles of TCP/IP. Now grab my text book or any of hundreds of journal articles and there you go... Cited. Even in academia we have different standards. Oh, in the aforementioned lab manual it does have end notes discussing a variety of topics and some things are cited here and there.

[Steve Blair]

No chance of pissing me off, Sam. I think you're right with that one. But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

As I've said before, I just have a personal interest in being able to track down some of the stuff in 3-24, and I'm lazy enough about it that I'd like the citations. But I can also live with 3-24 without them. It's more of a distillation and handbook than an actual academic text, IMO anyhow.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

how edit long authors made boils neat, clean, logically I could not being accessible i.e. emoticons

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by selil

I'm going to piss everybody off....

I think one of the problems is that anthropologists aren't scientists. Well, not bottle and beaker kind. The FM is more like a lab manual than a text book or journal article.

Hmmm, good point, Sam. And, no, it doesn't piss me off either .

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

But I also think that the semi-science communities want to have it both ways (use sloppy/no citing when they feel like it and then whip out the citation stick when they want to whack someone).

I'll have to think about that one but, just off the top of my head, would guess that there is no institutional intent to "whack" people. Then again, I always use the "never ascribe to malice what can be covered by stupidity" meme .

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

One interesting side note here is that I instinctively rush to the defense of the doctrine writers and you to the academic world.

I don't mean this as a critique at all, just an observation.

No, I certainly didn't take it that way at all. As an observation, I think you are probably bang on. On the level of emotional reactions, I find myself slightly more than mildly frustrated with the bureaucratic process of writing and publishing the FM without many of the citations, but certainly not "angry" over it. Sorry, I can't remember who mentioned that the USMC tends to use citations in their manuals, but that, along with the references that were included, seems to establish a precedent for the inclusion of at least some of them.

Where I do get "angry" is with David's rhetoric and logic, and with the effects that seems to be having on at least some parts of the Anthropology-Military dialogue. It frustrates me to see that "terrorist" rhetorical strategy working by inflaming passions in public and emotionally polarizing the entire universe of discourse (no references, DP, it's part of common knowledge).

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I was the one who brought up the citations in USMC manuals, Marc, but that was in direct reference to the Warfighting series (the MCDP 1- series), which are something of a unique case (they're intended more to teach how to think about war as opposed to prescriptive doctrine). Interesting stuff if you feel like a light read.

And with the community comment, I was referring to individuals more than institutions, since I tend to feel that individuals are attracted to institutions that match their own behavior patterns (or will not seriously restrict those behavior patterns). Of course stupidity is always an option as well....

[J Wolfsberger]

Just when I was preparing my own nasty contribution, you had to inject calm and reason into the thread.

In my own experience, if I, or my people, prepare any engineering document, such as a research report, there better be appropriate citations. If we prepare a manual, a) we cut and paste with shameless abandon and b) there are no citations. It’s the difference between a manual and other types of writing. (No one expects citations to scholarly papers on network or information theory in the users’ manual for their cell phone.) In fact, if I caught someone trying to find a way to rewrite things to avoid “plagiarism,” I’d probably chew them out.

Criticizing a manual for being a manual instead of a dissertation strikes me as a bit silly. I think Dr. Price has entered a culture (military and/or technical) of which he has neither knowledge nor appreciation, and imposed his own cultural norms. (Marc, wouldn’t that be a pretty serious violation of his own “cultural” norms?)

The only other point that approached validity was criticizing the HTTs for their research. On that score, I wasn’t aware they were over there to perform research. I wasn’t aware that the war was an experiment. Does he really think it serves anyone’s interest to have troops blunder about in complete ignorance of the culture they’re dealing with?

Overall, Dr. Price’s article didn’t offer anything of value. I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it.

[Ken White]

Well said.....

[SWJED]

As an aside, I wrote a "pocket handbook" for the Marine Corps in 1999 - The Urban Generic Information Requirements Handbook (now called Intelligence vice Information). I took great pains to cite all works and all were removed when edited and to print. I have to say I agreed with that decision for several reasons.

1) The handbook was / is a field-ready guide - a check list to determine information gaps, a quick reference to request information and a baseline support tool for forward deployed units. As such the information contained in the handbook was the heart and soul - citations would have added clutter to the essential elements of the document.

2) Deployed units don't exactly have the time or resources to data-mine citations. Again, the essential elements of information are the important items - the who, what, when, where and why - up front and brief.

3) Documents like the UGIRH were designed to fit into a cargo pocket - as such my footnotes would have added another 15-20 (guesstimate here) pages to a document of this size. Clutter, a much larger document and a significant cost for printing when you are talking thousands of copies.

Just my 2-cents on a related issue.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

Just when I was preparing my own nasty contribution, you had to inject calm and reason into the thread.

