The shell game is a tried-and-true method of persuading people to give their money to the person running the game.
In political terms, it’s also a reliable method of persuading people to buy into the political stance of the man
running the game.
Elliott Abrams is a master of the shell game. He provides what seems like a serious and sober analysis, with just
enough cherry-picking of facts and omission of detail to convince you of his point of view. That is a big reason
why this man, who is responsible for some of the greatest foreign policy fiascos in American history, continues to
be considered a legitimate source for foreign policy analysis.
Perhaps it’s not surprising. Despite the enormous catastrophes brought on by the neoconservative school of thought
of which Abrams is a part, the philosophy, such as it is, continues to be an influential voice in the foreign
policy debate in the United States. This is, however, even more reason to look at an apparent change of course from
Abrams with a skeptical eye.