> It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all tho

> It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to. > I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. AFAICS, the GP does. > The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is. > But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.