It is with deliberate intent that the writer offers projections of the conflict with a tasteless game analogy but fails to outline any constructive suggestions or solutions for resolving the conflict. Notably, the author’s active involvement in conflict zones and their presence within a military industry (extensive enough to earn the label veteran) births no viable peaceful resolutions. Stripping off Carlson’s efforts to inform and converse in this tiny desk conversation (on a global stage) is no fair judgement. It reeks of discontent. It is biased reporting and evidently contains traces of discreditation of the importance of global stages and the dire need for journalistic bravery.
