Punch and Counterpunch. There's a media war out there that's as important, if not more important, as events on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. While in those places the US and allies are dominant, outpowering and outnumbering their opponents, in the media the positive voices are probably outnumbered by the negative ones.
I happen to believe that the positive, pro-Iraq war, pro-active voices have a more powerful ring, and a more comprehensive message. As an observer, I watch the battle between the two wax and wane, and of course the outcome of the media war is felt in the opinion polls, expressed as the waxing and waning of the political fortunes of the anti-war candidate, John Kerry, and the pro-war candidate, John Kerry, er, George W. Bush.
Each time I see the media negativity rise, I see the positivity rise to meet it, and repel it. What's interesting is whether the negative voices gradually realign their negativity to cater for a public that finds the positive voices more convincing, and whether the positive voices get more positive still (or, of course, vice cersa).

Then of course, from my perspective, there are two fronts- the UK and the US- and the fortunes of 'war' differ in each.
That's why two positive articles by Victor Davis Hanson in NRO and William Shawcross in the Spectator strike me as significant indicators. Hanson's article is quite simply the finest I think I've read about the WoT in the couse of exploring the slice of the media that has crossed my path. It shows, I think, the right kind of strategic grasp of the whole situation, especially in the Middle East.
Shawcross' article, meanwhile, shows how the British media battle is lagging behind the US one, but that the lines are holding to some extent. He may not be able to give us a lot of cheer about, but he does do a good job of discrediting the shallow and opportunistic opponents of the Iraq war.

A couple of highlights from Hanson:

'All U.S. construction is subject to open audit and assessment. A zealous media has not yet found any signs of endemic or secret corruption. There really is a giant scandal surrounding Iraq, but it involves (1) the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, in which U.N. officials and Saddam Hussein, hand-in-glove with European and Russian oil companies, robbed revenues from the Iraqi people; and (2) French petroleum interests that strong-armed a tottering dictator to sign over his country's national treasure to Parisian profiteers under conditions that no consensual government would ever agree to. The only legitimate accusation of Iraqi profiteering does not involve Dick Cheney or Halliburton, but rather Kofi Annan's negligence and his son Kojo's probable malfeasance. '

'The Palestinians will, in fact, get their de facto state, though one that may be now cut off entirely from Israeli commerce and cultural intercourse. This is an apparently terrifying thought: Palestinian men can no longer blow up Jews on Monday, seek dialysis from them on Tuesday, get an Israeli paycheck on Wednesday, demonstrate to CNN cameras about the injustice of it all on Thursday — and then go back to tunneling under Gaza and three-hour, all-male, conspiracy-mongering sessions in coffee-houses on Friday. Beware of getting what you bomb for. '

This kind of argument is forceful and accurate- just what is needed to win the media battle. (thanks to messrs Reynolds and Pollard. Please let me know if there are any problems with links- use the comments if you like).