Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
[continued]....A state of war is characterized by strategic focus (every other issue pales in comparison)..To transcend this paralysis, we must find some way to indicate our seriousness, sustain public attention, and focus our efforts on our extremist enemies without portraying what is not a war as war...
Now I understand why you did not like my "Eating Soup with a Spoon" argument. Because in it i was arguing for exactly the opposite of what you say in this posting as extracted from your forthcoming book.

On one hand your argument makes supreme sense to me, especially as it relates to policy. However, on the other hand, it seems to me to be an abstracted argument from reality. And however well you argue this, the reality on the ground in Iraq now is that it is war. I dont see how you can neatly separate the different levels of war and say well ok at the tactical level yes it might be but at the stategic level it would not. Clausewitz, I think, would be rolling over in his grave in response to this proposition; but then again as you have commented in another post you never have had much use for St Carl as a strategist. Good point, but you misunderstand him since he did not write a book that was fundamentally about strategy but a book that was fundamentally about the nature of war, of which strategy was a component.

And the nature of war and understanding it as it exists today is why i used the "Principles" piece as a mechanism to get at it.