[aristeides]

It's meant to be obviously a spurious document. But it does mean to point out what our weaknesses are.

[dighton]

It's meant to be obviously a spurious document.

That's my reading too. IMO, the first paragraph makes it abundantly clear:

It is October 27, 2001. . . or today. You are the a Senior Assistant to the President, or perhaps the Chairman of Citigroup, or perhaps the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, or perhaps the President of RAND. Or perhaps you are yourself. One of your closest friends—someone whose judgment and integrity are beyond question—calls and asks urgently for a private meeting at once. When you meet, he presents you with the following document, which he had personally received a few hours earlier from an utterly reliable colleague in the Pentagon. (This source is also the author of the introductory note in italics, wherein he refers to himself in the third person.) Your friend is in a state of great alarm. He is certain that the document is authentic.

[Ironword]

It's meant to be obviously a spurious document. But it does mean to point out what our weaknesses are.

Thanks. Nevertheless, we still got trouble.