Think Tank Town

For the Council's 'Think Tank Junkies' from the Washington Post - Think Tank Town.

Quote:

---

Washingtonpost.com edits and publishes columns submitted by 12 prominent think tanks on a rotating basis every other weekday. Each think tank is free to choose its authors and the topics it believes are most important and timely. Here are the participating organizations:

• American Enterprise Institute
• Brookings Institution
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Cato Institute
• Center for American Progress
• Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Heritage Foundation
• Hudson Institute
• Manhattan Institute
• New America Foundation
• RAND Corporation

---

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

---

Maybe Bill and Dave should contact them and offer our "services" - for a suitable remuneration ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

---

A couple of other features:

• people here have much less "awe" of academic credentials and are more than happy to tell us ivory tower types that we are nuts :D;
• people here tend to prefer experiential knowledge to academic knowledge - the pragmatic over the theoretical - so any theoretical plan or position gets vetted by pragmatists, not the other way around.

Marc

Quote:

---

people here have much less "awe" of academic credentials and are more than happy to tell us ivory tower types that we are nuts ;

---

Now, Marc, we all love you and admire your wisdom too much to use the word "nuts" :wry:

Quote:

---

people here tend to prefer experiential knowledge to academic knowledge - the pragmatic over the theoretical - so any theoretical plan or position gets vetted by pragmatists, not the other way around.

---

That is a very good way of putting it!

Tom

I'm no expert on much of anything but I am smart enough to see exceedingly sharp pencils in a bin when I enter the bin - Tom's comment, "If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student." is spot on.

Quite often Think-Tank is more Tank than think. The joke about the CPA in Iraq was that it was the Heritage Foundation's summer camp program for college age youths.

Jim

You made me laugh with that one! :D

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Quite often Think-Tank is more Tank than think. The joke about the CPA in Iraq was that it was the Heritage Foundation's summer camp program for college age youths.

---

Just finished Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran - even if only a portion is spot-on it was worse than I thought at the CPA.

My SGM spent a week in CPA HQ during the latter days of OIF I. Upon his return, he was moody, and when asked about his obviously bad attitude, he told me, "Sir, the way they lived there just pissed me off. But I think if YOU spent a week there, you would've killed some people."

I didn't ask him any more about it. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

Just finished Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran - even if only a portion is spot-on it was worse than I thought at the CPA.

---

Interesting coincidence that I just did the same during some recent TAD. It's on my list of books that I will recommend to the 1/3 that "get it", and yet still wonder how we got to where we are today in Iraq. It filled in quite a few of the gaps about Meghan O'Sullivan. A crying shame in many respects that "shoot-from the hip" was the accepted COA for operations.

While we may be getting off of the thread. I found it enlightening to read Bremer's book immediately followed by Chandrasekan's (which is the order they were written and published also).
This brings up a point that may be worth a new thread. There are alot of recommended readings out there. Does anyone know/have guidance for a reading strategy--recommending certain books in a certain order IOT see countering idea, proposals, perspectives, etc.?
I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.
On the question of think tanks, I spent a whole tour at HQ Marine Corps with a primary task of tracking think tanks and reporting to the leadership. You are all correct that think tanks have no special insight that many others don't have. What they do have is access and the fact that they are part of the "revolving door" for government appointments. Want to know where the mid-level political appointees are for the next administration? Look to the think tanks. They are "honing" their positions and contacts.
With regards to entities such as SWJ/SWC, I see the established think tanks using these resources as primary sources to draw from (stealing with footnotes) for their reports.

Quote:

---

I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.

---

That makes two of us, on both counts, as I do agree with what Peters was saying on that occasion (and not much else).

This conflict has been quite interesting in the number and quality of books that it has produced--and the speed. Cobra II, Fiasco, State of Denial, Assassins' Gate, just to name the few I have purchased and read. I don't see the pace slowing at all as more eye-level works hit the shelves.

