More praise is due to the Washington Post for covering the ways in which the U.S. military is adapting its strategy to the challenges of Iraq. Today, Thomas E. Ricks takes a look at a training academy where U.S. forces are taught counterinsurgency tactics. The story doesn’t pull punches where they’re deserved, but it reports on how the military is overcoming obstacles and devising new strategies for winning the war:

TAJI, Iraq — If the U.S. effort in Iraq ultimately is successful, one reason may be the small school started recently on a military base here by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Called the COIN Academy — using military shorthand for “counterinsurgency” — the newest educational institution in the U.S. military establishment seeks, as a course summary puts it, to “stress the need for U.S. forces to shift from a conventional warfare mindset” to one that understands how to win in a guerrilla-style conflict. Or, as a sign on the wall of one administrator’s office here put it less politely: “Insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different outcome.” […]
The school’s greatest effect seems to be on younger officers. “My initial impression of it was it was a waste of time,” said Capt. Klaudius Robinson, commander of a cavalry troop in the 4th Infantry Division. “But after going through it, it really changed my thinking about how to fight this insurgency. I came to realize that the center of gravity is the people, and you have to drive a wedge between the insurgents and the people.”
Before the course, he said, he expected to spend his time here combating insurgents, but instead he is focused on training and operating with Iraqi troops. “We’re never going to catch every bad guy,” he tells his troops. “That’s not a ticket home. But what I can do is help Iraqi security forces and get them to take the lead.”

With the NYT and the WaPo starting to report that the military is turning things around in Iraq, one wonders: Are U.S. forces really just now turning things around, or are the NYT and WaPo responding to pressure from critics who say they need to broaden their coverage of Iraq beyond the daily reports of terrorist savagery?

As far as I can tell, it’s a little of both. The military’s recent successes involve an acknowledgement that, while mistakes were made in the past, the military has learned from those mistakes and is trying a different path — with initially successful results. This gives the media some cover to say, “We were right that the U.S. was screwing things up before, and now that the military is adapting and fighting smarter, we’re reporting it.” It vindicates their earlier coverage and placates their critics at the same time.