|
Good point about differing views in academia are usually preferred. I'm not sure her monograph is the issue- but it is obvious that her attitude is. Unfortunately, I see that a lot with Government civilians. Whoever is hiring makes assumptions based on their creds- or maybe a political need to offer differing views- and never does a critical check on their background. Kooks like that seem to turn up in government schools- possibly because their kind are already overloaded at the UC Berkleys and conservative schools wouldn't have them.
Returning to the monograph, however, I recently read a book on Iran- The Devil We Know, by Robert Baer, that seems to echo other CIA operatives who have written about Iran. In it he makes the case that Iran is pragmatic, because they are they can be dealt with (as opposed to AQ), and are actually in control of Hamas- as they are many proxies- even Sunni ones- around the Middle East.
If this is true, then differing views on Hamas, et al, are warranted- and surely we would want our top leaders to be exposed to them. Surely the conventional thinking on Hamas hasn't made much progress lately. If they have switched, as Baer claims, from being a terrorist organization to a pragmatic proxy controlled from Iran more bent on insurgency- then maybe we should re-visit what we think of them. And maybe even wacko academics who have psychological problems can give a different glimpse into these "complex problems". In other words, I might read her work with a discerning eye- willing to entertain some of her ideas- but I would never hire her...
__________________
To an imperial city nothing is inconsistent which is expedient - Euphemus of Athens
|
Linear Mode
