so, if the critics are right, and arguing that westmoreland had been singularly committed to atrittingenemy forces, he had duped his civilian leadership, and i done think that was the case. because say what you will about mcgeorge bundy and robert s. mcnamara, they're pretty intelligent folks. and i think they understood as well the problems of relating and translating military success into political progress. and we can talk if would you like in the question and answer period about certainly a controversial figure, robert s. mcnamara. also important i think to note is that westmoreland would have been out of step with contemporary theories on counterinsurgency, if not army doctrine, if all he did was focus on killing the enemy. contemporary counter insurgency theory and army doctrine of the day began with the assumption that security preceded all other military and political operations. i would argue that we speak in similar terms today. if you look at the last ten years of the army's experiences in both iraq and afghanistan, commanders indoctrine all speak of the importance of provid

as they say in government speak, atritting, the number of people are going down, but there is no final determination of what to do with the place. >> it's worse of having nowhere to send them. president obama knows where to accepted them, in the united states, but congress has denied that option. there are two guantanamo. there is guantanamo the physical detention facility. that's really what president obama wants to close. i wants to move them to a site in the united states, and i know that tom and i disagree with that, but that would be changing the zip code. then there is the idea of guantanamo. and the idea is holding men without charge or trial. president obama should be repudiating that idea, which is much more dangerous than the location of the facility, but he actually embraces it. and if he can't move these men to the united states, he can only keep them at guantanamo. >> courtney sullivan, is it as stark and clear as that for you? >> i think it's a little more nuanced for me. i think that there is a middle way. there are probably--the people people--the president has accepted