Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
As someone who was sort of at the periphery of the 3-24 development process, I think you greatly overestimate the role of Dave and John. Ultimately the manual reflects the judgement of the flag officers of the two services.

Steve:

But this was exactly the point i made in an earlier posting to highlight the main point concerning plagiarism that Price makes but no one wants to take head-on. Actually based on your experience with the writing of the manual you probably are right that Nagl and Kilkullen, McFate et al had little actual role in the writing of the thing. But Price's point is that these invidiauls have helped to create the perception that they were the primary writers. I mean I bet if we went back in and reviewed the Daily Show with Nagl or the Charlies Rose interview with Kilkullen we would certainly get the impression that they were the primary writers of it. Which again is Price's point along with the idea that this manual is not your garden variety version of army doctrine and i cant believe that any one else out there would think so either. How many versions of army doctrine in the last 20 years have published by a major university press and sold many, many copies to the general public?

This is the question i have raised and the point from Price's piece that i have tried to highlight. And in this sense i do think it is reasonable to question people like Nagl, Kilkullen, McFate, and others as to why there wasnt a better job at citing original sources in the final version.

I wish Price would have written this piece with those as the primary questions and left off his rant against anthropologists in the Army which is the main reason i think he has been attacked so stridently.

thanks
gian