An interesting article, although I'm not sure I'd call it quite "powerful."

The writer found a subject with the potential to know specific information about what went on, but he wasn't able to get the details on that, so instead he wrote a nice article about a retired gentlemen who has "some regrets" and now has fun playing with kids.

(That's the cynics' view.)

Wilkinson's 31 years of military service is a pretty standard career. His combat service is commendable, and perhaps a bit above the ordinary even for a retired career officer.

His grade as Colonel is also laudable, but there are about 2,500 (last I saw a count – some years ago) officers at that level currently in active duty, so he's not all that senior. To complete the 30 years required for retirement with "full benefits" requires, for officers, 30 years with regular promotions, with the result that almost every officer who gets the full-30 in attains that grade.

His experience as a "professor" has been mainly at the military academies, and something like a fourth of career officers of his grade can make very similar claims, since teaching duties are part of regular career rotation of assignments. Finding contrary opinion with similar qualifications should not be too difficult.

It is of significance that he can cite studies, and teaching, in military history; but that's a standard class in the C&GS and other Academy courses where he's taught. He does cite historic characters and references with some facility and claims a specialization in the field, according to the writer; but one would need to "read his book" before assuming he could qualify as an expert witness on the subject. I'd be inclined, with nothing but the article to go on, to say that he does have sufficient special knowledge in the field, and that qualification makes his opinions more relevant for me; but it would depend on what lawyer had him on the stand. And it would be hard to convince any court that "opinion based on historical precedent" is relevant or material.

The difficulty with the article is that while he states some serious concerns, and implies some others, most of this is "opinion" with little in the way of specific facts to which he could, or would, testify. This article provides only vague generalities about how anything he has could be presented and would stand up in a court (or – same thing – before a Congressional Committee, bring your own kangaroo).

The article rates a ".quizical 'W..E..L..L..?'." but not quite a "WOW!"

On the other hand, I can tell that this gentlemen does deserve canonizing (in the popular, not the eclesiastical sense) as at least

a minor god,

and

         as A PARAGON AMONG LEADERS OF MEN,

- because –



he appears to AGREE WITH ME on many of the doubts I've had for quite some time.

The problem is that "*they*" never hear those who care.


* - * Insert anyone who actually matters.

Thanks for posting it, Amos. Read, filed, reread, and indexed. I'd give this soldier a hand salute if I met him.

John