Have to bring forth a thought for you. Considering the big C's Politics by other means
Consider that although there may well be validity in the CNAS and other picks as indicative of "COIN" centric leaning it might not be quite that simple.
Those who've been selected tend to fit into another category which may tend to be more "politically" savvy on the administrations part. They have been seen to stand up/ out, lone voice in the storm, etc. This may be an example of where more than one set of circumstances come together to offer a "win-win" for those in charge. They get a group who have been seen publicly as part of the solution to recent actions and seen to do so in a somewhat controversial light as well. And most importantly their selection is publicly perceived as change.
Only mention this to encourage you to make sure you look at the deeper political implications both internally and externally before assuming you can see the writing on the wall. It's almost always 10X more confusing then when you first think you've got a glimpse of it.
Me either
If so inclined try defining exactly what makes one a professional at predicting the future or even what's gonna fall apart today.
May not override it per se but if most of those involved in it are in the process of dealing with that particular aberration in their societies it darn well makes understanding it important enough to dedicate resources and education to.
Kinda like going on a trip, you may get good directions but if you fail to look for construction issues your trips gonna be a heck of a lot longer , if you even get there instead of just giving up and going back home to a nice rum&coke
Just to be clear although I would hope most would know better; The references to appointments were not meant to denigrate either those choices or those who answered that call but rather as a reminder that sometimes we forget to pull back the curtain enough to see everything there.
Bookmarks