DISCLOSURE OF TOP SECRET PENTAGON ASSESSMENT OF HOW AN INVASION OF TAIWAN WOULD UNFOLD

[solutions]

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Your Criticisms of Kerry Brown’s Scholarship
From: Solutions
Date: Tue May 6, 2025 10:52 am PDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I just finished reading your Suggested Answers to the Third Short Quiz in which you not only continue to mention some of Kerry Brown’s mistakes, but for the first time criticized his editor.

Why?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: DISCLOSURE OF TOP SECRET PENTAGON ASSESSMENT OF HOW AN INVASION OF TAIWAN WOULD UNFOLD
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue May 6, 2025 8:37 pm MDT
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

I believe you agree that when an author makes mistakes, the reader must substantiate any and all of the author’s allegations upon which the reader wishes to rely.

So your real question appears to be why I became so frustrated that I even criticized the publisher, St. Martin’s Press, for failing to provide an adequate Editor.

*****
YES, I am perfectly capable of “substantiating any and all of Kerry Brown’s allegations on which I may want to rely in the future.”

*****
HOWEVER, what were REALLY UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THERE WAS NO “WORK AROUND” SUCH AS INDEPENDENT SUBSTANTIATION were his Footnotes 11, 12 and 14 for Chapter 7 – the only footnotes in the book in which I was interested.

Footnote 11 was cited for the assertion (p. 181) –

“An authoritative study produced in 2022 in the US warned that the military balance between Taiwan and China has shifted decisively in Beijing’s favor over the last three decades."

And Footnote 14 was cited for a 17-line quotation about how a PRC attack on Taiwan would unfold.

Of course I was interested in who/what produced the study because “an authoritative study produced…in the US” would have been highly classified – certainly Top Secret with Limited Access.

So I was immediately thinking that Kerry Brown was overstating the “authoritativeness” of some guesses produced by a run-of-the-mill civilian “think tank.”

His footnotes simply read ver batim --

11 - Wuthrow et al. (eds.), 6.
12 - Wuthrow et al. (eds.), 8.
14 - Wuthrow et al. (eds.), 9.

You might be interested in how appalled were HLS Classmate and HLS Classmate No. 2, each of whom heads one or more of our Working Groups!!!

Any self-respecting law school, not just Harvard Law, indoctrinates their students on the proper format for EVERY FOOTNOTE, no matter what is being cited, so that the material can be easily found.

The formats are prescribed in the famous “Bluebook.”

*****
So who/what is “Wuthrow” and how do you unearth what Kerry Brown is citing???

A quick check of the index showed no entry for “Wuthrow.”

The legal “Bluebook” specifies the use of “ibid” to reference the same source as the immediately-preceding footnote.

The legal “Bluebook” specifies the use of “op. cit.” plus a prescribed abbreviation to reference the same source as a previous but not immediately-preceding footnote.

*****
Since the three footnotes appeared on the 17th page of the book’s list of footnotes, I checked all of the previous footnotes.

BTW, a Google search for “Wuthrow” disclosed that there is a Joel Wuthrow who is a Senior Research Fellow at The Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs (CSCMA) which is part of the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) which is part of National Defense University which is funded by the Department of Defense and operates under the Chairman of The Joint Chiefs.

In checking all of the previous footnotes, there was no mention of Joel Wuthrow or any of the organizations identified in the previous paragraph.

*****
THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION???

If the document Kerry Brown is citing and 17 lines of which he purports to be quoting ver batim actually exists – somebody has LEAKED to Kerry Brown a Top Secret document.

And somebody or bodies should be prosecuted!!!

*****
Thank you again for your e-mail.

Your friend,

John K.

PS – I haven’t taken the time to research whether journalists such as Kerry Brown may be able to claim he is, are immune from prosecution for publishing classified information that has been illegally leaked to them. My hazy recollection is that no U.S. Department of Justice has ever prosecuted a journalist but, instead, focused on the illegal leaker if s/he can be identified. ACCORDINGLY (if my hazy recollection is correct), the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a journalist is protected by First Amendment “Freedom of the Press” when s/he knowingly publishes Top Secret information illegally obtained.