Sunday's reads

'Fight Less, Win More' - Nathaniel Fick - The Washington Post.

I told the students to list the top three targets they would aim for if they were leading forces in Zabul province, a Taliban stronghold. When I asked a U.S. officer to share his list, he rattled off the names of three senior Taliban leaders to be captured or killed. Then I turned and asked an Afghan officer the same question. "First we must target the local councils to see how we can best help them," he replied. "Then we must target the local mullahs to find out their needs and let them know we respect their authority." Exactly. In counterinsurgency warfare, targeting is more about whom you bring in than whom you take out.

'Romney Iowa Victory Not Impressive "By Any Standard"' - Thomas B. Edsall - The Huffington Post.

Romney's margin over a collection of underfunded second and third tier challengers barely matched or fell short of past winners in much tougher battles involving multiple heavyweight candidates.

'No, It Wouldn’t Happen. Couldn’t. No Way.' - Patrick Healy - The New York Times.

Mrs. Clinton may come off as the student government president, at peace with Robert’s Rules of Order. But she likes it when the battle is joined, and Mr. Giuliani might push her to show that she would fight back as president, that she would never allow herself to be Swift-boated.