The first assumption is not necessary, nor did I want to imply it.
The second "assumption" is not an "assumption", but an observation - a description of a fact. You are defending the U.S.Army/U.S.Military against Lind's (and similar) critiques.
Now if that's not the axe you have to grind, what is it? Aversion against Lind? That would be an even lesser reason for a counter-critique.
My impression is that your counter-critique is a gut-level reaction, even though you attempted to make it look logic-driven with your three points.
Here's a technique for how to avoid such an impression and still provide a rebuttal:
(1) Proclaim that Lind cannot prove that the mission was ever possible and how this undermines his case,
then
(2) point out ineffectiveness of last three decades of Lind critique as evidenced by his repetition of old points,
then
(3) point at better opportunities for critique, and need for improvement that (in your opinion) deserves more attention and justifies greater effort and urgency.
(3) would signal a honest interest in improvement and it would signal that the reaction is not simply partisan defensive.
Bookmarks