1) A key argument against the revolving door is that it *incentivises* the poor practices of the government by making it essential to hire insiders, thereby ensuring said insiders have a plum job after they leave. I'm not seeing how the article argues against this.
2) Considering that the war in Afghanistan is just about the most comprehensive defeat one can imagine in the circumstances, with the Taliban controlling more territory more securely than they did in 2001, it's hard to attribute any kind of success to the tactics used there. Predators may have been great at pounding sand, but they were completely ineffectual at defeating the Taliban.
Two critiques:
1) A key argument against the revolving door is that it *incentivises* the poor practices of the government by making it essential to hire insiders, thereby ensuring said insiders have a plum job after they leave. I'm not seeing how the article argues against this.
2) Considering that the war in Afghanistan is just about the most comprehensive defeat one can imagine in the circumstances, with the Taliban controlling more territory more securely than they did in 2001, it's hard to attribute any kind of success to the tactics used there. Predators may have been great at pounding sand, but they were completely ineffectual at defeating the Taliban.