THIS ATTACK in Iraq is bad news. Well, all of them are. That the other side has an offensive going, of course, doesn’t mean the war’s going badly — the Battle of the Bulge is proof of that. But it’s important to learn from what’s going on and adjust tactics to match. Learning faster is one of the keys to victory in war. Unfortunately, the poor quality of reporting from Iraq, coupled with obvious military secrecy concerns, makes it hard for me to know how well we’re doing in that regard.

Do we need more troops? I don’t know that, either. Josh Chafetz thinks we might. On the other hand people who are a lot closer to the situation than me seem to feel otherwise.

I suspect that these attacks are being sustained by Syria, Iran, and elements in Saudi Arabia, who want the United States thinking about problems in Iraq, and hence more reluctant to move against them. I wonder if this is a good move for them, though, given that the obvious response is to get them busy thinking about problems at home. . . .

UPDATE: Somebody just sent me a “but Bush said the war was over!” bit of snarkmail. Uh, no, he didn’t. Bush actually said that major combat was over in Iraq. The war on terror — really the war on fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and those who back them — is nowhere near over. Bush knows that, and he’s said it repeatedly.

I actually got several variations on this theme, from antiwar types who always seem glad when people die in Iraq, so long as they’re Americans or our allies. They’re usually the same people who puff up if you “question their patriotism.”

I don’t question it. They’ve put its existence beyond question by wishing for America to lose.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Aziz Poonawalla emails to ask if I meant that all antiwar people are anti-American. Uh, no, and I’ve said that plenty of times. Just the ones who dance on the graves of our soldiers, and our allies. And I get plenty of email from them, so I know they’re out there.

Meanwhile Charles Austin emails:

like your analogy to the Battle of the Bulge, but I’d like to extend it a bit. I’ve been trying to point out for some time that we are engaged in a War on Terrorism, of which Iraq is merely a prolonged battle. We do not refer to the War of Midway, the War of Sicily, the War of Okinawa, the War of Monte Cassino, the War of Stalingrad, or, as you noted by extension, the War of the Bulge. All of these battles were extended activities within the context of a larger war, some of which lasted longer than the major combat actions of the Battle of Iraq. So why should we continue referring to the War of Iraq?

Good point. And, to be fair, the Administration has made pretty clear that this isn’t the end.