However, it can give the appearance of that inconsistency of which I wrote:That's true and you usually write words to that effect -- but then things like this appear:I'll agree that you are not pushing the US Model -- but I have to say it sure reads as though you are -- and frequently, you more assertive along that line...No one will ever hear me promote 6 years as the perfect term length for a senator, or 25 as the model for eligibility for congress, or that two houses is the only way to go, etc, etc, etc.
Only that this document was written with a keen eye to preventing insurgency, and has several mechanisms designed for that purpose that have proven quite effective. But until one is willing to swallow the hard fact that the vast majority of insurgent causation radiates out from government, rather than in toward government from some "malign actor" employing "radical ideology" it may well be hard to appreciate the importance of such a governing document in the prevention of insurgency.
Note the incongruity. First para offers unlikely and throwaway possibilities in one short pithy sentence, a one liner in essence. The second para pushes the 'US Model' of excellence in quite a few more words...
It's not the detail, it's the overall impression. I offer that not to be a picker of gnits but just as a casual observer and for your consideration, no more. I will now go get more coffee...
Bookmarks