What? I'm talking about why they published it when they did and several months after it was actually news, not why SEJeff submitted it here. HN only enters into the issue at all inasmuch as the article happened to appear here.
More specifically, this is a publication whose purpose is to advance a foreign policy narrative that's favored by one specific school of foreign-policy thought - indeed, a publication founded by that school of thought's own founder. Call it "conspiracy theory" if you like to suggest that such a publication might act in ways which tend to advance that narrative, but I'm not sure it's really so unreasonable as all that.
(Since the next step in this progression should be suggesting I have some sort of covert dog in the fight, I'll go ahead and disclaim that in advance: I'm nothing in foreign policy circles and no one of import listens to anything I have to say. But in light of the quality of results which neoconservative foreign policy produced last decade, I feel like it's worth taking a moment to point out that maybe we could come up with something better to do in this decade.)
More specifically, this is a publication whose purpose is to advance a foreign policy narrative that's favored by one specific school of foreign-policy thought - indeed, a publication founded by that school of thought's own founder. Call it "conspiracy theory" if you like to suggest that such a publication might act in ways which tend to advance that narrative, but I'm not sure it's really so unreasonable as all that.
(Since the next step in this progression should be suggesting I have some sort of covert dog in the fight, I'll go ahead and disclaim that in advance: I'm nothing in foreign policy circles and no one of import listens to anything I have to say. But in light of the quality of results which neoconservative foreign policy produced last decade, I feel like it's worth taking a moment to point out that maybe we could come up with something better to do in this decade.)