Petraeus, 'strategy' and the guys on the ground at a given point in time are three different things. While the troops are aware of their guidelines, they're also conscious of getting the job done with minimum casualties to all in the area, sometimes even a bad air strike does less damage to everyone than a long firefight.

Kaplan has been for five years a nay sayer and a critic. His prerogative and I don't object but it bears consideration. He knows about 1/3 as much as he thinks he knows. That's just my opinion but I believe a reasonably objective perusal of some of his columns will make my point. I put little stock in him and this column is one reason why. That's because he's correct but it's also an irrelevant point. Those figures can all change in both directions in a matter of hours. Our fascination with numbers trips up many. In war, most numbers are meaningless except as broad indicators over time.

There are two practical things that might impact, one I'd rather not say in an open forum and the other -- and most likely -- is that the Air Force has been searching for meaningful entry into the COIN war. They've been running a lot of surveillance missions with their pods but were getting frustrated at the lack of actual explosive or cannon missions. I'll bet money they've flooded the zone with JTACs, sent in a lot more controllers and are telling them to 'sell' airpower. Dunlap gets his wish; looks like they're getting a foot in the door...