At the tactical level, it notes what I've sensed from news accounts--that the enemy rarely engages above the squad level. This is not indicative of a popular resistance or an insurgency. After four years of fighting, the enemy is fighting in smaller units and more reliant on terrorism. The enemy is atomized and going backwards in its capacity to win even as it kills more.
The bigger picture is this:
The Surge Strategy appears to have four components. First, bring security to the population on a local level. Second, infuse local projects so the residents see some economic gains. This is lagging. Most glaring is the failure - due to connivance among corrupt officials, criminals and insurgents - to deliver propane and fuel so that the population can move about and commerce can circulate. Third, peel away the irreconcilables - prominently al Qaeda and JAM death squads - by shooting or imprisoning them. Fourth, reconcile the majority of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia through government reforms, legislation and compromise.
This is about right.
In regard to security, through the end of 2006 we largely tried to restrict ourselves to offensive missions while training Iraqis to follow through and hold what we cleared. While successful in many areas, in Anbar and Baghdad we've found we need to have a direct hand in the security for now since the enemy can kill civilians too easily.
The economic gains part is surely important but I wouldn't want to over-state it. Plenty of countries manage to suppress local insurgents and terrorists without providing high levels of service. We need to have the basics in place so people can live and have hope for what is possible for the future, but luxuries will just be targets for the enemy.
Third, yes--be ruthless with the shooters and don't be squeamish about killing them or letting them rot in some sunless hole until they turn grey and qualify for AARP.
And finally, West quite rightly notes that those who are not hard core must be pulled over to neutrality or the government's side. Not all of the enemy are committed and the goal is to end their resistance and not end their lives. Ruthlessness in not what we should be using for these people.
I'm actually fairly impressed that four years into this war, we still distinguish between the killers and the persuadable sympathizers. Casualties and frustration could have led us to treat them all as the enemy, and that is what the enemy wants.
Always remember, the idea is to win the war and not depopulate the country. Calls to "take off the gloves" are not possible if this just leads to indiscriminate violence against too many who aren't committed enemies. Then we really will be creating more enemies.
