On the one hand, but not on the other
"To the north in Mosul, the operational tempo against al Qaeda's network has been relentless. U.S. and Iraqi security forces have conducted numerous raids in the northern city over the past few months, killing or capturing multiple high value targets. The latest raid, by the Iraqi Army, resulted in the death of Safi, al Qaeda's emir of Mosul," according to Bill Roggio.
I think even critics might acknowledge that the US may actually be winning (or at least not losing) the security battle in certain places in Iraq. The real question has now shifted to finding a political strategy and program of implementation that can move governance process forward. In this connection, it's important to recall that current military successes did not spring out full-grown "from the forehead of the goddess Athena", but that its roots lie deep in the Iraqi Army training program of past years and the accumulated experience of officers and noncoms in their second or third tours.
The really worrisome thing about expecting any parallel "political and diplomatic surge" to emerge is that there are no obvious analogous roots that one can hope will sprout. In the long view perhaps the greatest "mistake" of the Iraq campaign may turn out to be the inability to generate non-military political assets which can operate at the grassroots level. The inability to bring to bear "all the sources of national power" to the situation. But I think the problem is broader than that. The West hasn't articulated the language and political framework to deal with the post-Cold War world of failing states and networked insurgencies. We're still stuck with traditional diplomatic and institutional paradigms, which, will still useful, don't have all the capabilities we need -- such as in Iraq.