Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

**Maximus** · 11-04-2007

Appreciate the feedback. Just a few comments then I must sign off on this topic...

"8-months is a long time. Fine it was written by 5-10 people, but I'm sure each of them had a few research assistants. The research is the time consuming part, writing isn't. If it was written under such time pressure with so little review, then it almost immediately should have been re-anylized, edited and reviewed on a larger scale. This leading to a "revised" edition 3-6-18 months down the road. A revised version of "#19" along with all other possible mistakes should have been sent in memos to troops so they could correct their copies (as well as thier perception of that entry) until they recieved an updated version."

The 5-10 writers DID NOT have a few research assistants, in fact they had none. We're talking about a Marine Corps at war, not a law firm, not a university, not a... 90% of the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN was written by active duty Marines on their "free time", when not instructing, advising, working on other taskers, etc. The Marine Corps does not have a pool of writers--active duty, research assistants, GS-X or otherwise--standing by to write new doctrinal publications. I confront this reality almost daily. With respect to this is why we have "interim" publications, a thorough vetting process, and then we can all slap the table on the "perfect" manual. Again, not in this Corps, not at this time. Most of the initial writers have since moved on from their billets. Some are commanding units that are either in Iraq or about to leave for Iraq.

Here's the reality: The review process is not as thorough as we'd all like because your average Marine has higher priorities given the OpTempo today than reviewing/editing/re-writing a manual. We preach the 70-80% solution when it comes to decision-making and this has to suffice for manuals at this time as well, both the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN, FM 3-24, new MG Publications, Motorized Ops or any other subject. We can talk until we're blue in the face about the importance of documentation, accuracy, and everything else, but in the end, we've got what we've got when it comes to FM 3-24 and the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN and these documents are 1000 times better than anything we had beforehand. Yes, we must strive to revise, update, keep current all of our publications. But please keep in mind many of the warriors that played a key role in creating the documents are decisively engaged elsewhere. For example, LtCol Nagl, in charge of ensuring transition teams--the military's main effort--are ready to go; Gen Petraeus is now in Baghdad; Gen Mattis leaving I MEF to be the CG at Joint Forces Command, etc.

**Sargent** · 11-04-2007

Originally Posted by Maximus

The 5-10 writers DID NOT have a few research assistants, in fact they had none. We're talking about a Marine Corps at war, not a law firm, not a university, not a... 90% of the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN was written by active duty Marines on their "free time", when not instructing, advising, working on other taskers, etc. The Marine Corps does not have a pool of writers--active duty, research assistants, GS-X or otherwise--standing by to write new doctrinal publications. I confront this reality almost daily. With respect to this is why we have "interim" publications, a thorough vetting process, and then we can all slap the table on the "perfect" manual. Again, not in this Corps, not at this time. Most of the initial writers have since moved on from their billets. Some are commanding units that are either in Iraq or about to leave for Iraq.

Here's the reality: The review process is not as thorough as we'd all like because your average Marine has higher priorities given the OpTempo today than reviewing/editing/re-writing a manual. We preach the 70-80% solution when it comes to decision-making and this has to suffice for manuals at this time as well, both the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN, FM 3-24, new MG Publications, Motorized Ops or any other subject. We can talk until we're blue in the face about the importance of documentation, accuracy, and everything else, but in the end, we've got what we've got when it comes to FM 3-24 and the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN and these documents are 1000 times better than anything we had beforehand. Yes, we must strive to revise, update, keep current all of our publications. But please keep in mind many of the warriors that played a key role in creating the documents are decisively engaged elsewhere. For example, LtCol Nagl, in charge of ensuring training teams--the military's main effort--are ready to go; Gen Petraeus is now in Baghdad; Gen Mattis leaving I MEF to be the CG at Joint Forces Command, etc.

While optempo is high, I think this case is overstated.

1. There are plenty of Marine officers in B-billets who's time could have been utilized to assist in this matter. The two years my husband spent at his before returning the fleet last year for a deployment were not the picture of busy. Clearly some percentage of Marine officers at any given time are being underutilized.

2. Even Marines in the Fleet are not always pinned down by operational helmet fires. Were it not for the actual fires that recently plagued SoCal, his regimental job was not so onerous that some time could not be spared to provide an assist.

3. Even a deployed Marine has lot's of downtime. In a mission with an incredibly high optempo, my husband read voraciously. He even had time to vet a 25 page document I put together to assist a defense analyst.

4. I'm sure you couldn't throw a stone very far without finding more than a handful of military history doctoral candidates or newly minted PhDs who would have been happy to assist in this effort for little or no money. Of all the unpaid work I do for the Marine Corps, this would have been one task I would have jumped at to do given my own professional and scholarly interests. I know, for example, that Elliot Cohen at SAIS has provided students for military work, some paid and other unpaid -- I worked on two such projects during my time there, lo those many years ago (one a research project, another a Marine Corps War College CINCEX -- interesting, now, because it was during Larry Wilkerson's tenure there, but that's another story).

*5. A particular comment re Gen. Mattis: even in the period leading up to his deployment to Iraq in 03/04 he had time to write on the importance of reading military history. Based on that, he and I exchanged several messages. I can't have been the only person with whom he had personal exchanges on the matter, so clearly he had time in his schedule to indulge in such "frivolities."

As for the Price article, I read it and found it an interesting critique. Not necessarily a useful critique, but certainly one that made me think about the manual and military documents generally.

