I admit I stopped after the first page, but to use a chess metaphor, this article is about how the chess game is over before it starts because black's bishop is doomed because white has a queen. Even if every word is true, it's an analysis so myopic that the value of analysis is a flat zero.

Besides, I remember similar analyses before both Iraq wars. Today you can get away with describing that army with various denigrating terms, but I'm old enough to remember how the Iraq army was the world's third-best at the time of the invasion according to pundits everywhere. (To be honest, I have no idea if it was true, and it's doesn't really matter since I'm specifically talking about the punditry and commentary.) People who know what they are talking about sound sober and realistic, not hyperbolic and bombastic. (And of course merely "sounding sober and realistic" doesn't prove they do know what they are talking about.)

>> I remember similar analyses before both Iraq wars.

As do I. And don't forget the classic "brutal Afghan winter", endlessly discussed in the mainstream media, that was going to prevent the US from seizing Kabul et al. Except, you know, when the US and its Afghan allies took it in less than three weeks.

As far as I remember it was the third biggest, not the third best.

Oh, but don't forget: "Elite Republican guard" and "experienced from their wars with Iran". There was a whole series of talking points. Philwelch may be correct on the 3rd vs. 4th point, but I am pretty sure the talk was of them being the third/forth best. (Possibly the pundits think they could have beaten China in some hypothetical fight, since at the time neither could have really projected force at the other to speak of.)

I did say pundits, after all, and I'd add those making the analysis for political reasons. More sober analysts knew better, including the ones who actually planned operation, after all. The fact that they were grossly wrong because of their various motivations is sort of my point.

Fourth biggest: US, USSR, and China were the top three.

War Nerd certainly has a shtick that can be off putting. But in terms of providing no BS commentary on military and war issues, he is one of the best sources out there. The vulnerability of the American fleet is a very real issue.

I've read War Nerd's analysis on regions and conflicts I personally know all too well. The last thing I would say about him is that he's "no BS".

WN stitches together real facts, out-of-contexts facts and completely made up "facts" in about equal proportions, and comes out with "analysis" that has zero value - but since it does contain some truths and is written in an authoritative and original tone, manages to create the illusion of "no BS".

So what are your favorite sources of information about global affairs? War Nerd has been consistently more right than sources such as the NYTimes or CNN. But if there are sources much better than War Nerd, I'd love to know about them.

Foreign Policy's blog is a good resource: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/ - you can sign up to get a daily brief.

I try to follow John Robb's Global Guerilla blog (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/). He discusses a lot of interesting topics that influence modern military thought, like systems & network theory, emergence, open source warfare etc.

But to be honest I'm not a great fan of the subject. I think this whole theme of death-porn (because war is first and foremost about killing other humans) in our society is repulsive. I can respect people like Robb dealing with this because ultimately this is a subject that should be understood well, but I've seen families tear to pieces when one member died in a war so the idea of some "War Nerd" drooling over a new missile that can kill a 1000 people is sickening.

As for War Nerd being "consistently more right", I'm not sure what you mean. I don't believe anyone can truly predict anything (except the obvious) and I can't say I see War Nerd accomplishing this. Same goes for CNN and NYT, but at least they make a conscious effort to base their reporting on actual facts.