Cagey on Fallujah

I have not had much to say regarding the military handling of the situation in Fallujah except indirectly in my comments last week about re-baathification. The fact is I have no idea what to think of all this and would rather let more knowledgeable people hash it out. I have been quietly hoping that the Belmont Club was right and Andrew Sullivan was wrong. (In fairness, I should point out that Sullivan is probably hoping the same thing.) The one issue that seemed right about the US's handling of the situation was getting the Iraqi's actively involved, which I prescribed back when the fighting started. But even that seemed to be mishandled by putting an evidently unreconstructed Baathist in charge.

Well, at least we corrected that little goof, and today Instapundit has a roundup of what seems to be overall good news. Money quote:

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tom Maguire notes that the U.S. move to appoint a former Ba'athist in Fallujah is what brought the Shi'ites into line. Are we that smart? he asks. . . . ("All we were saying was, give peace a chance. And it looks like giving one of Saddam's henchmen a chance to deliver the peace was enough to bring these folks back to the table.") My goodness, I hope so.

I have nothing further to say, and I am saying it.

UPDATE: Well maybe one more thing. In researching this post, I discovered that Glenn had linked to my comments on the prisoner scandal in an update here. Does that guy ever sleep? Thanks, Glenn.