Here is an attempt at an evaluation of the war on terror to date. Before going all "ZZZZbbbrt...DING!...my...brain...stopped...so...write...about...right/left" on the findings, I am more interested in:
- Are the evaluation standards fair?
- Are the assessments fair?
- Is the exercise useful?
Comments
Michael Demmons - September 16, 2004 12:44 PM
Had me right up until:
<i>you might want to read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies"</i>
Alan - September 16, 2004 12:57 PM
Me, too. I don't even know one way or the other where Clarke fits for me but it was kind of like a pitch for Min-wax at the end of a show about furniture repair.
Bill McOwen - September 16, 2004 6:14 PM
Not clear on the part Michael is talking about. Did he edit it out? Looks interesting but where are the links to actual government documents that would show a less biased approach. It looks like the selection in terms of sources is just there to support a point that the write had in the first place. Not a balanced approach.
Alan - September 16, 2004 6:50 PM
Definitely an edit - the conclusion is about 30% as long as it was. I, of course, very edit and am often offended arbitrarily...but would grant dispensations in this instance given at least the attempt to even <i>appear</i> analytical. <p>What would a balanced approach look like? What are the issues? I would split out the categories which must be inncluded for consideration as follows:<ul><li>Afghanistan</li><li>Iraq</li><li>Other assorted war on terror activities on foreign soil<li></li>Homeland security<li></li>Fiscal support<li></li>Diplomatic support<li></li>Political support</li></ul>Those are my minimums headings for consideration of whether the war has been well done or poorly done.