What has disappointed me is there hasn't been this debate on the strategy, on the policy, a regional strategy on policy, let alone an Iraq policy. We're, we're debating the tactics. The, the surge is a tactic. In what context is the surge? You can make an argument for a surge if you were going to withdraw, to cover the withdrawal, for example, or to contain, to reposition forces or to re-engage in a different way or a stronger way. And why we got caught up in the tactical debate, in my mind, is an indication that we don't understand what we want to do. What should our Middle East policy be? What should our policy be in terms of Iraq and, and the war against the extremists out there or the conflict against extremists? We seem to be strategically adrift, in my view.

Strategy, correctly formulated, shapes tactics. But tactics uninformed by strategy, or misinformed by an incorrect strategy, are like a car without a steering wheel: It may go somewhere, but probably not where its driver wants it to go.

It was a moment that captured in a nutshell the weakness at the core of the Bush Administration's national security team: Strategy was seen as something vague and intellectual, at best a secondary issue, when it fact it was the core of the task they faced. ...

By failing to adequately consider strategic questions, Rumsfeld, Franks, and other top leaders arguably crippled the beginning of the US Mission to transform Iraq.

A confused strategy can be every bit as lethal as a bullet.