In a piece by Rand Fishbein at today's National Review Online, he (mis?)quotes General Wallace as saying "The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

After the firestorm that this caused, I thought that it had been tamped somewhat by getting the full quote (here, from the March 28, 2003 Evening Standard): "The enemy we're fighting against is a bit different from the one we'd war-gamed against."

A much different meaning. Now the question is (though I thought that this had been resolved), which is the correct quote?

The General sounds like he was hamming for the press at a time when the US was feigning weakness and luring the Republican Guard out of Baghdad. I don't think there's a real story here no matter what version he said.

It is "a bit different," and it's embarassing to Fishbein that he quotes the NYT mistake. But it serves his thesis that the Coalition has found the tactics of the Fedayeen Saddam to be indentical to those of Hamas and PIJ, and that the U.S. is looking to Israel for expertise on dealing with these threats.

I'm skeptical about that thesis, but that's Fishbein's idea. You can always learn more, but lets' recognize that no military in the world knows more about counterinsurgency than the U.S. military. We've learned from success and mistakes, and we have tens of thousands of people in Special Operations who spend most of their time on "unconventional warfare."

I'm skeptical about that thesis, but that's Fishbein's idea. You can always learn more, but lets' recognize that no military in the world knows more about counterinsurgency than the U.S. military. We've learned from success and mistakes, and we have tens of thousands of people in Special Operations who spend most of their time on "unconventional warfare."

Why wouldn't Israel know more about counterinsurgency? They get a lot more practice and their intelligence on paramilitary groups is (as I hear it) better quality.