Fred Kagan is back from Iraq. He’s not very impressed with Harry Reid.

That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

That’s how the WSJ accurately characterizes Senator Reid’s (and his party’s) position.

Tony Blankley writes about the two radically different points of view on the war:

For those of us who support the great struggle against radical Islam, the world reality could not be plainer. The threat of radical Islam is not merely a few thousand terrorists using small explosives to kill a few dozen people at a time — usually in the faraway Middle East. Rather, it is an historic recrudescence of a violent, conquering old tradition of Islam that almost overwhelmed the world from the Seventh Century until as recently as the 17th century. It is radicalizing the minds of increasing numbers of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims to be very aggressive culturally, as well as violent — from Africa to Indonesia, to Cairo to Ankara, to Paris, to Rotterdam to London to Falls Church, Va.

Unfortunately, in addition, the debate is poisoned, almost rendered futile, by the irrational blind hatred that so many harbor for George Bush.

As noted in comments here, T. M. Lutas says that the Democrats’ bet is looking pretty shaky:

I expect at least 3 more provinces to get handed over between now and the height of campaign season 2008. I’d like to think that at least 6 more would make the transition by then (obviating the need to explain Kurdistan’s special situation in the stats). The defeatists have to change the natural progression of Iraqi government and security institution building and do it soon or they’re going to be in deep trouble in 2008.

An interesting essay on insurgency, and counterinsurgency.