Replies

"Building a deployable, sustainable civilian capability in finance, justice, agriculture, commerce, and health"

hmmmm... I think I would rather just have the military kill anybody who threatens us and let the private sector handle the building part.

Every senior, and many astute less senior, officer knows that ''winning'' is an normatively ambiguous term that is subject to differing definitions in today's combat environment. Everyone, that is, except the cabal of political generals who've abandoned their obligations and become the 21st Century version of the German general staff all too willing to assure the SecDef and the make-believe warriors in the White House that our skeleton, poorly equipped force can perform the job that double their number would find difficult.

The nature of today's insurgency warfare in Iraq is so vastly different that winning for the U.S. in Iraq now means not losing and finding some way to get out with our national authority and world dominance intact. The admiral is correct in the suggestion that civilian sacrifice and a national commitment is required to achieving whatever victory means in the current context. Sacrifice at home is simply not something the current failed administration is willing to allow. Why? Because any sacrifice by the folks at home, like really paying for the war without huge deficits, would not please his constituency of banking, finance,insurance and energy.