I don't understand why this is an academic freedom issue, nor do I understand why Metz thinks that he should have spoken up about the conduct of the war when it was going poorly. I think he got it right when he raised the analogy of a state university professor airing his views versus a faculty member at a national defense institution doing the same.

The role of the intellectual is to challenge, question, test, research. The intellectual has knowledge, but not all of the information. If you're going to "speak out" then you need a good dose of both. If you have only the latter, then you don't "speak out" because, in spite of your vast knowledge, you lack the timely information to develop a clear picture of what is happening. It is more appropriate, in that case, to challenge and question by drawing historical analogies, finding parallels in similar activities, observing patterns and asking what is causing them.

I smell an ulterior motive in this piece by Ricks. It seems like a well-crafted piece of drama that serves to tell an ongoing narrative of pressure upon those in the National Security arena to toe the line on administration policies. Some don't want us to forget - or stop harping on - the real or imagined sins up through 2006. Otherwise, they might need to find a new dead horse to beat. This one should have been sent to the glue factory a couple years ago.