Now, to the question of whether AQI was more or less of the insurgency than any public statement said it was.

I want to re-assert this thought: numbers do not mean power. If it did, then our presence there with over 100,000 soldiers at any given time would have eliminated the possibility or probability of an insurgency. Further, the number of dead and wounded "insurgents" would have quickly finished it off. That was not true. So, I have to wonder if "numbers" of AQI v. indigenous insurgents make it any more true for control of the insurgency?

Whether it was 20% AQI and 80% locals, it seems clear that AQI had control over the insurgency by mid 2005. The organization, types of attacks, and targets with the number of foreign fighters and suicide attacks makes that a reality. I would add that the information, such as maps and organization records, gathered from exploiting the site where Zarqawi died, with subsequent re-organization of our own battle plans that rolled up a huge portion of the insurgency seems to also indicate AQI had operational control.

Their spiraling loss of control in mid to late 2006, post Zarqawi's death, and the damage we were able to inflict on the "insurgency" using this exploited information through 2007, seems to have led the FRLs to the conclusion that it is better to negotiate for internal power than give it to AQI who were never going to leave and had a totally different agenda for the end state of Iraq than the FRLs. And, had they maintained that association with AQI, might have seen themselves and the rest of the Sunni tribes smashed into nothing without any political, economic or military power. Possibly totally dispossessed and constantly on the defensive in a future Iraq ruled by Shia and Kurds.

In numbers, does it matter that AQI was only "20%" of the insurgency with "80%" being indigenous if, in power and operational control, they were 60-80%? Do the numbers change the tactics or delegitimize any claims that AQI was the "real" enemy in Iraq?

Do public statements by politicians, the SoD or commanders in the field represent a failure to recognize the complexity of the insurgency? Is this why we were slow to change tactics? Were such statements purposefully misleading for political reasons (ie, to keep domestic political support for staying in Iraq)? Or were they based on our first clumsy attempts to separate the insurgency from the people of Iraq, managing any support for its on going efforts by claiming it was "foreign", and basically kill two birds with one stone by damaging AQs claims to be "defending" Islam and Muslims at the same time?

Or, were we right all along that AQ represented the power and organizing force behind the insurgency and our failure to change tactics was an internal military and political philosophy? A philosophy and organization that wanted nothing to do with fighting another counter-insurgency and performing nation building post Viet Nam and the much vaunted "Powell Doctrine"? Instead, was geared towards conventional war fighting and killing as many "tangos" as possible? A political, military and popular idea that war should look like GW1?

Was the culmination point of victory a combination of all of these things with the addition of AQI damaging itself through a bad strategic decision to declare war on Shi'ites and anybody else that didn't fit their idea Muslim or go along with their religio-political ideology or accept their plan for an "Islamic State of Iraq"?

The focus on the exact numbers or "percentages" that either group represents seems too narrow a focus to try to evaluate the how or why of this war or any future insurgency. What seems more important is to be able to identify the different groups involved, their amount of operational and political control or influence and determine any differing agendas among them. Using this calculation to split the group into smaller and smaller pieces, pealing it like an onion as they say.

In repeating a previous question, was making AQI "the fall guy" a bad idea in the whole scheme of things considering current outcomes?