|Wednesday, July 16, 2003|
6:41:04 PM comment 
And while we’re talking about military strategy…there’s some important new research on the odds of winning at “Risk.”
When I was a kid I found “Risk” frustrating because there was always a player who acted with no regard for logic or strategy, or somebody would get mad and spend the rest of the game trying to destroy his neighbor no matter what the cost to himself, or someone would sacrifice everything to hold onto a meaningless piece of territory. I thought this all detracted from the realism of the game. Then I grew up and found out it was all amazingly lifelike.
2:40:51 PM comment 
This morning’s Tom Friedman column was an important one. We need to win the rest of the war in
“Eyes on the prize, please,” says Friedman, urging the Bush administration to spend less time on ass-covering and more attention to the facts on the ground. But the Democrats, too, need to show they are serious. I’d like to learn more from the Democratic contenders (sic) about what they would do in
If a Democrat wins next year, what would be the future of Bush’s aggressive military strategy of addressing state-sponsored terrorism emanating from the
It doesn’t matter if you didn’t want to go to war, it’s done. We are where we are. Where we go next is the key.
That doesn’t mean that Bush shouldn’t get pounded for any shady tactics used to sell his agenda to the nation. But that agenda is in place. Friedman hardly gives Bush a free pass on resorting to “phony reasons for going to war,” but he’s able to compartmentalize. His advice is detailed and tough: “Sunni Muslim areas…need to be reinvaded and then showered with reconstruction funds,” and “we must provide massive support for the new Council.”
Screwing up on nation-building in
Eyes on prize, please, everyone.
2:26:25 PM comment