"Luttwak is considered to be brutally honest, whereas Kissinger is recognized as a successful and charming but mendacious manipulator. Both are brilliant, and both are flawed in their own ways, but, in my view, Luttwak’s writing is more often reliable as giving you actually correct information (though selectively, with a slant towards his broader agenda of policy influence), whereas Kissinger is better at obtaining access and favor. They are kind of a real life Jewish immigrants versions of the ‘Once an Eagle‘ duo where Kissinger is Massengale and Luttwak is Damon."
I'm done with the article. Telling me pre-digested conclusions is not entirely honest. There is a lot of fudging going on there which he hides under a veneer of references.
The article really treats the reader like a complete novice to the area of grand strategy, foreign policy, and history.
1. Just because an individual has personal flaws doesn't make the entirety of their work worthless. (re: Steve Sailer)
2. You oppose pre-digested conclusions in articles? You don't want an author to have thought about an issue - and reached a conclusion - before writing about it? Sounds silly to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer#Views_and_criticis...
When I read things like this:
"Luttwak is considered to be brutally honest, whereas Kissinger is recognized as a successful and charming but mendacious manipulator. Both are brilliant, and both are flawed in their own ways, but, in my view, Luttwak’s writing is more often reliable as giving you actually correct information (though selectively, with a slant towards his broader agenda of policy influence), whereas Kissinger is better at obtaining access and favor. They are kind of a real life Jewish immigrants versions of the ‘Once an Eagle‘ duo where Kissinger is Massengale and Luttwak is Damon."
I'm done with the article. Telling me pre-digested conclusions is not entirely honest. There is a lot of fudging going on there which he hides under a veneer of references.
The article really treats the reader like a complete novice to the area of grand strategy, foreign policy, and history.