[phaster]

Just wondering if anyone else is wondering if there is an an economic equivalent of General David Petraeus, that can take the place of OMB director Peter Orszag in the Obama Administration?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa3f6bda-807d ... ftcamp=rss

Personally I kinda think we're in the eye of the storm, because as it stands on the military front in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the global economic war, the USA has not come up with a plan/resources to addresses these unsustainable battles.

So what do you think, have we hit the bottom or do you think we have further to fall before society as a whole admits its not possible to have "have you're cake and eat it too!"

[efarmer]

The counterinsurgency surge was a more grandiose exploitation of the Al Anbar phenomena where the US forces (A) were able to support local security and provide resources for locals (B) who were unable to tolerate Al Qaeda (C) to form a security bubble to allow a national government to be developed (D) that would institutionalize the locally acceptable security and culture and allow (A) to leave when that happened someday. In Afghanistan we are attempting to take A and defeat C (which is often tolerable and local to a large part and is a subset of B) and immediately install D, which is already formulated and unacceptable to B. Probably don't get the security bubble results with those ingredients even for the brilliant Gen. Petraeus.

We have brilliant economic and brilliant military people, and the best they can offer is bubbles of relief to mitigate circumstances until systemic changes take place to really cure things.
Our national economic and military strategy have to be as brilliant as the people and strategies that buy the time for US national strategy to respond to the threat horizons or we will bubble until we simply pop. Corporate sponsored, deface until you replace, Washington does not do this sort of strategy and we are spoiled and like our bubble baths instead of shared sacrifice which is what it would take.

[Keith_McClary]

The counterinsurgency surge was a more grandiose exploitation of the Al Anbar phenomena where the US forces (A) were able to support local security and provide resources for locals (B) who were unable to tolerate Al Qaeda (C) to form a security bubble to allow a national government to be developed (D) that would institutionalize the locally acceptable security and culture and allow (A) to leave when that happened someday.

That's the official spin. In plain language:
1) Rename "Bad Guys" to "Anbar Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq" and give them guns and money.
2) Announce exit date.
("Violence" decreases)
3) Declare victory.

This could also work in Afghanistan, it seems they are already giving the bad guys money, if not on purpose:

US to cut $4bn in Afghan aid over corruption fears

It comes after the Wall Street Journal reported that huge sums of cash had allegedly been flown out of Kabul international airport in recent years.
...
"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that US taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists," Ms Lowey said.

However, I can't think of an economic equivalent of a face-saving retreat.