And of course, there is the "flavor of the day" with George Tenet's "They Were Mean to Me in DC" tell all. I would say a $4 million signing bonus should go nicely with his medal of freedom.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilR

While we may be getting off of the thread. I found it enlightening to read Bremer's book immediately followed by Chandrasekan's (which is the order they were written and published also).
This brings up a point that may be worth a new thread. There are alot of recommended readings out there. Does anyone know/have guidance for a reading strategy--recommending certain books in a certain order IOT see countering idea, proposals, perspectives, etc.?
I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.
On the question of think tanks, I spent a whole tour at HQ Marine Corps with a primary task of tracking think tanks and reporting to the leadership. You are all correct that think tanks have no special insight that many others don't have. What they do have is access and the fact that they are part of the "revolving door" for government appointments. Want to know where the mid-level political appointees are for the next administration? Look to the think tanks. They are "honing" their positions and contacts.
With regards to entities such as SWJ/SWC, I see the established think tanks using these resources as primary sources to draw from (stealing with footnotes) for their reports.

---

Big call. I am a serving army officer seconded to a think tank. We certainly do not do what you claim. I have some experience and contact with some of the more credible US / UK think tanks. I would be very interested in any citation where you can substantiate the claim that people are 'stealing' from sites such as this.

Any credible (and I emphasis that point) think tank (CFR, Brookings, CSIS, INSS, ISS, RUSI, SSI, CNA et al) would not. Of course, there are a host of politically funded / inspired / special interest groups who run 'think tanks' that are not worthy of the name. They are perhaps better viewed as 'advocacy' tanks or 'spin' tanks. caveat emptor, as usual...

I probably was too quick on the draw. My understanding of the question posed by goesh is that venues such as SWJ/SWC have enough horsepower to be a think tank. What I have seen, limited albeit is BLOGS, and other web-based "entities" such as SWJ being used as sources (and properly footnoted) in papers, and reports, etc.
The key is that SWJ provides a forum to get alot of info out, and to engage in discussion, but it is not set up or organized to have council members collectively create reports, or engage with clients (such as the government) etc.

If CoP / Blog discussions positively influence recommendations that have by virtue of connection and location have clout, then we are doing what we hoped to do. Directly or indirectly - a positive, well thought & informed recommendation is just that. Before, circles were rather limited - with CoPs such as SWJ we have increased the circle and inter linked them - making degrees of analysis available that before hand were not - as opposed to after the fact (we pick up on problems - and anticipate them - just as fast as anybody). We also do so while being free from some of the burden of physically being in a location and dealing with personalities.

I like what Tom said though about the behind the times bit - its not recognition of the site I think as much as recognition of how information and analysis flows today and how it might change/evolve tomorrow. Its much easier to recognize (as in identify) physical groups / organizations then it is communities that exist online. This is one of our problems combatting terrorist organizations - our culture likes to enumerate and quantify - we are empirical in our processes (Marc - I'm leaving you a huge opening here :wry: ).

The fact that people have a hard time recognizing things for what they are points to some of our problems in this fight and how the enemy is is often shape shifting in order to make them difficult to target - I'm starting to drift, but it sets up a good discussion I think.

What I have seen of the Think-Tank folks, is that they get people who are well schooled. They usually aren't out grabbing off of blogs (at least the good ones). There are "thought" Think-Tanks , and there are policy/political think-tanks (Heritage Foundation, etc.). The difference is who focuses on "power" and who focuses on programs/structures.

Hi Rob,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

I like what Tom said though about the behind the times bit - its not recognition of the site I think as much as recognition of how information and analysis flows today and how it might change/evolve tomorrow. Its much easier to recognize (as in identify) physical groups / organizations then it is communities that exist online. This is one of our problems combatting terrorist organizations - our culture likes to enumerate and quantify - we are empirical in our processes (Marc - I'm leaving you a huge opening here :wry: ).

