Gwynne Dyer's 2005 Year Ender

December 28, 2005 9:25 AM

Gwynne Dyer's Year Ender is always an interesting read. The Canadian military historian and widely syndicated columnist has been posted about here before, but has since published a new book (in large part a compilation of previously published columns since 9-11), and, of course, the year ender is all new.
posted by stinkycheese (5 comments total)

Sorry, I must disagree. I found little of interest or insight in Mr. Dyer's eyeglazer, packed as it is with platitudes and generalisations. Methinks this 3,300 words is his attempt to cash in on the news-free holiday season when editors are desperate for copy, especially of the "year in review" variety. Yawn.
posted by docgonzo at 9:51 AM on December 28, 2005

Gwynne Dyer is great, but I think I have to agree with docgonzo on this article. On the other hand here are a few recent columns that I thought were worth bookmarking: Saddam's Trial, Cuba and Venezuela, Brazil Guns, More Milestones in Iraq, and Britain's Nuclear Follies.

I wish we saw more of him on the TV as a 'talking head'. He has always been great at cutting through the crap on current events that involved his expertise - I especially remember this during the 1991 Gulf War when many people were talking as if it might be 'another Vietnam', having Gwynne Dyer around to talk straight was a great asset to CBC audiences.
posted by Chuckles at 10:27 AM on December 28, 2005

I thought it was a really great year end wrap-up, kinda like reading a Canadian version of Stratfor

Thanks for posting this stinkycheese, I'm bookmarking his site and look forward to checking in frequently.
posted by mk1gti at 11:27 AM on December 28, 2005

It's just a summary, not an in-depth analysis. In the same way that TIME and Newsweek serve to sum up the week's major events without getting drawn into the tedium of detail that daily newspapers (and, god forbid, cable news and bloggers) thrive on, it packed the important bits into a few nicely organized paragraphs. That's not worth bowing down before, but it's nothing to earn a dismissal either.
posted by dhartung at 5:46 PM on December 28, 2005

From the second link:

DC: It seems that the current American administration doesn’t have a great fear of war.

GD: No. War is an instrument of policy. This is straightforward 18th and 19th century stuff. It is more dangerous, but the dangers lie not in World War III next year, but in essentially destroying the entire structure of world order that we’ve spent 50 years building, and at the same time creating a long-term confrontation between the Muslim world and the West, which in the short run doesn’t lead to anything horrendous except a lot of terrorism, but in the longer run could. It’s just really stupid stuff. This isn’t the end of the world yet but it’s motherfucking dumb. You can quote me on that.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:05 AM on December 29, 2005