Glenn at Instapundit is wondering why we are losing momentum in Iraq. He quotes Iraq the Model approvingly:
"this war will not see an end unless America revives the preemptive war strategy and start chasing the enemies and striking their bases in the region, especially in Syria and Iran." That seems right to me, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has let the momentum grind to a halt.

Glenn quotes TM Lutas saying he's wrong:
"The US is fundamentally trying to slow things down, occasionally biting where it chooses, chewing, and swallowing chunks of Al Queda and company at its convenience. Al Queda tries to make it politically impossible to maintain a sustainable pace so that the US is forced by political realities into burnout, leading to an opportunity where Al Queda can actually claim a durable military victory."

Glenn quotes an email from Barry Dauphin:
to paraphrase someone else, you go to war with the democracy that you have. Democracies have to fight wars with a certain level of popular support or they can't genuinely fight. Bush's approval ratings aren't low because we haven't invaded Syria, but because Iraq is so very difficult.

Finally he quotes an anonymous source:
The Pentagon strategy is a very deliberate form of tough love that is forcing the Iraqis to defend their own country. Arabs are culturally the most passive, fence-sitting people on the planet. By their own admission they follow the strongest leader out there.

This is almost correct.  Tough love is about growing up. 
This is the Iraqi "War for Independence."  After it is won, those Iraqis who were murdered while standing in lines to join the Police or the Army, they will be Iraqi heros.  Most survivors will be for a democratic Iraq, and claim to have always been strongly in favor.

The Iraq war is an Iraq story, not an American story.  (Just like Vietnam was not really an American story.)  In the Harry Potter stories, it is Harry who must slowly gain the strength to face evil Voldemort (Islamofacists are deatheaters!)

Iraq is the Harry Potter in the Iraq war story.  America is Hermione and Ron, and Dumbledore too -- supporting Harry, often doing things, but the decisive actions are Harry's actions. 

Both Reps and Dems have the problem of pretending that the Iraq War is an American story, so that either we are main character Harry or main evil (Bush is Hitler/ Voldemort!).

If this was the Lord of the Rings, America would be Gondor, and Iraq would be Frodo.

Glenn earlier talks about Mark Steyn's upcoming book, America alone.

The real reason America is alone is because Western Civilization is missing a myth, missing a story -- of how a Good, Strong King can still be fighting against weak, evil people.
Either the King is Good but weak; or Strong but not so good -- or else he's not much involved in the story.

The story from Bin Laden is usally both -- America is NOT good (Great Satan), AND America is weak (Vietnam, Shah of Iran, Somalia, Rwanda ... and Iraq).


Finally, Glenn's anonymous source correctly concludes with comparisons, something the MSM fails to do, with the Iraq action and some French and Russian actions.

The French lost 18,000 in Algeria, a KIA rate three and a half times ours. The Soviets lost 14,000 in Afghanistan, a KIA rate twice ours. The Russians officially lost 5500 in the First Chechen War of 1994-96, but Soldiers' Mothers of Russia puts the actual number at 14,000, a KIA rate ten times ours. Nobody knows how many Russian troops have died in the Second Chechen War, but Soldiers' Mothers of Russia had the number at 11,000 by 2003.

Our strategy in Iraq is sound. It's keeping our own casualties down, and it's forcing the Iraqis to defend themselves.

Don't despair. We're winning.

Yes. "We" are winning -- but actually, only Iraq can win. We just share.

++In this WSJ article, returning from Iraq First Lt. Pete Hegseth argues for more troops (it should be fully read):

The future of Samarra, and Iraq as a whole, ultimately lies in the hands of her people--their sympathies are the ultimate prize in this war. No matter how many insurgents we kill, city leaders we meet or policemen we enlist, it is all for naught if we cannot provide security and stability. Tribal sheikhs told us that even within Samarra--deep in the Sunni triangle--a vast majority of people just want peace and order and will side with whoever can provide it.

The end goal in Samarra is for Iraqis to do everything for themselves. But their government and security forces are not ready. Insurgents use death threats and murder to assert power over anyone working with the City Council or joining the police force. This atmosphere forces moderate Samarrans to keep their mouths shut, and their silence abets the insurgents who live and fight in Samarra. Despite killing scores of insurgents, we are unable to provide lasting security, and so the Samarran street slips away.

How terrorists successfully terrorize moderates certainly needs to be told more.  If I believed that more troops would make the moderate Samarrans brave enough, sure of winning, to fight the terrorists by merely calling in where the terrorists are staying, then I'd favor more troops.  I flatly do not believe that the 'moderates' will really do so for US, or primarily US forces.

"Rather than take the risks necessary--like small patrol bases and frequent foot patrols--our unit opted to secure itself and its supply routes rather than commit resources inside the city. And while this approach is safer in the short run, it only prolongs mission accomplishment, ultimately endangering more troops."

Here is where Lt. Hegseth is wrong about the mission.  He thinks the mission is to kill insurgents.  No.

The mission is to create an Iraqi Security Force able and willing to kill the insurgents.

His own analysis shows why more troops would not succeed in the mission of creating a stronger Iraqi Security Force:

"American troops are tolerated, even welcomed when they effectively provide security; but their presence is cursed when it does not accompany progress. Violence persists not because American troops are present, but because our presence is futile. Many local leaders asked us, "How come the most powerful country in the world cannot defeat local criminals and thugs?" They suggested our failure was part of a larger conspiracy to keep the Iraqi people suffering."

The local leaders want the USA to do the work of defeating local criminals and thugs -- so that they local leaders can get the security benefit AND blame the US for any problems.

NO. NO. NO.  Violence persists because the "local leaders" are NOT leading the Iraqi people to actively STOP the violence, by telling the US and Iraqi forces who the terrorists are.

Iraqi violence needs to be owned by the Iraqi leaders, and the US military mission is to ensure that local Iraqi pro-democracy leaders can win any battle they are willing to fight.

If Rummy is saying that the US job is to end the insurgency, he is wrong.  He should be saying that it's the job of the Iraqi leaders to end the insurgency, and we are there to make sure they don't lose any significant battles.