I completely agree with you. From a military and political stand point..it was a wise decision for the opposition.
The question that keeps haunting me is this..should we change our strategy in some way? There is no doubt that our military is strong and capable. But if they are asked to fight an unconventional war in a conventional manner..can they succeed? Sadly, I am no military strategist and don't know what avenues could be explored.
Right, not only we're fighting an unconventional war, but what's worse is that politicians and media do not want or pretend not to understand this. It's not a conventional "territorial" war where you "clear and hold" and then move, we've done that in first 3 weeks in Iraq - that war has been over for a long time.
Problems are: 1. Definition of "winning" and "losing" (hint: losing starts when we stop supporting Iraq democracy and start leaving... we're winning, but that's not how it's defined now by the Dems/media)
2. Definition of who the enemy is and who we are (or should be) really fighting in Iraq (hint: it's aQI and Iranians, not a "violence" between Sunnis and Shias as defined now by the Dems/media)
3. What to do about centuries-old internecine bloodshed (hint: don't interfere, watch who gets killed, help kill/capture HVTs when possible, don't send more troops unless generals on the ground think it's necessary for specific purposes but not "clear and hold"/"surge" in large civilian centers as it's impossible, a fool's errand)
4. Way forward (hint: political solution here at home lies in properly defining "winning" and "losing" in Iraq and consequences of losing; military solution to Iraq's problems and many other problems in ME after fall of Saddam's regime lie in Iran, not in Iraq - treat the problem/disease, not the symptoms... i.e. Iran may need a large dose of antibiotic for things to calm down in many other places in ME, particularly in Iraq)