No, I work in a school setting where 9 out of 10 people I work with are liberal. We recently lost a soldier in Afghanistan from our town, and I heard repeatedly Iraq and Afghanistan conflated-and believe me before it happened and after it happened there were a lot of conversations on the war. Those who are liberal and want us out of Iraq seem just as opposed to Afghanistan-and I constantly hear "We need to get out of there" again and again and when asked for clarification they almost always say they mean both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I read the report summary, and it was interesting. The authors certainly make some good points - the procurement system in Defense is messed up, and Future Combat Systems, in particular, is becoming grotesque; although elements of it should be included in future modernization plans, the program itself is just becoming a massive boondoggle.

That said, they need to be careful with some of their assumptions, and particularly the assumption that "well, massive-level operational warfare seems non-existent now, so we ought to plan away from it and re-build war around fighting small-scale fires and 'dispersed' combat". Take Iraq, for example. While no one can doubt that Iraq showed that counter-insurgency tactics are vital, they only became vital after the US utterly dominated the initial Iraqi opposition in a conventional warfare mission.

Moreover, if we want to keep a world where wars are primarily "brush-fire" conflicts, then we need to maintain the factors that create that - nuclear deterrent and American conventional military dominance. What with the way ABM technology is advancing and getting better, missiles will probably be near worthless in the next 20 years - which means that we'll have to focus on enhancing other ways of nuclear deterrent, such as more and better strategic bombers and a good submarine program, as well as our own strong ABM system.

American conventional military superiority depends on all of those unpopular military modernization programs. The F-22, for example, must be purchased, and purchased en masse; costs per unit have skyrocketed because Congress keeps cutting the quantity supplied. The navy needs a new destroyer, but not the idiotic design that got canceled a while back (the "tumble home" design). The army needs a new modernization program to replace the disastrous Future Combat Systems plan, and the Marines need a clearer mission. All of them need a better procurement system.

I say this mostly because the majority of "get us out of Iraq" people I know seem to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan together.

All that means is that you don't get out much. I work with some very conservative Republicans. (my boss is one) and they all say we have to get out of Iraq, because Bin Laden is successfully bleeding us economically there.

WTF do you think Bin Laden is always saying Iraq is the central front? He wants us there. And him wanting us there is a good reason to leave. We have given Iraq years of blood, sweat, tears and hundreds of billions of dollars. Time for them to step up.

We also need to incorporate adaptivization into our military planning.

The US military is one of the most adaptive organizations in the world. What exactly are you thinking of?

Like anything large it is tough to turn around, but it does happen. Witness, for instance, the surge and the transformation of US tactics in Iraq.

I figure Obama and McCain both will likely pull out of Iraq pretty fast-although things right now are going fairly well or at least quiet there right now, and I was reading an article today that indicated the US was turning over a lot of jobs to Iraq-both military and civilian type jobs, so while it isn't perfect and could always go to hell again, Iraq actually looks like a pull out of some amount could be fairly reasonable. Obama though may have more pressure to do it quicker while McCain will likely get a bit more patience on that front.

I think Obama will likely give up on Afghanistan where McCain won't and i think that is the difference. I say this mostly because the majority of "get us out of Iraq" people I know seem to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan together. I suspect as soon as the troops are mostly drawn down out of Iraq, the anti war left will start sighting their guns on getting troops out of Afghanistan. I doubt they will make much of a peep over Sudan though.

Hussein's plan is pretty clear: 1) Get elected by having his illegal relatives and ACORN steal the election.

2) Give all the states in the Northwest to Kim Jong Il, give all of the states in the southwest (CA, AZ, NM, OK, TX) to Subcomandante Marcos and the Zapatistas, give the entire southeast to Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez, give the midwest to Putin, give the northeast to the Taliban, and the mid-atlantic will go the dictator of Kenya, Adewale Ogunleye.

3) No war will happen because Obama will basically let his invited council of evildoers run the show. Part of the deal will be for Ogunleye to give Obama a palace back in Kenya where he will retire for life. We won't even know it--we will only be aware that something is up when all of the Christians and patriots are rounded up and sent on trains to work camps. At that point it will be too late.

If Obama gets elected enjoy your 2008 Christmas--it is likely to be the last time we can celebrate it in public.

One must discount most of what Obama said during the election run-up...

Amen... and 'nuff said.

I thought we were just gonna vote "present" for the next war, and mail it in.

lol