The shah always falls.
The ever-erudite Erik Riker-Coleman (well, he always seems erudite over on Plastic) points out an article by Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, (USA, Ret.), in the Winter ’01-’02 issue of Parameters. It’s—it’s interesting reading: the long-sought goal of stability in America’s foreign policy, it seems, is a sham, a betrayal of our fundamental values, a detriment to our own wealth and power. Shockingly sane, well-argued, clear as a bell, a tad too patronising, though bracingly radical at points, or at least, what passes for radicalism in these benighted times, too fond from time to time of literary excess, problematic in the way of most polemics these days, to wit: how, exactly, do you define “terrorist”?—and curiously objective: what, pray tell, is the “local, organic rate of change,” and how does one measure it, as they say, “on the ground”—but: well worth reading. If only so you can say at your next cocktail party, “I was reading this article in Parameters—you know, the US Army War College quarterly—and it said—”
Note: just because the shah always falls doesn’t mean the ayatollah must always replace him.
