<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[A Thumb On The&nbsp;Scale?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Marc Lynch is <a href="http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/21/the_odd_optics_of_the_strategic_review">unimpressed</a> by the strategic review of Afghanistan and the McChrystal leak:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I must confess to finding the entire exercise baffling. The &quot;strategic review&quot; <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/53322/so-who-were-the-advisers-for-mcchrystals-60-day-afghanistan-review" target="_blank">brought together a dozen smart (mostly) think-tankers </a>with little expertise in Afghanistan but a general track record of supporting calls for more troops and a new counter-insurgency strategy.&#0160; They set up shop in Afghanistan for a month working in close coordination with Gen. McChrystal, and emerged with a well-written, closely argued warning that the situation is dire and a call for more troops and a new counter-insurgency strategy. Shocking. Were it not for the optics of a leaked &quot;strategic review&quot; amidst an intensifying public debate, I doubt this would dominate the front pages. </p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>