Friend and fellow analyst Tom Joscelyn’s latest work - Iran’s Proxy War Against America - was recently published by the Claremont Institute.
I’m working my way through it now and will try to post a more comprehensive review later today, but for now I simply note that for an “amateur” working without secrets, Tom is consistently more accurate and insightful that most of the “professionals” I’ve worked with.
OK, essay completed. Initial thoughts: first class.
For starters, if you are familiar with Tom’s work at all this paper will reveal little that is new. It is essentially a compilation of his past work (with updates) in a neat package for ease of consumption. It is highly readable, which alone makes it more useful than any NIE.
Secondly, I reiterate my comments above about our relationship, the seeds of which were not sown in the community, but due to my discovery of his performance outside of it. If you think that colors my assessment of the work, read it yourself and judge for yourself if this is just a back-scratching love-fest.
If Tom is noted for anything - besides his encyclopedia knowledge of related issues - it is his willingness to accept and then successfully develop ideas beyond the conventional wisdom. This is actually a trait that the reform-minded in the community are trying to teach their people now, but for Tom it comes naturally. This is not the same as not having a sufficiently developed imagination (something the various 9/11 panels mentioned) but is a more advanced form of a practice every four-year-old employs: Why? But why? Why? Why?
The response to such queries - for both parents and in the community - quickly distills from pride to anger. Why? While we appreciate that our offspring are becoming more aware and inquisitive, eventually the challenge of trying to explain things that we ourselves lack sufficient knowledge to explain becomes frustrating. Whether it is the color of the sky or why supposedly rival Islamist groups would band together to fight us, at some point the questions become an annoyance to those who do not share the same enthusiasm for getting past pat, if not outright incorrect answers.
In any other setting the questions raised in his paper would be academic, but the fact remains that American’s are getting killed because of our reliance on pat answers derived from the conventional wisdom. Thankfully, Tom is not short on sources so pointing out where such “wisdom” has gone askew is easy. He has essentially re-defined what should be conventional, re-titling those who peddle an earlier form to that of historians (not a bad thing, just not particularly useful in the now).
I have an inkling of what Tom’s politics are, but we have never actually discussed it. To some that will matter little because anyone who points out that the Sunni-Shia split isn’t all that divisive when American’s are on the menu, or that the Iranian regime is clearly not interested in making peace, is all part of the neo-something-right-something cabal that just wants to bomb all Muslims back into the stone age. I know that’s not what I want, and I’m fairly sure neither does Tom. Pointing out reality does not make one a warmonger, it just means you’re more prepared for when it comes.
