I suppose some were inspired to confidence by George Bush’s weekly radio address:

President Bush told the nation Saturday that progress is being made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the British seem to find it less than compelling:

The US “surge” tactic in Iraq appears likely to fail, a committee of MPs warned in a wide-ranging assessment of the Middle East.

A report by the Commons foreign affairs committee delivered a pessimistic verdict on Washington’s bid to restore peace by committing 30,000 extra troops.

“It is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US ‘surge’ but it does not look likely to succeed,” the MPs concluded.

I guess they weren’t too crazy about this:

STRAINED relations between Washington and London were stretched still further over Iraq last night, as a senior American official condemned Britain’s “failure” in its mission to bring peace to the south of the war-torn country.

Defence chiefs reacted with fury after right-wing commentator and adviser Anthony Cordesman weighed into the row over the UK’s contribution to the post-Saddam operation with a withering claim that Britain had effectively handed control of its zone to local “mafiosi”.

[]

The Bush administration has until recently ignored the south, content to leave it to the British. Now, however, it is beginning to pay attention to the region, amid the realisation that what has been portrayed as a success story is turning sour.

We may be seeing the limits of “kicking ass and taking names” as a comprehensive international strategy.