It has been said many times, by many different people, that in order for an insurgency to be successful, all the insurgents have to do is outlast the invading force. This was true in North America against the eighteenth century, it was true in the various African and South American colonies in the early twentieth century,and it was true in South East Asia in the mid twentieth century. The Afghans taught this lesson to the Soviets in the 1980s. The US would do well to heed the lessons it and other nations have learned and avoid becoming further entangled in Iraq. More efforts need to be made to replace the military forces with multinational peacekeepers (who do a better job at being policement than American soldiers do) and rapid train-up of Iraqi forces for both police and military duties.
Reporting the deaths of US soldiers isn't "pandering to Saddam," it is reporting the news in the manner a free press should be expected to. Instead, it should serve as a warning to the American citizenry that they are embarked in what will likely turn out to be a costly endeavour if changes are not made immediately. I actaully doubt Hussein has much say in anything in Iraq anymore. Between ordinary Iraqis tired of swapping one dictator for another and equally sick of their treatment at the hands of the American savages, and the various factions that are attempting to seize power for their various indigenous groups, Hussein would not have to do much "organizing." This "pacification" was lost before it even began due to poor planning.
I reccomend the following interview with
Robert Perito, who was brought in during the planning stages to help prepare a plan to restore civil order, and was completely ignored. We appear to be in a "you broke it, you bought it" situation with Iraq as far as the rest of the world is concerned.