t@253: It merely further demonstrates the narrow, tunnel-like aspect of his vision and ability to correctly perceive the overall strategic picture.

I’m not sure I understand the nature of the hostility to Petraeus. I’m not sure if the skepticism is anti-Petraeus or anti-COIN.

The so-called ‘surge’ strategy is part of the larger COIN approach being implemented in ME as arguably the best and maybe the only way to put closure on a war without adequate ‘boots’, as per the ‘war on the cheap’ critique leveled against Bush and Rumsfeld. Too few soldiers to conduct and win a conventional war, hence the use of COIN.

COIN seems destined to remain a very unpopular concept: it’s unconventional; it’s time-consuming (long-term) which requires a marketing effort to engage the American people, an effort which has not been completely developed let alone implemented with any noticeable degree of success; it integrates within traditional military operations elements of traditional diplomacy and nontraditional socio-cultural interaction with civilian populations to ease the transition to a secure and stable state; it requires rules of engagement that attempt to deal with the thinly defined boundaries that separate civilians from combatants, ROE’s that have been highly contentious and possibly not always successful or defensible; and it has to work around the no. 1 economy that sustains a marginal lifestyle on what is essentially a barren pile of rocks – until the mineral industry gets developed, another long-term operation.

All of which I recognize to be a grating noise to the ears of those who side with conventional warfare. Maybe I should post this under the Misrata thread but the vectors, if you will, of international engagement (DIME) are becoming entangled in ways that will be hard to reverse. All of which are generic observations dangerously removed from the detailed analysis that would give weight of authority to the suggested policy positions.

It seems to be working – with the help of generous amounts of money. Post-9/11, the intelligence agencies were exposed like deer in the headlights. Petraeus is ideally suited to change that, at least in the ME. He knows all the players.

I’m assuming this board is concerned about his political electability and cool to the idea of a President Petraeus.