I could not agree more. But there is also a counter-principle, that the presence of occupation forces is a provocation and irrititant that can justify and provoke enemy response where it might not otherwise occur. The wise prince would use both methods, where each is appropriate, and would exercise the restraint and judgement to know when and if to do so.

Our brief but bloody past experience in Somalia bears this out, as does our endless and pointless run-around in Iraq. We simply cannot be the world's policeman, parking ourselves everywhere there might be trouble. Even the Romans learned to use the Legions only as a last resort, and in the end, they failed too.

Sometimes, I agree, the stakes are so high and the objectives so clear that it is necessary to react suddenly, or to move prematurely, or to press on under dangerous circumstances. But in general, it is best to keep one's nose out of other people's business, especially when one doesn't have a clue what is really going on there, or when one seems incapable of learning.

The glowing reports of Petraeus' successes in Iraq sound eerily reminiscent of Maxwell Taylor's in Vietnam. Just because we are not losing does not mean we're winning.