We are fighting the enemy on their terms. Asymmetrical warfare is an advantage to the smaller force only so long as the superior force does not use the same tactics. If we gave the order to our military to destroy the enemy in 6 weeks, they would do it. This is commonly known as winning a war. We are not fighting a war in Iraq but are acting as a police force for civilians. This is not our job and is extremely costly. We are not even attempting to "win" the war in the conventional sense of "winning" a war.
You've obviously give the war in Iraq alot of thought. So I would like to ask you what you think should be done differently. Do you think should we should carpet bomb the country? If that is not your strategy, how do you think our military should go about killing our foes while at the same time helping our friends?
The way we are fighting this asymmetrical war can only be speculation on our part. I have talked to people who have been over there. We are engaging the enemy in ways that would make you proud. However how that is being done is secret. You don’t want to give away our game plan. The enemy is crafty but we quickly adjust. We are killing more of them. Iraq is like one of those bug zappers that attracts the bugs to their death. We have military grade equipment to hit hard. However, the police nature is a fine hand with a big punch. The people of Iraq are on board to help us. They like what is happening to their economy. Having their own government and freedom is not such a bad thing.
The tactics being used by Petraeus now are the tactics that produced victory in the Phillipines, Malaya, Kenya, Algeria and El Salvador. Old school counter-insurgency works.