Summary: Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today: Mission Descisions - Why don't we just fight the Terrorists in Iraq?The Myth of the Objective Anchor - Katie Couric and the Nefarious WeDinner Jacket visits the U.S. - and Columbia Screws it upHillary's Gigglefest - She Laughs at the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Download Subscribe Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes Play clip. Mission Descisions - Why don't we just fight the Terrorists in Iraq? I watched and listened to much of Hillary Clinton's talk show marathon on Sunday, when she appeared as the lead guest on Meet the Press, This Week with George Stephanopoulis, Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, and Late Edition. The talk ranged across a wide field of topics, including health care, fund raising scandals, the war in Iraq, and why people hate her so much. I'm going to focus on two topics from her appearances. The first is her call for a change in mission. Listen to this segment from Face the Nation with Bob Scheiffer. Play clip. She is clearly trying to walk a fine line between the hard left, with their calls for withdrawal now regardless of consequences, and the hard right shock troops like me. She wants to stay, but with a new, more narrowly defined mission. Here she was on This Week with George Stephanopoulis saying much the same thing: Play clip. She has her talking points and she stuck to them in a very professional manner. But how realistic is it to change the mission from population security and counter-insurgency of today, authored by General David Petraeus, to one centered on counter terrorism? Can you fight terrorists in Iraq, like the infamous Al Qaeda in Iraq, without securing the population? How many troops would that take? Fred Kagan, one of the primary advocates of General Petraeus's surge strategy, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, had this to say on those ideas in a recent Heritage Foundation Podcast. The audio is a little over modulated, but the message is clear. Play clip. What he said was that you can't fight Al Qaeda if you can't get the population to tell you where they are. And they won't tell you if you aren't protecting them. That's the trade: if you promise to stick around and keep them safe, they will tell you where the bad guys are. This is the success formula that Petraeus has been following. This morning, I joined a conference call, sponsored by the Pentagon, with Army LTC Ken Adgie, commander in charge of operation Marne Torch II, described by the Pentagon as follows:Task Force Marne troops continue to break up improvised explosive device-making cells in southern Baghdad, and push further south into new areas, with the conduct of Operation Marne Torch II, launched Sept. 15. The operation, Multi-National Division - Center's newest offensive, picked up immediately on the heels of its predecessor, Operation Marne HuskyI asked the LTC about Hillary's idea of counter terrorism only, without civilian security. Here's what he thought of the idea: Play clip. I agree with the commander. Without the great intelligence the population is now sharing with them, there is no way they can figure out who the bad guys are. And the people won't share with someone they don't trust. The term bird dog in his response refers to the 4-5 top informants that he uses in their area of operations. These citizens supply the bulk of the tips to the coalition forces. The Myth of the Objective Anchor - Katie Couric and the Nefarious We Katie Couric, the anchor of CBS Evening News with anybody but Dan Rather, appeared at the National Press Club this week for a pleasant discussion with Marvin Kalb, the Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. With such a title, it's not surprising that Marvin Kalb has delusions of grandeur. Here's a short clip from their sit down, noticed by Jonah Goldberg on the Corner on National Review Online. As Jonah writes:The Nefarious "We" Close readers may have noticed that I am increasingly vex
