Yes, opinions from a highly qualified individual who has been there, done that mean quite a bit.
That's absurd. For the exact same reasons that a 'highly qualified' individual who has 'been there' might be considered weighty, they could be considered biased.
Consider what the opinion of an abortion doctor means to someone who is anti-abortion. After all, he's "there," and he's "do[ing] that" all day long. To them, should his opinion be meaningful or especially convincing?
When you compare the claims of neocons and armchair generals those opinions on the ground tend to be more convincing.
He's not 'on the ground,' he's retired. You did read that, didn't you?
Know anyone who can dispute his opinions?
Do you know what an opinion is? This might be part of your problem.
All it takes to 'dispute' an opinion is to say, "I disagree." Facts are a different story. You know that, right?
In this case, I agree with many of his quotes, and disagree with a few others. There you go. His opinions have been 'disputed.'
Moreover, I'd assert that the relevance of this opinion is, while welcome, unjustifiedly highlighted. In my personal experience, a soldier ("operator") in a Delta squadron is in a far better position to opine meaningfully on matters such as what the best way might be to assault a particular building, or what ammunition is best to use in a close quarters situation. Where politics are concerned, well, you'd tend to get the same expertise asking a Dayton, Ohio police officer or a member of the Texas Rangers.
And I'm not sure I understand the "happy talk" part of your post.
LPS5 |
