From the start of the Iraq war, it was clear that there were two stories: one from the increasingly muzzled DoD (remember when Gen. Shinseki testified that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops before he was fired?), and one from the White House and the Secretary of Defense.

The DoD knows how to plan for war.  They've been studying the art of war for many decades, and they're able to, I would guess, anticipate the number of troops, tanks, rifles, bullets, helmets, tents, chairs, plates, forks, flashlights... everything, that would be needed in times of war AND, equally important, what would be the consequences of fudging the formulas when politics intervenes in war planning. 

When they didn't get the troops that Gen. Shinseki said were needed, they must have known (and predicted) what this would mean in terms of American Casulaties.  They must have studied this matter and written a report on what they should expect, regardless of whether the White House released this information.  Where's the report?

They must have known how the size of our force would affect veterans when they came home (many, it seems, have had a difficult time adjusting - entirely understandable in light of their service).  Where's the study?

When it became clear that, owing to stop-loss orders that changed the duration of service of our enlisted men and women, we know that the military had a more difficult time recruiting people to serve. The DoD must have known - because they must have studied it - that changing the requirements for recruiting would lead to an increase in criminal behavior among service people.

I've been thinking about this for a long time but was reminded of this when I read today that 15% of female vets have endured sexual harrassment while serving (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-28-military-women-sexual-trauma_N.htm?csp=34).  Did the DoD anticipate this?  Where's the report?

What did the DoD anticipate about how our service people would respond to the stop-loss policy?  They must have considered this.  Where's the report?

War is a science to the DoD.  They know how to plan for it, execute it, and they can anticipate the outcome of their plans.  Which of what we're now seeing was anticipated by the DoD?

In the final minutes of the debate (frankly, the structure so hamstrung the candidates that the term "debate" really doesn't apply), Governor Palin observed:

And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here.

The phrase and sentiment evoked is beautiful and it's obvious why the Governor would invoke President Reagan.  However, although President Reagan did utter the phrase in his farewell address, he cited the John Winthrop when he did so.  Here's the more complete quote:

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/farewell.asp