"The information domain is a battlespace,"

-Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

...As an initial step, McChrystal wants to change the goal of public relations efforts in Afghanistan from a "struggle for the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan population to one of giving them 'trust and confidence' " in themselves and their government. At the same time, he said, efforts should increase to "discredit and diminish insurgents and their extremist allies' capability to influence attitudes and behavior in Afghanistan."

One way to accomplish that, McChrystal wrote, is to target insurgent networks "to disrupt and degrade" their effectiveness. Another is to expose what he calls "flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran" by the insurgents, including indiscriminate use of violence and terror and attacks on schools and development projects.

McChrystal's approach mirrors one that U.S. intelligence operatives are taking covertly, with some success, in the Middle East, where direct and indirect support is being given to Islamic leaders who speak out against terrorists. Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said last year that the goal is to show "that it is al-Qaeda, not the West, that is truly at war with Islam."

Try that once you have soldiers who can speak the languages.

In possibly one of the most heavily promoted "classified" documents to hit the main$tream in the Pentagon's Information Warfare campaign, McChrystal and the Surgettes push to extend the Long War as far into the future as anyone can see.

Tom Englehardt's right. It sure looks like Petraeus Caesar's behind the scene leak for the folks at home.

...It's one thing for the leaders of a country to say that war should be left to the generals when suddenly embroiled in conflict, quite another when that country is eternally in a state of war. In such a case, if you turn crucial war decisions over to the military, you functionally turn foreign policy over to them as well. All of this is made more complicated, because the cast of "civilians" theoretically pitted against the military right now includes Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general who is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Douglas Lute, a lieutenant general who is the president's special advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan (dubbed the "war czar" when he held the same position in the Bush administration), and James Jones, a retired Marine Corps general, who is national security advisor, not to speak of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The question is: will an already heavily militarized foreign policy geared to endless global war be surrendered to the generals? Depending on what Obama does, the answer to that question may not be fully, or even largely, clarified this time around. He may quietly give way, or they may, or compromises may be reached behind the scenes. After all, careers and political futures are at stake.

But consider us warned. This is a question that is not likely to go away and that may determine what this country becomes.

We know what a MacArthur moment was; we may find out soon enough what a Petraeus moment is.

This explains why Biden and Gates are even hedging on this proposal. Biden's canny enough to realize this takes control of Amerikan foreign policy completely out of the hands of Washington. But Gates even sees the bigger problem for Poppy.

It takes Amerikan foreign policy completely out of the hands of the Company, and starts to put it- and the oil- under the velvet iron fist of Petraeus Caesar.