I wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
... The rest of it reads like a statute for which there is no jurisprudence on point to clarify what the words mean. Maybe that is unavoidable for such big-picture, broad stuff that is written by committee, but it seems that you could read whatever you want into this thing.
But Wilf's comment might have put it into terms that the strategic thinkers can better understand.
Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
2. The document lacks clear and precise descriptions, and uses un-clear and highly convoluted language, none of which is helpful. - why use "new terms?"
Either way, I think this document suffers from too much committee action. It reads like it was written by too many authors who have been away from the field and in the classrooms and briefing rooms for way too long. It is a bit unsettling to think that "the way ahead" might be heavily guided by a 50+ page document of buzzwords. Also concur with Wilf's other statements, particularly Israel-Hezbollah 2006.