Just What Does this Enemy Have to Do to Get Bad Press?

The Iraqis form a government, (proving once again that it's a mistake to take anything in the New York Times that doesn't come from John Burns too seriously.)

The Cabinet would have 17 Shiite Arab ministers, eight Kurds, six Sunni Arabs and one Christian, fulfilling promises by leaders of the Shiite majority to share power with ethnic and religious minorities, lawmakers said. Seven of the ministers would be women, al-Jaafari said.

No doubt that's good news and will contribute to tamping down the recent spike in violence, but look at the description of the recent violence:

The kidnapping and killing underscored fears the prolonged delay in naming a government had emboldened insurgents, who have staged a series of dramatic and well-coordinated attacks in recent weeks. (My emph.)

Yes, there were several dramatic attacks, but one generally reserves the adjective well-coordinated for attacks that actually, you know, succeed, at least partially. First the story was that there was trouble because there had been a "change" in tactics -- although a careful examination of this new tactic would have made it clear that it involved standing and fighting, something terrorists generally don't do unless they're desperate, and for good reason. But it apparently made sense for them to try it as a "Hail Mary" since it did, indeed net them so much press, for the failed abu Ghraib assault alone. But when they then went back to their normal pattern of suicide and remote controlled bombings, often of civilian targets, there were no stories about what it meant that they had abandoned their vaunted new tactic, but instead there were still stories about their previous "bold" and "well-coordinated" attacks. Win-win for the terrorists.