---

That you are :D. Unfortunately, I have to log off in a couple of minutes and do a series of telephone interviews which are going to tie me up until 8 tonight <sigh>. I'll try and take off on it later....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

The fact that people have a hard time recognizing things for what they are points to some of our problems in this fight and how the enemy is is often shape shifting in order to make them difficult to target - I'm starting to drift, but it sets up a good discussion I think.

---

I agree. At the same time, I think it is crucially important to look at the synergy of interaction. If by "empirical" we include "it works", then we have a situation where theories and models are spun out and then threshed by the flails of field experience. This is, to my mind really good science. Anyway, got to rush...

Marc

Found elsewhere and fits here: http://www.cato.org/events/counterterrorism/index.html

Interesting range of issues and speakers - some of whose opinions I respect.

davidfpo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

---

Very well put. I appreciate the emphasis here on first person experience, intelligent innovation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

---

I have to agree with you. I work at a Dutch think tank and, though perhaps by design, the product of the labors tends to be rooted in academia, with very little outputs derived from real-world experience.

When speaking to practitioners, many of them in the Hague say that while they respect what academics have to say, its often times quite difficult to put ivory-tower papers into practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNW

When speaking to practitioners, many of them in the Hague say that while they respect what academics have to say, its often times quite difficult to put ivory-tower papers into practice.

---

I just know what you are talking about.
How things are 'the other way around' is food for thought ...

Academics have no greater claim on "truth" than anybody else. Some academics have done good and relevant work on issues of war and peace; others - far too many - have produced garbage. For example, a well regarded US academic specialist on national security issues suggested that a good doctoral dissertation question would be whether al Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was timed so as to "minimize civilian casualties!" :eek:

That is, unfortunately, typical of too much academic work. Fortunately, nobody here is engaged in such fuzzy thinking, are they Marc, Sam....?

Cheers

JohnT

As an academic my field is technology. So, I've got two strikes against me. I'm an egg head, and geek head. My teaching area is operating systems, network systems, and security systems. Hmm seems like some fairly systemic thinking. I've always claimed that I am NOT a computer scientist and that I am a technologist. That means I don't sit around thinking up new algorithms that Knuth already documented in his books. The consistent criticism is that academics are not applied, or they do nothing. My entire field is only applied, and I only do things.

Unfortunately that means publication opportunities are few and far between as the academic landscape is littered with "basic research" only journals. It also means that by default my discipline is extremely inter-disciplinary. Everybody is always grabbing onto pieces of what I do (Information technology) because it is pervasive. Everybody is a programmer. Sort of like everybody owns a lawn-mower but that doesn't make them a landscaper.

There is also the constant threat to what we do in my department to turn us into vocational school. That is not what we do. I try very hard to teach concepts instead of applications. Students balk at that. Then a year or two later a bottle of wine, a really nice letter, shows up because they used some primary concept of technology to solve a big problem. Cool.

If you look at my research it gets much worse. My area of "expertise" is information assurance and security with a concentration in computer forensics. My dissertation research (I'm a life long student) is tentatively "Cyber warfare as form of low-intensity conflict". I am applying many of the tools and techniques of small wars to the cyber warfare landscape as an applied method of waging cyber warfare.

I read your email and I am watching you right now......

just kidding....

maybe....

What I do as research can be taken and immediately applied to the real world because that is a tenet of my discipline. In my discipline we don't get money for basic research as primary investigators (PIs). We get called in by PIs when their data repositories are broke, their applications suck, or they can't figure out how to ctrl-alt-del . So a large body of the research we do in my discipline is about social uses of technology or efficient uses of technology.

So, in many ways I look down on those "Think Tanks" that say academics information is hard to put into use, as what I do is usually ready to be commoditized, and because of that I can't get any traction to fund my research from think tanks.

I think they would call that irony.

Crystal caffeinated clarity clearly this morning.

Obviously, your thoughts are hardly fuzzy. :) I like your dissertation topic and, I have a suspicion that OU Press might like it too when you turn it into a book.

Cheers

JohnT

.............:cool:

Hi John,

Well, personally I LIKE fuzzy thinking, but only if we are talking about Fuzzy Set thinking :D.

