Iraq hawk Andrew Sullivan opined yesterday that the situation in Iraq "sounds like civil war to me." His post from today reverses course, and asserts "No, this is not a quagmire. It’s the brightest opportunity for real change in the world since the end of the Cold War. We have to seize it." The latter is more accurate. What happened in Sadr City was largely a change of tactics rather than a dramatic change in the nature of the opposition. Rather than relying on guerilla warfare, they attempted direct attacks on hard targets. The result: they were handily defeated without the Coalition even resorting to the big guns. In Al Najaf, for instance, Apache and fixed wing air support were called in to stabilize the situation, but the aircraft did not need to fire a single shot. The mere presence of such firepower was enough to quell the masses. Sadr’s forces sustained heavy casualties. The Coalition also sustained casualties, but unlike during the Clinton years, the current President has expressed resolve to stay the course. This must be done. The disenchanted who make up the soft support for Sadr will quickly lose interest if they realize that "media event" attacks don’t deter their markedly more powerful adversary, but instead simply invite terrible retribution on those who perpetrate the acts of terror.