I have heard of it, and I think I might actually have a copy somewhere in my files, but I haven't gotten around to reading it.
I don't think we will ever end terror, much in the way that we will never end crime; some people are going to be violent scumbags regardless....
but when you, as you you say, target and destroy the organizations supporting terror and teaching it, the number of terror incidents will decrease.
I didn't get into it in this post, but there is a definite policy agenda by leftists to avoid acknowledging or effectively confronting Islamic terror (not to mention terror by leftists)
Agreed, I would like the government to hinder the enemy as much as possible. The politicians always get in the way of accomplishing the ultimate goal. All to get a few seconds on the propaganda media. In Afghanistan the call from congress and the Pentagon was to stick their noses in the mission so we don't look like an invasion, also so every one could have a turn in the war. Officers with no business on the "line" created huge problems. Some can be hard to Monday morning quarterback but the disconnect from the ground troops was mostly to blame. It all started out great and on the right track, now the war on terror is a complete mess.
As far as the semantics of what to call the terrorist, that was not so much a problem in the beginning, both sides are stupid to argue about something so petty when a second grader can figure out who the bad guy is. The bleeding hearts will always bleed.
My question is the political elite are arguing about labeling when they know who is bad and who isn't, what's the point?
I know that the Obama admin put a lot of work into removing effective generals from command, and that some intel folks like Stephen Coughlin were forced out.
Remember two things here; Obama stated that he would "stand with" Muslims before Americans even before being elected as President, and that the Left has a long history of working against our national defense capability