Friday, June 06, 2008
We have no problem articulating all sorts of "best case" scenarios in foreign policy. What we seem to be less comfortable with is outlining "good enough" outcomes-when the end state may fall short of the ideal but may represent an acceptable compromise.
When holding out for the best case may prove unrealistic or prohibitively expensive, can we articulate a series of "good enough" outcomes we can live with? This seems to be a common thread when assessing options in Iraq, vis-a-vis Iran, and so on