In many ways, my own research is at the exact opposite pole from Sam's: extremely theoretical (and philosophical). My actual focus is on "sense-making" and how people build up their perceptions of "reality" (aka mental maps, etc.). One of the biggest dangers I've found with having a focus like this is that it is way too easy to get lost inside your own head and sound not only "fuzzy" but inane / insane :wry:.

In a lot of ways, John, I'm not trying to make any claims about "truth"; I'm trying to formalize and establish grounds and limits for such claims.

I had an interesting discussion last night about unconscious logic models (deductive, inductive, abductive) and how they are hurting the Intelligence and Security sectors. Basically, I was arguing that a lot of the problems stem from applying the wrong logic model given the "data" available (and the "data" is a problem, too), and that led into some back and forth banter on how to do professional education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi John,

Well, personally I LIKE fuzzy thinking, but only if we are talking about Fuzzy Set thinking :D.

In many ways, my own research is at the exact opposite pole from Sam's: extremely theoretical (and philosophical). My actual focus is on "sense-making" and how people build up their perceptions of "reality" (aka mental maps, etc.). One of the biggest dangers I've found with having a focus like this is that it is way too easy to get lost inside your own head and sound not only "fuzzy" but inane / insane :wry:.

In a lot of ways, John, I'm not trying to make any claims about "truth"; I'm trying to formalize and establish grounds and limits for such claims.

I had an interesting discussion last night about unconscious logic models (deductive, inductive, abductive) and how they are hurting the Intelligence and Security sectors. Basically, I was arguing that a lot of the problems stem from applying the wrong logic model given the "data" available (and the "data" is a problem, too), and that led into some back and forth banter on how to do professional education.

---

Very well put sir.

Have long observed an increasing focus on such quaintities as "computer projections", "darwinian models" & the such which are quite counter-scientific, theoretical at best.

Yankee arrogance tends toward both generalisation & imposition. In this way too much science can be applied to subjects; i.e. global warming, macroevolution, agriculture or conflict resolution would be my four primary examples, where some artfulness/philosophy is called for. Remember system analysis can only be applied when we can completely understand the system, quantitatively. It takes a big man to admit it but one of the most important epiphanies that we as a culture need to relearn is "we don't know everything". Some sciences needs to return to a curiosity/observation based discipline not a blind faith/projection based one. Does anyone besides me realise the importance of the so called "scientific method", steps one through five (today they've turned into 1. develop a hypothesis, 2. never make any related observations, 3. construct a theoretical model of it, 4. publish it, 5. get taxpayer subsidies to advance it as if it were factual) Too many present "input focuses" are poorly wrought because they are based on models not realities.

Agreed ? Or do I much mistake ?

Hi Bullmoose,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Very well put sir.

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Have long observed an increasing focus on such quaintities as "computer projections", "darwinian models" & the such which are quite counter-scientific, theoretical at best.

---

Technically, all science is "theoretical". "Science", both as a philosophical and epistemological position, is basically what the theologians used to call a via negativa (the old "God is not..." type of investigation). That was certainly the Baconian understanding of "science", and it was based pretty heavily on inductive logic. In general, most computer predictions (at least all of the probabilistic ones), and most Darwinian models are based on inductive logic models. In other words, they are scientific ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Yankee arrogance tends toward both generalisation & imposition. In this way too much science can be applied to subjects; i.e. global warming, macroevolution, agriculture or conflict resolution would be my four primary examples, where some artfulness/philosophy is called for. Remember system analysis can only be applied when we can completely understand the system, quantitatively.

---

Well, I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that systems analysis = science, at lest as a 1:1 correlation. As with any form of modeling or theory building, systems analysis is only as good as the model of the system they are using which, in many cases, is pretty poor :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Some sciences needs to return to a curiosity/observation based discipline not a blind faith/projection based one.

