Our panel having gone smashingly well, I of course immediately headed to Commentary magazine to see if we'd shaken the very core of political discourse. Mission accomplished.
Or: they are there for window dressing to provide the patina of national security expertise when, in fact, the major foreign policy objectives are really driven by domestic ideology (e.g. we can’t admit Iraq has anything to do with Al Qaeda or the netroot will go nuts).
I will admit some sadness at being reduced from multiple netroots to a single netroot, but one day we'll build ourselves back up to some level of metaphorically agricultural respectability. Everyone in the netroots understands that Iraq has a ton to do with Al Qaeda. That's the entire point - it didn't have to, but now it does. If Barack Obama has assembled a vast field of advisers so that he doesn't piss off the Internet Gods of Things That Actually Happened, then more power - and more advisers! If 300 gets us "Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda until we made it about Al Qaeda", then maybe 500 can get the Cuban embargo lifted and 1000 can bring peace to the Middle East.
If the new slam against Obama is that he's an extravagantly overblown candidate, I just invite said critics who can show me where having a small cadre of tightly associated people with lockstep views helped us so much over the past seven years. My vote: energy policy!