"Arrogant resistance to change course" carries the implication that there was some obvious alternative to succeed in the war, and that Bush was just refusing to do it.

There wasn't a huge push for the Petraeus counterinsurgency approach being raised by any Democrats (or anyone else) in early years of the war, with Bush stubbornly refusing to go along. The counterinsurgency approach was developed over time, with a long and painful learning curve. I first saw it succeed in some local villages a couple of years back as I followed what was going on on the ground over there through various sources. Lower level commanders were discovering that integrating into the Iraqi communities instead of working always from outside was more dangerous at first, but helped in the long run.

I don't know exactly how this percolated up to the top levels, and became a general policy, but it did, and good thing, too. Democrats didn't have squat to do with that, either.

The way you talk, you'd think Bush had fired Petraeus in 2003 and gone with the base-bound "whack-a-mole" approach (which, BTW, is exactly the tactical approach Obama is pushing when you press him hard enough) just to be stubborn.

Liberals yelled for "changing the course" for years. Of course, by this, they meant "leave Iraq." Not one Democratic leader came up with a serious strategy to try to win the war. The closest any of them came was the inane assumption that if we pulled out, somehow peace would just break out spontaneously. To repeat the obvious: The ONLY "course change" the Democrats have proposed for almost the entire length of the war has been surrender.

The right strategy is, as alway, glaringly obvious in hindsight. Keep in mind that not that long ago the Left was pushing the Baker Report's solutions as the cure-all for Iraq.

Frankly, this attempt to jump in front of the parade now is pathetic. You really think anyone is going to buy it?