Correct me if I'm way off here...

In the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, we tried something pretty similar to the theory posed by PR. We set up huge bases and connected them with lines of communication/supply. These were the spokes and the various bases were the spiders. These spiders conducted roving, mounted patrols but were unable to establish security due to the dispersed attacks of AQI and other groups. In other words, we were swatting at flys rather than catching them because the web hadn't been built.

Fast forward to Patraeus and we see something akin to an ink-blot strategy. Our Soldiers and Marines moved into the various sections of Baghdad and other towns/villages and slowly expanded that presence, coverting former enemies as they went. Ultimately, AQI et al, were driven from placed like Al Anbar and Baghdad.

The people want security and stability. They want to be able to send their kids to school without having to worry whether they'll make it home alive. They want to be able to put food on the table and have a stable job. Spokes don't do that because they are too easily broken since presence is never more than temporary. However, with an ink-blot presence, either in the form of US troops or converted allies, is permanent.

It's a much slower process and our American penchant for quick solutions (we are indeed a very impatient people) is severely tested. Using spokes merely satisifies a short-term need (actually a political need) to demonstrate that we're doing something. However, the possibility of backlash is much higher with spokes than ink-blots. Although we can initially show some progress, if a spoke or two is cut, we're back on CNN and in Congress trying to justify our strategy and fending off those that seek to withdraw.

just my .02, I'm certainly no expert.