---

One of the things that truly amuses me is the totally artificial disctinctions between "hard" and "soft" sciences. One of my more favorite colleagues is the head of our (Carleton University's) department of biology. We usually meet up for beers and chat about what he and his friends and colleagues are doing - what's new, what hasn't been published yet, etc. The amount of change I've seen in basic models of, say, genetic material propagation over the past 5 years alone is amazing, and the attitude is very much in the "curiosity" mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Does anyone besides me realise the importance of the so called "scientific method", steps one through five (today they've turned into 1. develop a hypothesis, 2. never make any related observations, 3. construct a theoretical model of it, 4. publish it, 5. get taxpayer subsidies to advance it as if it were factual) Too many present "input focuses" are poorly wrought because they are based on models not realities.

Agreed ? Or do I much mistake ?

---

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Bullmoose,



...

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical ;).

---

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

Or might I agree with Ben Stein that today its simply in the hands of a different elite ? I know not.

I do not care for the totalitarianism inherent in the system today, i.e. close governmental oversight & inentivisation, cover-ups, silencing & institutional retribution, so I suppose a middle ground of some type is necessary, also a strong collegiate culture which is eroded in the US by "poison ivy" the professional guilds & yankee arrogance, in my uneducated opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Bullmoose,



...

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical ;).

---

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

Or might I agree with Ben Stein that today its simply in the hands of a different elite ? I know not.

I do not care for the totalitarian spirit inherent in the system today, i.e. close governmental oversight & incentivisation, cover-ups, silencing & institutional retribution, so I suppose a middle ground of some type is necessary, also a strong collegiate culture which is eroded in the US by "poison ivy" the professional guilds & yankee arrogance, in my uneducated opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

My goodness, quite hilarious and insightful.

---

The scary part is that I actually got that model from a friend who uses it :wry:!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Either way I see great detriment to us all due to the Scientific method's late transformation into the Scientific Business Model.

However, I suppose we cannot return to the day when c. pre WWI all science was the hobby of the elite & no one else ever touched it, can we?

---

Aaah, the Good Old Days... if you were part of the elite :D.

I tend to agree that the Scientific Business Model is both bad science (it's actually a direct form of deductive logic most of the time and more related to the theology of, say, Aquinus than the science of Bacon), and bad business - to say nothing about what happens when it is applied to warfare!

It isn't only the science, it is the entire milleau in which science operates in both private corporations (baring a few), governments and academia. Increased bureaucratization demands increased predictability - translation: the bureaucrats need certainty even if it isn't appropriate.

It's one of the reasons why I tend to distinguish between "academics" and "scholars"; academics work within a bureaucratic organization and are subject to its regulation. Scholars, who may or may not be academics, just don't let bureaucratic regulation govern their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

It's one of the reasons why I tend to distinguish between "academics" and "scholars"; academics work within a bureaucratic organization and are subject to its regulation. Scholars, who may or may not be academics, just don't let bureaucratic regulation govern their lives.

---

Scholars blog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Scholars blog.

---

Well, those of us who know how do :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Well, from my side of the academic street, I would put it at

1. Start with a theory
2. Submit a proposal for funding which requires you to say beforehand exactly what you will find
3. Develope hypotheses if that will help you get funding / published
4. Collect the data that is defined as such by your theory; junk any that disagrees with the theory ("outliers")
5. Publish the same research in 20 different articles and 3-4 books.

Then again, I may be just a touch cycnical ;).

---

I'll add to this if I may.

• Make sure your theory subscribes to something that has lots of "fashion sense."
• Never admit that war is, necessarily, the act of killing, and doing harm so as to break the collective will of the target.
• Use words like "influence" and "non-kinetic."
• Emphasise the role of people who have absolutely no idea about the utility of lethal force.
• Make sure you have an agenda, that works to your benefit, and to the detriment of any armed force.

Rant over. Guns to rest. Closing down this means. Listening out on schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Rant over. Guns to rest. Closing down this means. Listening out on schedule.

---

Rant? What rant? That's just basic academic survival sense :eek::D!