For Rank Amatuer:

Opinions are good, everyone should have at least one. Whether any you link address all the realities is immaterial, I suppose; long as they get a point or a few correct, there's always something to like...

For Tom Odom:

We can agree on the music quality -- and I've got a tin ear...

For Steve Metz (at last; I have an at least moderately substantive comment!):

"I think he is doing exactly what the administration did in 2002: deliberately making HALF a strategic argument. A complete argument is not simply saying "X is a threat" but to say that "the threat from X justifies the costs and risks of dealing with it using method Y."
I totally agree with you on both counts. I also acknowledge that in the case of Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan) the argument was done exceedingly poorly if at all. Further, I'm trying to dredge up a memory of when the USA has ever really done that at all well? Can you think of any involving the commitment of troops in any thing more than token numbers?

My point is not to denigrate or challenge what you say, I do agree with you. It's just that my perception is that we do not do that very well. We certainly should, no question, however, indications lead me to believe it's sort of unlikely. Thus the follow on question is, I suppose -- how do we get that to happen routinely?