What?

You are somewhat confused about RAND corporation, I think.

Rand Corporation is a tool of the government. They don't have a political agenda, their agenda is problem solving for whichever client within our government requests their services.

These are the brainiacs, for example, who created our Mutally Assured Destruction policy for the DoD, which was the official strategic policy for NOT having a nuclear war with USSR for about fourty years. That policy is still in place, I suspect.

They're very big into game theory math, by the way. They're out to WIN.

Rand Corporation has been THE think tank our government created to study highly complex foreign and domestic problems, and to offer the best solutions that their teams of hard scientist and social scientists can devise, directly to their client..the government itself.


No, of course not. It's a think tank filled with eggheads, not a popularity contest.

Rand draws upon the best minds from industry, the military, and academia, that America has to offer.

The executive has the power to act, of course, and they work for HIM.

If you haven't read their findings and recommendations about Iraq, you ought to.

I think you'd be impressed by just how hardheaded and realistic they are, to be honest.

Their solution dovetails into Bushes policy right now, to a large extent.

AT some point the war on terrorism has to become a police style activity.

As the Iraq society stabilizes it serves no real purpose to have American troops on the ground.

If the Iraqi police, the people who live there there and speak the language, are the people best suited to tracking down terrorists in Iraq.

Now either we draw down troops (there is no standing army for them to fight) because what we did worked, or if we can't count on the Iraqi to keep terrorism (in Iraq) in check, then Bush's policies still have not succeeded.

Don't you think Bushes policies are working?

I thought the surge was working, and that's why both candidates are talking about troops drawdowns