Petraeus's handbook is online (the public version): Counterintelligence.

I'm only up to page 82 of 282; reading it's a longterm project, a few pages each day. It actually does make sense to this layman--broad consideration of cultural, linguistic, political, and religious factors come first, and small-scale military operations take place within that context. Leaving aside the basic question of whether any given war is justified or just, if 'twere be done, this sounds like an enlightened way to do it.

Geopolitical objectives are, I'd imagine, somewhat an irrelevant abstraction to the soldier getting shot at. Petraeus is defining an individual-scale mission: Win their hearts and minds, and this is how to do it.

In a long-term context, I find myself wondering if this isn't the beginning of a significant reversal of doctrine, from conventional warfare as the norm and "COIN" and other special ops as the exception; to a doctrine in which this kind of thing is what we do first, and reserve conventional military operations for the situation in which some nation is dumb enough to challenge us head-on where we're strongest.

I too fear that this is too little, too late, Bowse. But maybe next time, 'cause we know there will be a next time, this approach will keep us out of so much dogdoo.