John, true, that is significant. But it does it really alter fundamentals? If the 80% of attacks/within 30 miles of Baghdad is right, the targeted surge is clearly on target. But the question of insufficient size still dogs the design. On the other side of things, too much of a surge may not be a good thing either. This may mean 21,500 is just right. But, in turn, just right may, in this case, mean a lot less than a military strategy with a fundamentally new approach. It may even mean that there isn’t a fundamentally better military approach, which both ratifies and somewhat banalizes the surge. In the end I think that’s the right attitude: the surge is fine if part of a new, improved, fundamentally reconceived, and comprehensive strategy suite. If not — look out.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?