Sorry, guys, but I just can't see what all the fuss is about. I'd take McKenna's offer more seriously if it brought actual anthropology into the discussion. Politics and anthropology are interrelated, but they are still different topics.

To state your thesis and then gird your argument with a mixture of fictional narrative, opinion pages and a veneer of statistics does not discourse make.

I'd like to ask the following: does Dr. McKenna's body of work really even apply to our profession? Based on what is posted thus far, I'd argue that it does not. Let's say for argument's sake I'm mediocre at best (maybe this is more true than I let on!)as a tactical-level officer. I have x experience in y operational type. Does this make me qualified to then speak of microeconomics of Culture z? I don't think McKenna has to have served or anything, but I'd like to think that more relevant work than his would be needed. Does somewhere like the AWC grant him audience based on his desire for discourse rather than what he brings to the discourse? Hell, as a disgruntled Major, I'd love to teach at the AWC, but I hardly consider myself qualified to do so.