Joshua Foust‘s post on Syria today completely undermines the current surge of op ed writers campaigning for military intervention. In doing so he also makes a significant contribution to scientific analysis of the “DC Op-Ed” phenomenon. Commenting on Michael O’Hanlon’s op-ed for USA Today, Foust notes: “A poorly-thought out DC Op-Ed
can miscast a problem, gloss over complexity, and make ill-considered recommendations.” This is especially dangerous because, “American leaders love being told that they must exercise leadership on an issue, and that the only form of leadership anyone will pay attention to is American military force.” Foust’s paragraph-by-paragraph deconstruction of the O’Hanlon argument is a must read. Read the Foust post here.