In my own experience, if I, or my people, prepare any engineering document, such as a research report, there better be appropriate citations. If we prepare a manual, a) we cut and paste with shameless abandon and b) there are no citations. It’s the difference between a manual and other types of writing. (No one expects citations to scholarly papers on network or information theory in the users’ manual for their cell phone.) In fact, if I caught someone trying to find a way to rewrite things to avoid “plagiarism,” I’d probably chew them out.

Criticizing a manual for being a manual instead of a dissertation strikes me as a bit silly. I think Dr. Price has entered a culture (military and/or technical) of which he has neither knowledge nor appreciation, and imposed his own cultural norms. (Marc, wouldn’t that be a pretty serious violation of his own “cultural” norms?)

The only other point that approached validity was criticizing the HTTs for their research. On that score, I wasn’t aware they were over there to perform research. I wasn’t aware that the war was an experiment. Does he really think it serves anyone’s interest to have troops blunder about in complete ignorance of the culture they’re dealing with?

Overall, Dr. Price’s article didn’t offer anything of value. I’m sorry I wasted my time reading it.

The problem is that when the University of Chicago press reprinted the manual, it was moved into Dr. Price's cultural mileu. That, as I've mentioned, was a mistake. But I also think that his attack has little to do with academic standards and more to do with his own personal ideology. I wonder if he critiques the shoddy scholarship in books by Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky?

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by SWJED

As an aside, I wrote a "pocket handbook" for the Marine Corps in 1999 - The Urban Generic Information Requirements Handbook (now called Intelligence vice Information). I took great pains to cite all works and all were removed when edited and to print. I have to say I agreed with that decision for several reasons.

1) The handbook was / is a field-ready guide - a check list to determine information gaps, a quick reference to request information and a baseline support tool for forward deployed units. As such the information contained in the handbook was the heart and soul - citations would have added clutter to the essential elements of the document.

2) Deployed units don't exactly have the time or resources to data-mine citations. Again, the essential elements of information are the important items - the who, what, when, where and why - up front and brief.

3) Documents like the UGIRH were designed to fit into a cargo pocket - as such my footnotes would have added another 15-20 (guesstimate here) pages to a document of this size. Clutter, a much larger document and a significant cost for printing when you are talking thousands of copies.

Just my 2-cents on a related issue.

I think you've touched on one the key issues on 3-24. During the big prep session at Leavenworth in February 2005, there were lots of debate over who the audience was. Was it senior NCOs, junior officers who had to go out and do counterinsurgency, or was it the PME system, strategic planners, and senior leaders? Ultimately, the authors tried to address both audiences. And, like any compromise, it ended up not fully satisfying either.

I can see where the conceptual part intended for PME, planners, and senior leaders should be more rigorous in its documentation. Probably it should have been two separate manuals.

Incidentally, I had the same reaction a few years ago when asked to chop on a draft of the "new" Small Wars Manual. I said I couldn't figure out who the audience was since--in stark contrast to the original one--it seemed more appropriate for use in a graduate seminar than to be read by a grizzled gunny while on the boat to some tropical hotspot. I was particularly upset that they took out the guidance on how to load a pack mule.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

...
. . .
I was particularly upset that they took out the guidance on how to load a pack mule.

See: LINK

On an only slightly more serious note; we used to tailor manuals by echelon; occasionally one for each echelon where appropriate but mostly broadly defined as Bn/Co/Platoon, then Regt/Bde and finally echelons above reality. It seemed to work -- which is, I guess, why we dumped the idea. On size fits all, the American way...

I guess that makes life easier on the doctrine writers at the branch and service schools who in my observation tended to do more cutting and pasting than writing.

[selil]

There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

2) In contrast to MPAA/RIAA/ and issues with intellectual property ownership of the Mouse (Disney) academic plagiarism is about claim of credit and not necessarily profit and as such is protected by fair use and relaxed constraints on use. Is it possible that the scope of plagiarism has been expanded inappropriately by the commercial copyright issues?

3) In the United States federal use of copyright material has always been protected through a variety of mechanisms from library exemption to evidence exemption to sunshine laws in the production and dissemination of materials. Is it possible that copyright simply does not apply to the federal government as a creating and publishing entity?

4) The government could simply stamp FOUO the FM and it would no longer be an issue but they haven't. Is academic political punditry creating a situation where refusal of open disclosure will be the result and access to materials will be restricted?

5) In the social sciences the ideas are the science. Without evidence (no published work) of the ideas of scholars involved in the Human Terrain project their science is questioned (and threatened with censorship). Is the idealogical position (statement of principles) of the discipline of anthropology simply at odds with dissemination and evaluation of good science?

I guess is this just simply another example of academia and the military taking different roads and how long will it be before the military has their own complete education system? Ooops already happened.

[MattM]

With hindsight, Dr. McFate replies to queries and critiques of the Manual's scholarship seem odd. In response to González's critique in Anthropology Today of the Manual's weak anthropological base, McFate framed the Manual as "military doctrine, not an academic treatise" and inexplicably proclaimed that "doctrine does not have footnotes."

