> I don't see how removing ambiguity translates into indepedence of thought and action. Once all ambiguity is resolved, won't there be one clear definition, one objective, and an expectation that everyone will work to achieve that objective? What if I disagree? Where is my freedom to independent thought and action then?

That's the point, isn't it? It is much easier to disagree with a clear and well-formulated statement than with a muddy and ambiguous one. Don't you find it much easier to disagree with "Sometimes invading other countries to kill our enemies is a good idea." than with "Under certain circumstances it may be in a state's best interest to engage in the elimination of undesirable elements in other states, utilizing whatever viable means are available, particularly by violation of the host state's sovereignty through superior force."?

Clarity fosters debate, because the basic issues will be put forward directly. Vague and ambiguous statements will only lead to misinterpretations and squabbling over details, serving no purpose.