But Tet played in the liberal press as a world-shaking victory for the Viet Cong, just as a hyperventilating media has portrayed the Fallujah action and Moqtada al-Sadr's aborted revolt as the beginning of the end of the U.S. occupation in Iraq.
But, given that the Sunni insurgents are claiming that they are using the US declared truce period to move their operations from Fallujah to Baghdad, and to consolidate some of their resources in more remote locations, isn't it a bit early to say that the outbreak of violence against foreigners in Fallujah is either overstated or over?
If the sort of action seen in Fallujah recently is the work of Abu al-Zarqawi or similar, the US may never find an answer, and certainly not in time for a meaningful power transfer in a matter of weeks.
Certainly al-Sadr's bite has turned out to be a little less than many feared at this stage, but the US, and/or Brahmini, need to have clerics from both Shi'ite and Sunni sects on-side, and they seem to have neither.
Militarily, the Tet Offensive may have been extraordinarily expensive for the Viet Cong, but in terms of the US political position (and that's what brought about the end of the war after all) Tet was far more than a new year for HoChi Minh. Westmoreland was so happy he had put down the troops in the street, he completely missed the effect that watching the US embassy coming under fire had in living rooms around the country.
Abizaid may find himself in that same position very quickly - at least Johnson, Clifford and McPherson had the luxury of a new term. GWB, Rumsfeld and Rice face an election in a few months.
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