Thus, Dr. Price was aware of the Field Manuals Authors’ stance before he wrote this Counterpunch article.

Dr. Price's premise is that the US Army Field Manual is not up to scholarly standards. He was well aware that the author's did not hold themselves to this set of standards. Yet, it forms the basis for his criticisms.

I did a point by point rebutall of most of Dr. Price's claims. It would not be a good thread read, as it would start above the screen and finish below the screen. Honestly, I don't think the wild claims and disassociated points of Dr. Price's article would pass in a Philosophy 300 class. I am sure he was heralded at happy hour, though.


Note to self: Low standards at St. Martin's University.

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by selil

There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

I guess this kind of tangentially addresses your point, but anything I write at the office becomes the property of the People and cannot be copyrighted. So when I get the copyright release form for a journal article, I have to indicate that I do not own the copyright and therefore cannot assign it.

Here's the kicker--right now I'm on sabbatical working out of my home office. Much of the material I'm using was collected at government expense. Yet this manuscript can be copyrighted.

This has actually been a big issue for us: we're an accredited, degree granting institution of higher education, yet our faculty cannot sit in their office and write books because no publisher is going to produce a book they can't hold copyright on. We're trying to get the legislation changed on this.

Interesting tidbit on this--because Harry Summers' book On Strategy was written while he was at the Strategic Studies Institute, it is not copyrighted. Only the preface, which he wrote at home, is.

[marct]

Hi Sam,

These are really good questions.

[quote=selil;30069]There are some questions about this I've not formulated really good ideas about. I'll pose them as questions because to me that is really what they are....

Originally Posted by selil

1) The national academies of science have stated on several occasions that copyrights and government funded research are in direct contrast to each other. Is it possible that anybody publishing in a copyright journal whether funded by NSF, state university pay check, or just private institution receiving federal education dollars are involved in unethical or immoral conduct of dissemination?

I would have to say yes, but only if they accepted the NAS moral code you conditional that you mention. I have noticed a curious disconnect amongst many people between their stated ideals and their "unofficial" views.

Originally Posted by selil

Is it possible that the scope of plagiarism has been expanded inappropriately by the commercial copyright issues?

Probably, but I would also argue that copyright has been expanded well beyond its original purpose.

Originally Posted by selil

3) In the United States federal use of copyright material has always been protected through a variety of mechanisms from library exemption to evidence exemption to sunshine laws in the production and dissemination of materials. Is it possible that copyright simply does not apply to the federal government as a creating and publishing entity?

No comment. In Canada, the Crown retains copyright (not the Government).

Originally Posted by selil

4) The government could simply stamp FOUO the FM and it would no longer be an issue but they haven't. Is academic political punditry creating a situation where refusal of open disclosure will be the result and access to materials will be restricted?

Possible, but I wouldn't call it too likely given the propensity of things to leak. I think a far more likely outcome of academic punditry is a growing wedge between polarized sides and the increasing marginalization of certain disciplines.

Originally Posted by selil

5) In the social sciences the ideas are the science. Without evidence (no published work) of the ideas of scholars involved in the Human Terrain project their science is questioned (and threatened with censorship). Is the idealogical position (statement of principles) of the discipline of anthropology simply at odds with dissemination and evaluation of good science?

No. There is a long tradition in Anthropology of taking a fairly long time to do fieldwork and long delays in publication. The HTTs haven't been around long enough for this to be a problem.

Originally Posted by selil

I guess is this just simply another example of academia and the military taking different roads and how long will it be before the military has their own complete education system? Ooops already happened.

LOLOL

[jcustis]

Was it senior NCOs, junior officers who had to go out and do counterinsurgency, or was it the PME system, strategic planners, and senior leaders? Ultimately, the authors tried to address both audiences. And, like any compromise, it ended up not fully satisfying either.

I think the 3-24 is built for the battalion TF and above. It's companion, the MCIP 3-33.01 is definitely built for the small unit leader, coy-level and below. The MCIP is, however, relevant reading for every staff member at the battalion level and above, so they can grasp what the subordinate maneuver elements will be wrestling with.

[marct]

Refuting Colonel John Nagl
Army's Prime Salesman of Counterinsurgency Manual Seeks to Defend Stolen Scholarship

By DAVID PRICE
Counterpunch, Nov 3/4, 2007

I will note that there is at least one quote included in DP's article that, while attributed, lists no source, id est

By this I mean people like the recently retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez who know that the Iraq war is now "a nightmare with no end in sight".

[SteveMetz]

Originally Posted by marct

I will note that there is at least one quote included in DP's article that, while attributed, lists no source, id est

Well, my theory is that Dr. Price has stumbled on a way to get the attention that his normal work doesn't bring. My recommendation to him is that instead of writing silly essays, he follow the lead of Chris Crocker and do a YouTube video called, "Leave Anthropology Alone!!"

[selil]

Anybody else notice that Counterpunch is in the middle of a fundraising drive, and Dr. Price's book is listed on each of his posts?