Tuesday 24 May 2022 | 14:03 | SYDNEY
Tuesday 24 May 2022 | 14:03 | SYDNEY

The Interpreter is open for debate


Sam Roggeveen


10 February 2011 14:33

Richard Green appeals to my better nature, damn him. He has half a point, in that my reply to Robert Merkel was written out of frustration with Robert's false claim of consensus. Maybe I should have tried harder to put out my hand to Robert rather than raising a finger.

But although Richard is quite right to say that Robert Merkel's intervention was 'not malicious', it was lazy, and I chafe a little at Richard's suggestion that it should be on me to highlight examples of disagreement among strategic commentators, when clearly that's research Robert should have done before claiming that 'strategic studies types' all think alike and all lack intellectual honesty. 

Richard asks me not to put up the barricades against debate with non-specialists. In the case of The Interpreter, those barricades have been down for three and-a-half years; in that time we have debated many aspects of defence and strategic policy in great depth (a list of Interpreter debates, with links, here).

I know some in the Australian blogosphere dislike our policy against open comments. But those, like Richard, who make the effort to email me with comments know that participating in those discussions can be enlightening. I hope Robert Merkel and the bloggers and commenters at Larvatus Prodeo will get involved too.

Photo by Flickr user Okinawa Soba.