Still enjoying Packer's book. In the third chapter, Special Plans, we start 2 see, on an institutional level, the failure of the administration 2 communicate and prepare for post-war Iraq. The civilian neo-conservative intellectuals he introduced in the first chapters refused 2 cooperate with military leaders, each other, or dissenting intellectuals. Any position or statistic that brought negative attention 2 the Iraq war was quickly dismissed. The most obvious example of this behavior, recently discussed during Robert Gates nomination as Sec. of Defense, is the manner in which Gen. Shinseki was treated after expressing reservations on Iraq. I decided 2 do some research and find out what Packer is writing today, a few years after publishing his book, given recent developments. I found this article from the New Yorker, that discusses a new strategy for handling the "war on terror". If you don't believe new ideas are out there here is an excerpt from the article:

By speaking of Saddam Hussein, the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Taliban, the
Iranian government, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda in terms of one big war,
Administration officials and ideologues have made Osama bin Laden's job much
easier. "You don't play to the enemy's global information strategy of making it
all one fight," Kilcullen said. He pointedly avoided describing this as the
Administration's approach. "You say, 'Actually, there are sixty different groups
in sixty different countries who all have different objectives…" In other words,
the global ambitions of the enemy don't automatically demand a monolithic
response.-- http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061218fa_fact2

Do these comments take into consideration that the monolithic response might be aimed at the American population to communicate the highest degree of fear and rally support for war efforts?

Kilcullen, an Australian military officer on loan to the U.S., is the subject of the article and appears 2 be the brains behind this new strategy.

Check out the article, Packer is an amazing journalist, he lets his subject(s) do the work for him.