The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

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.

topics:
Military

Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Blog Posts

More Blog Posts by James Poulos

http://spectator.org/blog/2007/01/14/re-support-the-surge-for-now

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT