I don't usually comment on a blog post that comments on another blog post, but I believe Matt Yglesias hits on an important issue in his observations on Andrew Exum's interview with Washington Post reporter and author Greg Jaffe.

Greg Jaffe, speaking to Andrew Exum, says “This whole conventional vs. irregular debate is stupid.”

War is war. And we waste far too much energy trying to categorize it. I think most lieutenants, captains and majors are beyond this false conventional vs. irregular frame that we try to impose on war. I wish I could say the same for the more senior people in the Pentagon.

I think there’s a lot of truth to that. At the same time, just because things look one way to “lieutenants, captains and majors” and another way to “senior people in the Pentagon” doesn’t mean we should take a dismissive view of the senior people’s outlook in a rush to celebrate the insights of the practical warfighter.
----------
And when you get down to the guts of defense budget politics, these high-level strategic concepts matter a great deal. Nobody, of course, is going to say that the U.S. should somehow completely abandon its ability to fight conventional wars. But the choice between a mindset that says “the main purpose of the military is to scare China & Russia” or a mindset that says “the main purpose of the military is to intervene effectively in third world backwaters” has very real implications for what kind of hardware purchases look cost effective.

There is no doubt in my mind that the issue of "hardware purchases" looms very large in the minds of senior military and civilian decision makers. Conventional warfare means lots of tanks, armored vehicles, stealthy jets, next generation bombers, submarines, destroyers, and aircraft carriers. And let's not even get into the care and feeding of that massive military machine. Counterinsurgency operations, or COIN, is completely the opposite, with a focus on maintaining security and diminishing the insurgent grasp on the population without destroying real estate. Also a no-brainer that the DOD budget is already too bloated, and that in managing two wars, protecting the homeland, and trying to modernize its equipment, there's going to be some in-fighting.

But more importantly, the issue is also in the theory and execution of national strategy. The basic idea of military doctrine is that small military units execute tactics on the ground that must support the overall plan of operations within a theater. The theater commander needs to ensure that he has adequate numbers of personnel, that operations continue toward a particular set of goals, and that the logistics support those operations - and his operations must support the overall national strategy for that region. If your tactics and operations don't align against the strategic goals and expected outcome, then you're doing something wrong - even if you're General McChrystal.

Now under the Bush administration, strategic goals and outcomes changed every Friedman unit (six months), which made it difficult to effectively plan operations or execute tactics. But one thing that was certainly clear was that conventional tactics that destroyed the Taliban in 2002 and that took the Iraqi army out in 2003 didn't support the post-conflict goals. You can't prosecute military operations with a conventional frame of mind when what one really needs is an approach to irregular warfare. That's why we failed in Lebanon in 1983.

Greg Jaffe is a good journalist, and I look forward to reading his book. On the other hand, making a statement like "War is war. And we waste far too much energy trying to categorize it" is a remarkably stupid statement. Nuclear war is not the same as conventional war. Conventional war is not the same as irregular war. Our military needs to be able to operate across a range of different operations, and needs to be equipped properly to execute its operations quickly and efficiently. But what we really need is national leadership that understands the nature of war, that knows how to develop a strategy that is executable, and that knows when it's time to go. From Sun Tzu:

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Thus ends the lesson.

Conservatives just can't help it when they act like misogynists. It's hard wired into their DNA much the same way it's hard wired into Richard Land's views about women. The National Republican Congressional Committee is attacking Nancy Pelosi and is really hoping that Gen. McChrystal will put her in her place in their latest fundraising press release.

Now, Pelosi is backpedaling on Afghanistan amidst increasing criticism from the radical left:

"I've also made it clear it's a very difficult vote to get from the members," she added. "Their constituents don't like an escalated war in Afghanistan. They'd like to see a different approach. But let's see what the president has to say." (Glenn Thrush, “Pelosi skeptical about Afghan surge, McChrystal,” Politico, 10/05/2009)

“General Pelosi has no problem sacrificing her own credibility as the Obama administration and liberals in Congress attempt to walk back a strategy they strongly advocated just months ago,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Nancy Pelosi continues to make party politics a higher priority than our national security. Rather than listening to a four-star general’s assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country’s military policy.” If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.

