Why are we winning in Iraq?

Richard Fernandez ("The Belmont Club") has a good analysis of the reasons behind the success in Iraq, undercutting some of the goofy explanations offered from the left:

Two assertions about Iraq ought to be challenged or at least examined more closely. The first is the idea that security improvements in Iraq and al-Qaeda’s defeat had little if anything to do with the US effort. The second is the assertion that the “real” strategic center of gravity always should have been Afghanistan, because the proper object of the War is to “get bin Laden”.
(read the rest)

Fernandez's analysis agrees with what I've been saying, even if his way of expressing it immeasurably surpasses my writing on the topic.

Jeff Burton was first in the commentary section, making another observation that I've shared:

It’s interesting that the left’s talking points on Iraq have followed the same trajectory they did during the Cold War. While the issue was in doubt, the conflict was portrayed as hopeless, unwinnable, and the best course of action was to just stop resisting. After it was over, the story changed to emphasize the inevitable collapse of our enemies and how our actions had little to do with it.

Exactly. Well put, Jeff.