I really agree the Economist has lost it to a significant degree.

The "vulnerability" to the RPG, AK-47 and the suicide bomber is hyperbolic to say the least. It is also of no strategic, very little operational and not great tactical significance.

I'm not sure I agree that "our public" cannot withstand casualties. Certainly some object quite strongly to casualties for any war and possibly more to casualties for this war but I still firmly believe the largest majority of those disaffected by this war are less concerned with casualties than they are with performance. The bulk of the public, I think simply wants it finished and finished acceptably.

There is to my mind little question that they are trouncing us in the info war -- we have turned the corner tactically if not operationally but in the information domain we are getting zapped.

The Brits get a lot of praise over Malaya. Your point is well taken. They did okay but contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't a "win" -- it, like most other COIN ops, achieved simply an acceptable outcome. Folks also forget the massive advantage they had there -- they were the government. In Viet Nam, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we had or have to get along with independent governments who were and are emphatically willing to operate on their own agendas and who did or do not care about US public opinion. Huge difference.