Matt Yglesias says that the NRCC is trying to "deploy a touch of the old condescending sexism via the Speaker of the House of Representatives."

Nancy Pelosi responded to the NRCC like this:

"It's really sad they don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. " I'm in my place. I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House. And I'm in my place because the House voted me there. That language is something I hadn't heard in decades."

I always love how conservatives attack Democratic women and want them to stay home and watch the kids, but when it comes a conservative in politic they flip flop to try and appear as if they support women's rights. Here's Richard Land on MTP back in 2005 sharing his vision of women in America:

Russert: We can try to find common ground, but there are differences, and I want to see just how profound they are. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 passed this statement on the family: "...A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband... She...has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household..."And, Reverend Land, you went on to explain it this way: "If a husband does not want his wife to work outside the home, then she should not work outside the home." Is that your vision of America?

DR. LAND: It's my vision for Christian families. I don't think that the law has anything to do with it.

And as usual Beck rules: Dear Mom, Beck has history of sexist comments

Matt Yglesias has a good post up on the importance of, you know, raising the damn money to pay for health-care reform.

Jonathan Cohn makes the important point that a bit lost in the week’s news that Harry Reid is cracking the whip on Max Baucus is the fact that this whip-cracking seems to have involved ruling out the idea of limiting the tax-exempt status of employer-provided health care as a revenue source for reform. Some important labor unions don’t like this idea and it doesn’t poll very well, but it’s too bad to see it ruled out because it’s a pretty good idea. And what’s more, even if you don’t like the idea you do need some idea of how to raise the $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion over ten years that something like the Senate HELP plan would cost.
-
This seems like a good moment to issue my dozenth call for congress to take another look at the Obama administration’s original revenue proposal—limiting tax deductions for high-income itemizers. This would target basically the same group of people (rich people) as House liberals’ plan for a surtax on high-income couples but raise the money in a substantially more efficient way.

When possible, it’s better to raise money by broadening the tax base—curbing loopholes, deductions, and exemptions—than by simply raising the rates. The reason is that higher rates on a narrow base do a lot to encourage people to shift income into loopholes, which both undermines your revenue-raising efforts and also distorts the economy. Both the employer tax exclusion proposals and the itemized deductions proposal fit that good model.

Big Time Ezra says that Obama shouldn't be so stuck on telling people that they can keep what they have:

One of the president's health-care reform principles is that everyone must be able to keep what he or she currently has. But that means we're not really going to change, or improve, what they have. And that means they're not getting much in the way that's new. Higher taxes aren't buying them obvious benefits. Instead, they seem to be paying the health-care bills of poorer Americans.

If support for the overall effort were more robust, the polling on the tax exclusion would matter less. People are willing to pay for things they want to buy. But though they might abstractly favor health-care reform, it doesn't seem directly related to their lives.

So now the Senate is trying to find revenue options that fall on fewer people. That's one response. If health-care reform will only directly help the few, then its fiscal impact will have to be similarly narrow. But another would be to go in the other direction and gamble on policies that would make health-care reform a more direct contributor to the lives of the many, and so potentially something they'd be willing to pay for.

Playing it safe is not helping. I know President Obama is trying to reassure people so the right wingers can't scare them, but no matter what he does, the right wingers will scare Americans. It's in their nature and their only true talent. So start playing hardball because Americans want health care reform.

Sure, they have no idea what a Baucus or Reid or Grassley or a Lincoln means in this debate, but start framing it better and come out throwing hay-makers. The Democratic leadership should have had the money aspect of this worked out already, but you can't accommodate all sides.

It is a complex issue to figure out, but all options have to be on the table, and if losing a seat in Congress is the price that has to be paid, who cares except for Rahm? Health care is too important to be worried about attack ads in 2010. Just get the job done.