I don't have a problem with Rumsfeld's two-page butt-kicking memo to his subordinates. I would have a bigger problem if he didn't admit the difficulties. I don't think it says anything about his competence. Other than the fact that the only two policy people on the four-person receiving line were Feith and Wolfowitz, which certainly confirms the uber-hawk theology underpinning their direction.

So let's assume for the moment that Bush loses and a Dem inherits the mess fourteen months from now. We'll still be amidst an immeasurable, long, hard slog.

We would have to enlist allies in any continued military effort at that stage, which will mean a smaller presence or at least fewer fronts.

We'll have to take a longer, higher road in combatting terrorism.

And we'll have to do so while increasing security (which does not in my view mean at the expense of civil liberties -- it means better management and perhaps more resources) at home.

Will that work?

This isn't:

"It is not possible to change DOD [Department of Defense] fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror," he said. "An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DOD or elsewhere -- one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem." He did not elaborate.

He also lamented the state of long-term planning in the anti-terrorism war, suggesting that the need remains for "a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists."