Without agreeing or disagreeing with Crenshaw, I have never found military service itself to automatically give anyone a more important, more believable, more “correct” view on some national security policy. For example, the number of times I found John McCain was deadly wrong on our national security policy were too numerous to count.
That leaves the question as to why then the Washington Post desired to air Crenshaw’s article. They did it BECAUSE of the misguided public perception that if a “military person” says something on national security policy they are automatically more believable, and that is what the Washington Post is selling - “believe this guy, he’s former military”, and BECAUSE he disagrees with Trump.
Many oped articles would do a great public service if in fact they were anonymous, and all the public had was their own reasonsing of the article, knowing not who wrote it.
That is how the Federalist Papers were first produced - anonymously in public publications. The authors wanted their arguments understood without public preconceived ideas about them shading, pro or con, what they thought of the ideas the authors presented.
I would disagree, if only because there's a whole army of "authors" so thoroughly discredited in their arguments and reasoning that it isn't worth our time to read it if it comes from them, except for the purposes of humor/mockery. It's good that we know this comes from Rep-elect Crenshaw, because we can see that he's not on the same page that we are.
I have never found military service itself to automatically give anyone a more important, more believable, more “correct” view
= = =
Well, Bradley Manning served also, right?
Note the /s, below.
I couldn’t disagree more about anonymous od-eds. You believe in it then put your name to it, we should know where you stand.