Steven Den Beste is one of the most popular bloggers on the net. He approaches things with a very logical and practical perspective – think of a stereotypical engineer, but one who can actually write. He is at his best when he is either explaining how things work or giving his educated analysis on international politics (especially when it pertains to military force).
However, the one word I would never use to describe him is concise. For example, he once used over two thousand words describing the difference between deductive and inductive logic. He could have made this distinction in 30 words or less while still addressing his main point... (Note to nitpickers – the essay was well over 5,000 words, I conservatively estimate 40% of it was used in describing deductive vs. inductive logic). His elaboration may be one of the reasons why he is so popular (although I suspect he would be at least as popular if he were less wordy), but he is not known for being succinct.
Today he shocked me with a concise post answering seven questions about the rebuilding of Iraq. Is he well? Has he added conciseness to his skills? Or was this a fluke on par with snowmen being built in Hades?
Only time will tell.
You guys are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. The "short post" you are talking about is a follow up on a rather lengthy <a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_e...> in the previous week about how we are to measure victory in Iraq--What is our metric for victory--how do we know we have won? I suggested looking at the First Iraq--the Philippines--where the experiment is already 105 years old and a historical data point exists. (from Philippine Commentary)
I about fell off my chair when I read that, yesterday!
He has been slowing down lately, must
be getting old (like the rest of us)