More an eagle than a hawk person, myself.

Frank Rich in the NYT analyzes the current defense strategy, and points out why the terrorism boogeyman isn't going to work so well this time around, in convincing the country to commit more soldiers security to the Middle East.

Yet the mass murder at Fort Hood didn't happen in isolation. It unfolded against the backdrop of Obama's final lap of decision-making about Afghanistan.
...
Most of those who decried the Army's blindnesss to Hasan's threat are strong proponents of sending more troops into our longest war.
...
Their screeds about the Hasan case are completely at odds with both the Afghanistan policy they endorse and the leadership that must execute that policy, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal. These hawks, all demanding that Obama act on McChrystal's proposals immediately, do not seem to have read his stratgy for Afghanistan.
...
The thrust of his counterinsurgency pitch is to befriend and win the support of the Afghan population -- i.e., the Muslims. The "key to success" the general wrote in his brief to the president, will be "strong personal relationships forged between security forces and populations."
...
Whether we could win those hearts and minds is, arguably, an open question -- though it's an objective that would require a partner other than Hamid Karzai and many more troops than even McChrystal is asking for (or America presently has.).

But to say that McChrystal's optimistic -- dare one say politically correct? -- view of Muslim pliability doesn't square with that of America's hawks is the understatement of the decade.

As their Fort Hood rhetoric made clear, McChrystal's most vehement partisans don't trust American Muslims, let alone those of the Taliban, no matter how earnestly the general may argue that they can be won over by our troops' friendliness (or bribes).

If, as the right has it, our Army cannot be trusted to recognize a Hasan in its own ranks, then how will it figure out who the "good" Muslims will be as we try to build a stable state (whatever "stable" means) in a country that has never had a functioning central government?

Better a ditherer than a diddler.

Besides, like Reagan with teflon, this one will just never stick to President Obama...