SWJED professed here of his experience with editors when working on the Urban GIRH. Many others know the drill. It appears that more of the same may have occurred here with FM 3-24 -- an editorial decision to go light on the footnotes, not an absence of intellectual rigor, and certainly not an intent to pilfer. At least not in this stage of the development effort. I’ll also observe, at risk of not only drinking the Kool-Aid but of spilling some on my shirt, that I am surprised, in a heartening way, that there has been a bare minimum of finger-pointing from the authors at the editors. They knew the scholarship was solid. They knew the almighty footnotes were in there. And they knew that to tens of thousands of operators, it didn’t matter. So they didn’t pass the buck. They've stood behind the strength of their work and accepted the editorial decisions, despite whatever individual opinions they may have.
Well said. Insh'allah our long national footnote nightmare will now be over.