The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty.
While critics over here focus on numbers of attacks, the enemy sees the focus on piling up attack statistics as actually counter-productive. They view higher attack levels as potentially risking the survival of their network. Apparently, even the "cause celebre" of the jihad isn't luring enough recruits to Iraq to make the enemy confident.
I wrote a while back that the focus on the number of attacks could distract our enemies if they believe it is a metric of winning:
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.
Body counts and numbers of attacks are metrics of battle intensity--not whether we are winning. The metrics of winning that I wrote about in December 2005 continue to roll our way.
And do remember, we see our flaws--real and perceived--while our enemy's failures take place in the dark and are mostly unseen by us.
