Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!

As you correctly noted, the first section was a bit of humor -- obviously grossly overdrawn -- to set up the actual thrust of the article.

After reading your comment, I remain unclear in what respect is this analysis incorrect? Paranoia and hubris are in fact great dangers to the development of a grand strategy. Specific examples were given, and placed in a historical context.

By the way, as noted in the article, this did not discuss actual threats -- that comes in the next article. This discussed the importance of clear "observation and orientation" (to use John Boyd's terms).

So I am a bit puzzled at your comment "completely false ideas of the threat that happen to be populist fancy, poorly informed and emotional public opinion, or the catering of high-level politicians to various interest groups"

Perhaps you were still locked into focus on the parodies at the beginning?

I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to read this article, and look forward to your comments.