One point in particular stands out:
The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.
This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).
This stands out because I wrote back in February that focusing on enemy attacks is as bad as focusing on body counts:
I've repeatedly argued that enemy body counts are not the way to measure our success in the war in Iraq.
The New York Times reports that enemy attacks continue to rise in Iraq even after lulls.
But this focus on attacks is as misleading as a focus on enemy body counts would be. Both can be used to argue for victories even as both statistics are meaningless metrics for success. Indeed, I specifically warned against assuming that escalating violence means we are losing. Any war escalates if it goes on long enough. Winning and losing is independent of that factor as each side throws more resources into the fight.
What is important in regard to the attacks is that the attacks are failing to have any effect other than inflicting death, maiming, and misery[.]
The enemy has forgotten that the objective of a war is to win and not simply get on TV.
