Unwittingly, I have stumbled into the exceedingly difficult task of disagreeing with my esteemed and infinitely well-informed colleague. Some call him . . . Rob . . . erto.
The news is back to negative on our war efforts with reports of a "resurgent" Taliban in Afghanistan, and now, as Kristine pointedly observed, AQI remotely detonated two disabled women killing about 64 in Bagdad. And yes, they are running low on true volunteer martyrs. Many homicide bombers have either not realized that was going to be their mission, or were given a choice--you die gloriously, or your family dies horribly.
It continues to gall me that coverage of success in war is scant, but any trouble for our side must be fully exposed. Editors and anchors who ignore victories that citizens are resourcing with their family members and tax dollars enhance the enemy's prestige and cause while failing to factually acknowledge our own national interests, which could be enhanced by victory or damaged by defeat.
A blogger at the American Thinker pointed out some fascinating battlefield realities not covered anywhere else that I've seen. Our counterinsurgency efforts are working. The Taliban is no longer a unified group. When they made a swift tactical retreat into Pakistan 5 years ago, they reconstituted with mostly Pakistani leadership. Afghan Taliban not so welcome. They have now gone separate ways and with separate strategic goals. Easier for us to now divide and conquer. Neither have they mounted an offensive of real merit in 18 months. Even though the Pakistani safe havens have yet to be eliminated, the military situation remains more favorable to us. The CIA just bagged a top leader--usually indicative of persistence and well-done ops.