Feaver fires back
Here is Peter Feaver’s dispassionate response to my comments the other day on his article about where the surge came from. He accuses me of ignoring the political science stuff. I plead mega-guilty, especially because I think his theoretical construct can’t be supported by a foundation built on factual sand. “Hit piece”? “Angry”? Nah. ...
Here is Peter Feaver's dispassionate response to my comments the other day on his article about where the surge came from.
Here is Peter Feaver’s dispassionate response to my comments the other day on his article about where the surge came from.
He accuses me of ignoring the political science stuff. I plead mega-guilty, especially because I think his theoretical construct can’t be supported by a foundation built on factual sand.
“Hit piece”? “Angry”? Nah. I mean, I took out all the references to “blinders” and even “jamming facts into the theory like Jeffrey Dahmer stuffing a body into one of the blue barrels in his back room.”
More from Foreign Policy
A New Multilateralism
How the United States can rejuvenate the global institutions it created.
America Prepares for a Pacific War With China It Doesn’t Want
Embedded with U.S. forces in the Pacific, I saw the dilemmas of deterrence firsthand.
The Endless Frustration of Chinese Diplomacy
Beijing’s representatives are always scared they could be the next to vanish.
The End of America’s Middle East
The region’s four major countries have all forfeited Washington’s trust.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.