DISQUS

Why would a responsible military person tip his strategic hand to the other side, if not forced to it by showboating civilian politicians? Strategic options are well known and thoroughly discussed already, in the professional media, but, again, why should/would a top general reveal the detailed war plan, like Ackerman wants?

Sounds less like an adult questioner than a self-centered adolescent with an agenda, posing endless hypotheticals and assumptions to reach his predetermined conclusion. Most adults eventually respond to such timewasters with something like Odierno did - Ok, stipulate all you want, have it your way, I've got too many adult matters going on to keep dealing with you!

Appears your whole take needs, oh horrors, revision: use of NDU, liberal narrative, linking various names and themes known to draw a knee jerk reaction in some quarters, and so on. Starts with the subject itself - despite your repetition, Collins' work was/is not an NDU study on Iraq. Or maybe you should assign B3 to those 2 (of 5?) prescient McClatchy "reporters". Or just check your sources through SWJ.

And part of the problem seems to be your undersell of what functions and tasks "FSO's" perform, all as part of US public diplomacy, well illustrated in pale rider's inventory. Signing on as an FSO doesn't limit one's wardrobe to striped pants, where camos may fit better.

What seemed evident from the early 1990's was that a nexus between radical Islam and radical states, especially states with access to NBC types of weapons, was a growing threat and a point of leverage for radical regimes. Saddam certainly made it look like he had both NBC capability and links to radical Islam. I prefer the agnosticism of Mr. Schwartz to the manipulations of the left and right ideologues on this question. I can completely accept the rationale of those who preferred to wait a while back in 2003, although I felt that waiting would, because of US domestic politics, mean Saddam would have a free hand until, at least, 2005, if not until maybe 2008. That seemed too great a risk to accept, and still does. But, whatever the thinking and actions in 2003, I hope they give way to what is needed to work in the reality we face, not the ones we might have faced back then. Thanks for stepping up, Mr. Schwartz.

Uh, any difference between "operational links" and "coordination, or facilitation, or financing, or _____ (fill in the blank) links"? Seems like AQ/Saddam relationship was, atleast, that of "affinity", in which 1+1 may equal more than 2, when situation is right.