It is one thing to disagree on policy—it is quite another to resort to personal insults.

Noel S. Williams’s recent piece, ostensibly a critique of my op-ed on Iran, quickly devolves into ad hominem attacks that do little to advance the debate and much to undermine civil discourse. I served this country in uniform for more than two decades and have spent the better part of my career studying global threats, advising senior defense leaders, and writing extensively on national security. You are welcome to challenge my analysis—but questioning my integrity, mocking my service, and resorting to name-calling like “half-bird colonel” and “effete affections” does not elevate your argument. It exposes its weakness.

Reading the tea leaves, by ChatGPT.

The fact remains: rushing to war based on speculative intelligence is dangerous. Asserting that Iran’s intentions justify preemptive strikes ignores both the technical hurdles they still face and the consequences of escalation. A sober assessment of capabilities, not apocalyptic assumptions, should guide U.S. policy.

If Williams believes diplomacy is futile and deterrence a relic, he should argue so—without caricaturing those who have worn the uniform and who advocate caution where lives are at stake. Serious times demand serious debate. Sadly, it is nearly impossible to have one with someone so committed to outrage over understanding.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel

Author, Preparing for World War III