A reader who requests anonymity writes from Iraq:
Here in Al Anbar province the feel of the moment is that the US commitment to Iraq's future is visibly solid enough. However, US patience is not to be banked on indefinitely and the twentieth century has a few examples where this kind of complacency led to unfortunate results. But a reading of what one sees here with ones own eyes gives a sense that a decision has been made regarding a settling of accounts with the primary trouble maker in the region.
It makes sense that this enterprise called Iraqi Freedom, Inc. was never intended to be open-ended or even wholly about Iraq. How can you have Iraqi freedom when you have the murderous mullocracy next door plotting its demise and contributing to the killing of your troops? Iran's nuclear program alone--given the rhetoric that come out that country--is a giant strategic headache. If the mullahs really are crazy enough to nuke Israel that could lead to a far larger conflict, not to mention being a giant human tragedy. Americans do not like dealing with messy indecisives like these for any length of time. Historically we have preferred black or a white resolutions to situations and gray area thinking is far too European for our tastes (it can also cause dissonance and tedious posturing by senators seeking just the right media exposure).
The visuals in play: the troop increases, a B-1B flyover, a lessening in local insurgent activity, a big increase in Iraqi military recruitment, all contribute to the sense that such a decisive decision has been made--if it was not the case from the very beginning.