Reply to RTK about sources and other concerns
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
Do you write your positions off of mainstream media accounts or have you been in Iraq since 2003 at all?
I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?
Quote:
Additionally, your writings have always smacked of one who has bought into the mainstream media perspective.
The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.
Quote:
You highlight problems and seldom solutions.
A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.
Quote:
Lastly, you have long used your postings on this web site to attempt to gain readers to DNI.
Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.
Quote:
You've scantly addressed direct criticism, or even direct questioning.
This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?
Quote:
I'd prefer you'd just write on DNI (we know you're their) and quit asking permission to post here.
It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.
Quote:
... your inability to understand their practical application in counterinsurgency operations
Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.
Quote:
...which, in all actuality, you're using the term in way too general an application
Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.
Reply to RTK: no need to apologize!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
FM is well within his rights to post on SWJ. Perhaps my earlier post was a bit less well constructed and too emotive.
I agree with what you expressed both here and in the Kilcullen discussion. Posting from another site is, I believe, not discussed in the rules and therefore seems problematic. I did not ask then, but did so before starting this thread. I'm not sure where the "implied endorsement" view came from, as I doubt either of us thought that.
Web communities tend to spend much time on internal mechanics. I've read that some astonishingly high fraction of Wikipedia discussions are about its internal mechanics. It's a price paid for members taking the community seriously.
Since this has come up twice to my knowledge, adding a sentence about cross-posting might be useful. Just an outsider’s suggestion. (I hope it's not in there and I overlooked it in December)
As for previous discussions, the “Kilcullen” debate went on long past the point where I ceased to get anything from it. Not to mention the endless ad hominem attacks. Who was right or wrong I leave for the God or the SWC moderators to determine. I made what I considered a good faith contribution to a thread I started, not a life-long commitment. Like yourselves, I leave when the cost-benefit ratio becomes unfavorable.
So we’re back to this thread. If anyone has questions or criticisms on the article posted, I will make a good faith attempt to answer them. Like any opinion piece (another good call, RTK) it has errors, some of which people have told me about. If we're done, that's OK too.
Jedburgh: that is a clear message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jedburgh
Occasionally there is someone posting on the board that I want to look up just so I can punch him in the face. At that time, for me at least, it is useful to recognize that not posting is probably the better response. The board does have a feature that can help with targeted aggression:
I will answer the questions already in progress, such as from Culpeper and RTK, but I think with Jedburgh's comment this thread has gone past any reasonable debate.
Just a parting thought, if this is how you respond to my fairly mild comments -- after all, calls for to build a federated state in Iraq &/or exit fast are common now -- the range of debate here will likely remain fairly narrow. It is your site, and your decision how to run it.