ARTICLE: "Critiques of Iraq War Reveal Rifts Among Army Officers: Colonel's Essay Draws Rebuttal From General; Captains Losing Faith," by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 29 June 2007, p. A1.

Another great piece from Jaffe, who is by far the best reporter out there on institutional change in response to the Long War. Yingling's article was unremarkable to me in content. To me, its importance was all timing (my initial posted reaction). Like I wrote up front in BFA, the Iraq War creates an air-versus-ground debate over who's losing and what needs to happen for victory in the future. This article captures that debate nicely: air wants to stick with precision from above and avoid lotsa boots on the ground in c-insurgencies; ground says the latter are inevitable. The middle ground from Nagl sounds very SysAdmin: use the new troops promised to create a large (20k) mil advisory corps. That's middle because Nagl's right in saying our success will come more in training others more than fighting ourselves, and because those forces plus our Leviathan's air power are the best treasure-to-blood ratio we can employ (very Balkans-like). Nagl's right on training because Petraeus is right on calculating boots required (20-35 troops per local 1k population). And that's where I come in with my arguments on tapping New Core pillars like India and China for bodies. The logic is emerging, the answers becoming clearer to more and more younger officers. I am finally beginning to understand the importance of my books to certain military audiences. To that end, I speak again at Leavenworth on 9/11. I plan on using Aug to retool the brief some in anticipation. I address West Point next spring.