The Hirsh piece in Newsweek, Proxy War, is worth a read. I'm not sure he is 100% correct in attributing the two sides of the debate within the Army to be the CSA and CENTCOM - few things are that simple and clear, but he does a fair job at capturing the challenges and the consequences of trying to match ends, ways means.

The differences in opinion between Senators Obama and McCain deserve to be more developed. I hope they will be. On the one hand Senator Obama says we should match our "ends" with our "means" - I'd have to say that is a good going in position before you decide to use military force to achieve a political purpose. However, once you do - even if it was not your administration, the theoretical three legged stool is not nearly as handy.

The end we were originally committed to, the one we determined it to be, may not be the same one in terms of its consequences, as viewed by us or by the many other states who must live with its consequences, and who influence our interests abroad (and increasingly at home). The "ends" leg may be out of balance, but because the outcome has potentially increased in value (to us, our friends and our enemies), it may be in the state's best interest (if feasible) to increase the means available to achieve the end, and also to consider if new ways are required to do so - and what we need to do to enable those new ways.

Once military action has begun, things change. There has been a great deal of speculation regarding "what" continued military involvement in Iraq may mean, and what shape it will take. I would argue there are a great many variables which will determine that, not exclusive to the U.S. 2008 Presidential contest.

Seeing Iraq in the context of "only Iraq" may no longer be an option.

Best, Rob