A number of months ago the military tactic of "squeeze, release, and watch" was outlined to the press (and actually talked about). While not the most descisive method possible to stop the insurgents, the 'squeeze and release' method does allow a chance for a diplomatic solution meanwhile buying time for the Iraqi defense forces to grow and train to be able to eventually assume responsibility for their own internal problems. The downside is that it gives the terrorists a chance to infiltrate more insurgents into the disputed areas. The good news is....it also tends to draw them like flies to dung so we can kill more of them in a centralized location when we 'squeeze' again.
I find it interesting that the talking-heads of the media have seemingly forgotten the strategy and have lapsed into their myopic reporting of individual incidents! Recommended reading is the USMC publication "On small wars" (written sometime around the turn of the last century).
Counter-insurgency Operations by their very nature are not immediately decisive and do task the patience and constitution of the forces (and that their home country's populace) performing them. The key is RESOLVE. Statements like the one made by the sister of the latest 'beheading victim' that "we should bring everyone home," when disseminated widely by our media merely help fuel the resolve of our opponents and make our job that much more difficult.
While not advocating any infringement upon our 1st ammendment freedoms, I feel it is important to point out that during a time of conflict such as we are in, relatively poorly funded foes need not devote much coin to intelligence gathering when they merely need a satellite dish and internet modem to let our free-press do the job for them.

Fingers--out.

I call Godwin's Law. Five yard penalty, repeat second down.

Bologna, Jeff.

Godwin's law is an observation, not a sanction. And the Goebbels reference is not a description, it's a perfectly valid observation about the Dems' style of campaigning and communication.

And you're a part of it, Jeff, parroting hyperbole like "we can't hold the Green Zone", when 70+% of the country is in fact secure (20% probably more tranquil than most of Minneapolis), and the insurgency is in overdrive *primarily* to convince the lesser lights of our body politic that John Kerry is a valid choice for the Presidency.

40-odd-percent of our electorate has no - zero - knowledge of history, and barely enough historical attention span to sit through an episode of "Biography". That is the ONLY reason anyone can look at what is going on in Iraq as anything but the terrs flailing - hard - to influence our election in a way that favors them.

Fearless predictions:

1) If Bush wins, Iraq is fairly stable within a year (especially if we manage to topple Iran).

2) If Kerry wins...sorry, I had to go puke. If Kerry wins, within two years Iraq is another Iran.

Right on Mitch and Fingers. Two days ago our president gives a great speech at the UN and Kerry calls him a liar in front of the world. Today Prime Minister Allawi gives a stirring speech of gratitude, and Kerry calls him a liar.
We have the freedom to criticize the government in this country. But responsible statesmen need to understand that their comments don't exist in a vacuum. The enemy is betting that if they keep up the chaos they will be aided and abbetted by a free press that focuses on bad news and a free and vocal opposition calling for surrender and pull out. Yes, you can criticize. But only with the understanding that every criticism strengthens the enemy's resolve, puts our people at risk, and makes victory more difficult and costly to achieve. That is not crushing dissent. That is fact. This is war. Fueling US opposition is the keystone of the enemy's strategy, has been since before Somalia. Choose which side you are on.
Kerry has. He has decided that the winning the presidency is more important than winning the war.

"If Bush wins, Iraq is fairly stable within a year (especially if we manage to topple Iran)."

Mitch, I'll put $100 down right now that says that (stipulating Bush wins) Iraq is not "fairly stable" within a year. You in or you out?

(And what troops, pray tell, are we going to use to topple Iran?)

On principle, I never bet money on anything.

And there's the matter of defining "Fairly stable". I say the back of the terrorist offensive is largely broken - think Vietnam, between the end of Tet and the replacement of Viet Cong by NVA regulars, only without the NVA regulars coming in.

The gaggle of smirking fratboys that make up the "brain trust" of the lefty blogosphere - Atrios, Pandagon, Willis, Kos - would define it as "ANY problems automatically invalidate any advances that are made", more or less like they do right now.

As to what troops - who says it'll be an invasion?

Kerry has no core. He's a shell who espouses what he thinks people want to hear. But isn't that what Bill Clinton did?

Check out my blog on Bush and Allawi that I wrote yesterday.

Tom

By the way, Jeff - given that you have been wrong about *every* prediction you've made since I've been reading your blog, you should thank me for not taking the bet.