[spycatcher]

Thanks, good post. I have a Stratfor subscription and couldn't even find an email for anything other than the webmaster. I'm starting to think they're as lame an operation as our Clinton CIA holdovers are. And they used to have brilliant analysis with spot on predictions. Not that they have to be perfect every time, but this article seems like a wishlist from the PLO propaganda dept, and other recent articles have been pretty poor compared to the last several years.

They probably hired a bunch of new interns after 9/11 to handle the increased workload and they aren't up to the task. The recent subscription push in exchange for inferior analysis has damaged years of goodwill and respect.

[mvonfr]

I have a Stratfor subscription and couldn't even find an email for anything other than the webmaster.

So do I. Well, they do have a private (for subscribers) forum; it is not easy to find, however (may have something to do with the low quality of both the software and posts). I think they do read it.

They probably hired a bunch of new interns after 9/11

I have this unhappy suspicion.

The recent subscription push in exchange for inferior analysis has damaged years of goodwill and respect.

I'd attribute their loss of quality to much more difficult task of forecasting in the current environment; their errors about the Afghan war are at least understandable. Nonetheless, they should have been able to avoid putting out stuff as stupid as the today's article.