It's worth noting that the dominant advertiser embedded in this article is Thomson, a French company.
Most newspapers, television news outlets and certainly Technology Review exist because someone has funded their effort. Those people fund a product for which they expect a certain return, they anticipate that their funding will have a value to them. Usually there are two customers; the reader and the advertiser. In some cases there is also an institutional backing, such as MIT or the Government.
There can be no doubt that MIT has expectations about the nature of the content of this magazine. There is no doubt that an advertiser, such as Thomson, also expects pro-Thomson benefits to accrue.
It is interesting to note that two of the most heavily antiwar factions were American academia and the French. Both of which are prime sponsors for this article.
It is also interesting to note that these two factions were thoroughly discredited in their major premises by the nature and outcome of the war.
So it is curious that the author attempts to make the case that the majority of Americans who now support the war are misinformed, yet they have a factually more credible basis for their support than the sponsors of this author.
I suggest the author reassess his fundamental premise,and this time remove his antiwar analytical biases which have filtered out the signal leaving only unstructured noise which can be construed to mean anything the author chooses