Clear-hold-build is a good tactic (It worked great for the US as we implemented a strategy of "manifest destiny" to build this nation), but it is not a "strategy" in of itself.

Similarly, when I speak of what we are lacking in terms of strategic intelligence, it is not a quest for a country-wide perspective, or even a geographic combatant command -wide perspective, but rather a perspective that takes into account and places into context seemingly unrelated factors as they in fact do interact and interrelate globally.

So, in persuit of tactical victory in Afghanistan, what effect to US National security as a whole if the approach chosen (say, clear-hold-build; that is short on hold and build as described above) provokes the hell out of muslim populaces in 12 other countries and actually builds the base of support for AQ globally? How could the approach be tailored to mitigate those undesired and unintended effects? Is "victory" even necessary to secure US national interests?

We all crowd around the campfires our tactical comanders are tending to so that we can stare at the same flames. Then, when our butts start smoking from a flame behind us we proclaim "Black Swan! no one could have predicted that!" Perhaps. But then again, if some would have been held to task to look in other directions in the first place, perhaps not.