The piece I found most compelling in the article was practically buried, and did not receive much follow-on in the article itself:

"The significance of the University of Chicago Press' republication of the Manual must be seen in the context of the Pentagon's domestic propaganda campaign to generate support for an indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq. Here is an "independent" academic press playing point guard in the production of pseudo-scholarly political propaganda. As the Middle East scholar Steve Niva recently suggested to me, 'General Petraeus' counterinsurgency in Iraq has failed, but his domestic campaign for American hearts and minds is succeeding in textbook fashion; the strategy is to weaken the demand for withdrawal by dividing insurgents (anti-war activists) from the general population (American public).'"

http://www.counterpunch.org/price10302007.html
David Price, "Pilfered Scholarship..."

It made me wonder whether a military document or work of doctrine had ever been conceived of or used in this way. Given some other critiques of the Manual I've heard (along the lines that, in the end, it doesn't offer much that is new -- perhaps this new iteration makes the information more valuable because it now has much greater institutional support), the notion that this document was meant to salve the public fears is not so far flung. It's certainly an interesting use of doctrine.

**SteveMetz** · 11-04-2007

Sheesh--the fact that every sentence in the manual isn't footnoted isn't due to a lack of time or labor. There were slews of Ph.D.s who worked on it. The reason is IT IS NOT A WORK OF SCHOLARSHIP AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE.

**Sargent** · 11-04-2007

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Sheesh--the fact that every sentence in the manual isn't footnoted isn't due to a lack of time or labor. There were slews of Ph.D.s who worked on it. The reason is IT IS NOT A WORK OF SCHOLARSHIP AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE.

If this is in response to what I wrote, I did not argume in my post that the manual should be footnoted, I merely responded to the notion that it could not be footnoted due to a lack of adequate resources.

However, as to whether a manual such as this should be footnoted, I can think of several reasons why the effort might be worthwhile. For example, one of the end-users, finding some piece particularly useful, might want to know more about the subject. A footnote to a source will provide a starting point from which to learn more about that particular issue. Writers of future manuals would certainly benefit from having recourse to the captured knowledge of previous generations.

At some point during the research phase, when the information was collected, a decision was made to leave off the citation details. They had it and chose not to use it. Even if this is not a scholarly work for academic purposes, I don't think there is a definitive answer that such a manual would not benefit from the utilization of certain scholarly forms. There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of that decision, no matter the outcome of that discussion. If the creation of the manual were likened to a combat operation, what we are engaged in is akin to an after action review.

Cheers,
Jill

**SteveMetz** · 11-04-2007

Originally Posted by Sargent

If this is in response to what I wrote, I did not argume in my post that the manual should be footnoted, I merely responded to the notion that it could not be footnoted due to a lack of adequate resources.

However, as to whether a manual such as this should be footnoted, I can think of several reasons why the effort might be worthwhile. For example, one of the end-users, finding some piece particularly useful, might want to know more about the subject. A footnote to a source will provide a starting point from which to learn more about that particular issue. Writers of future manuals would certainly benefit from having recourse to the captured knowledge of previous generations.

At some point during the research phase, when the information was collected, a decision was made to leave off the citation details. They had it and chose not to use it. Even if this is not a scholarly work for academic purposes, I don't think there is a definitive answer that such a manual would not benefit from the utilization of certain scholarly forms. There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of that decision, no matter the outcome of that discussion. If the creation of the manual were likened to a combat operation, what we are engaged in is akin to an after action review.

Cheers,
Jill

My argument was that doctrine could or should have a bibliography, but not footnotes. The reason is that adding footnotes creates the illusion that it is a scholarly document, which creates unrealistic expectations (such as those of Dr. Price). I do not think it's accurate to say that "At some point during the research phase, when the information was collected, a decision was made to leave off the citation details" because the overwhelming amount of information in a doctrine manual is not collected from "citable" sources, but from the collected wisdom of the body of professional experts. So a point is not considered valid by whether it was lifted from some published article, but--to be honest--by whether key flag officers considered it valid.

**SteveMetz** · 11-04-2007

This whole thread has convinced me that someone with extensive experience in doctrine development needs to write a scholarly article on what doctrine is and how it is developed--Doctrine For Dummies or something. Maybe I'll put that on my "to do" list. It would be item #3458 on the list.

**Stan** · 11-04-2007

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

This whole thread has convinced me that someone with extensive experience in doctrine development needs to write a scholarly article on what doctrine is and how it is developed--Doctrine For Dummies or something. Maybe I'll put that on my "to do" list. It would be item #3458 on the list.

Not to overkill this subject, but DIA did try and do just the same with their admin manual for total idiots, 100-1

Not only does it suck, it's still with us.

**Rex Brynen** · 11-04-2007

For what its worth, the US Army publishing guidelines (including copyright clearance and citations of material) can be found here:

The Army Publishing Program (AR 25-30) 27 March 2006

Army Publishing: Actions Officers Guide (PAM 25- 40) 7 November 2006.

**Rex Brynen** · 11-04-2007

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

Sheesh--the fact that every sentence in the manual isn't footnoted isn't due to a lack of time or labor. There were slews of Ph.D.s who worked on it. The reason is IT IS NOT A WORK OF SCHOLARSHIP AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE.

Are you saying it was doctrine, and not a scholarly work?

*grins and ducks behind his dead horse*