Tuesday, March 21, 2006
As if on cue ...: Mark yesterday wrote about fans' new appreciation of hard-headed business practices by sports team owners -- and sure enough the Sox two hours later traded Bronson Arroyo, who recently signed a home-town discount in order to stay in Boston. Arroyo's fate will be used in the future as Exhibit A on why players shouldn't sign sentimental below-market contracts: It simply makes them attractive trade bait. ... The Sox' treatment of Bronson aside, I do love this hard-headed trade. We have a new Mo in town! ...
'The folly of using massive force': Excellent story in yesterday's WSJ (sub. req.) about American generals reading up on how to fight an insurgency. Only question: Why weren't they doing this earlier? Some quick answers: A.) the words 'insurgency' and 'guerrilla warfare' were all but banned at the Pentagon during the early stages of the insurgency because they were in denial about its existence (and don't forget how some bloggers angrily criticized the media for daring to use the word 'insurgency') and B.) the military, incredibly, all but banned routine study of how to fight insurgencies in the decades leading up to the war. ... They were still arguing over the big-vs.-small military issue in the summer of 2004 (sorry for all the question marks in that archived post; must be some typo quirk in blogger). ... The Pentagon's inability to grasp that sometimes you need a big army and sometimes you don't is simply depressing. For many, it has to be an either-or proposition.
'The folly of using massive force': Excellent story in yesterday's WSJ (sub. req.) about American generals reading up on how to fight an insurgency. Only question: Why weren't they doing this earlier? Some quick answers: A.) the words 'insurgency' and 'guerrilla warfare' were all but banned at the Pentagon during the early stages of the insurgency because they were in denial about its existence (and don't forget how some bloggers angrily criticized the media for daring to use the word 'insurgency') and B.) the military, incredibly, all but banned routine study of how to fight insurgencies in the decades leading up to the war. ... They were still arguing over the big-vs.-small military issue in the summer of 2004 (sorry for all the question marks in that archived post; must be some typo quirk in blogger). ... The Pentagon's inability to grasp that sometimes you need a big army and sometimes you don't is simply depressing. For many, it has to be an either-or proposition.
