“Our side”?

More than three months since first reported by blogger embeds the American media has begun to understand that our military’s new counterinsurgency strategy can pay dividends if given enough time.

(From the AP)— Even some critics of President Bush’s Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint. But Bush supporters and critics alike agree that these have not been matched by any noticeable progress on the political front.

Yes, progress is at hand, but what about the political front? Here we go again. We’ve heard that before, haven’t we? (”Yes, Tucker, the economy may be growing, but wages haven’t risen.” Which also isn’t exactly true.) What is the flipping of insurgents allegiances if not political progress?

The war is progressing and attitudes improve or worsen. Here’s an interesting take on the shift in attitudes on Iraq following military inroads:

“The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting public attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “The administration has been making inroads on their Iraqi argument, particularly linking it to terrorism.”

If actually killing or arresting Iraqi terrorists with links to foreign groups is just another propaganda tool the Bush Administration employs in a fight against its political adversaries, then pass me the soma, Ms. Lake. Does the use of all of our prosecutorial, technical, and military resources to net bad guys constitute some kind of partisan cynicism? Did the administration make an “inroad” when we discovered that “AQ in Mesopotamia” was not the indigenous band of haters we assumed but rather a sham front for external forces? In today’s supercharged political climate, it’s hard to imagine her “side” being any more aggressive in their daily ad hominems against anyone remotely associated with the war.

But maybe–maybe–she’s just saying that, yes, sometimes even Bush can catch a break.