The undisputed fact seems to be that a certain Colonel Helvey is associated with Gene Sharp and with funnelling resources to some of the grassroots organizations that helped topple Milosevic. Also that Sharp's AEI has received funding from the perhaps Orwellianly named National Endowment for Democracy.

Given those facts, there are various interpretations.

One is that the DoD, CIA, etc are coopting others' scholarship, tactics and organizations when it suits their purposes.

The other is that this scholarship, tactics and organizations are actually undercover Psyops by the DoD and the CIA.

There are more, just like there are various interpretations of the undisputed fact that the NYT wrote an article about Gena Sharp and Egypt. Is the NYT trying to find the white man responsible for the brown people doing the right thing? Looking for the white man their readers can relate to even if they have a minor role? Trying to fit the Egyptian revolt into their "each revolution has its color/flower/fabric" meme? Uncovering the CIA/DoD behind same in a bout of investigative journalism? Giving away the DoD/CIA game they are themselves part of in an incompetent attempt to appear journalistic?

The debate, then, becomes not about the facts but about the colour of the glasses one should use to look at them.

Coincidentally, my sister just shared this video with me on facebook:

The whole video is interesting but the conclusion relevant to this discussion starts at 5'10".

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman