Iraqis dealing with Iraqi problems

Saw this item where Reynolds (Instapundit) cites NYT's John Burns' reporting from Iraq. The main point is that the US military could have stormed in and killed Al-Sadr but they being on the ground and at the scene detected that many Shiites turned against Al-Sadr. As such, the US held its fire and allowed Iraqis to take care of the Al-Sadr.

Reynolds wonders if something similar is happening in Fallujah. Excerpt:

This would seem to vindicate the U.S. strategy there, which many in the blogosphere have criticized as insufficiently militant. It now seems plausible that this will be settled without serious bloodshed -- and that if a violent solution is called for, it's more likely to satisfy than to inflame Iraqi public opinion. Does this suggest that the similar approach we're employing in Fallujah is also a good thing? I don't know (and some of the Shiite clerics in this story want us to be more militant there), but it certainly seems that there's a strategy here, one that stresses Iraqi self-governance as a key element. And that seems like a good thing to me.

This also suggests that those who thought Sadr represented a mass movement among Iraqis were seriously mistaken. The same is true, of course, with regard to the occupiers of Fallujah.

I know people are tired of Vietnam analogies with Iraq but there may be the point here and in a positive direction?

When the US began to pull out of South Vietnam, it began to "Vietnamize" the fighting. Unfortunately, the South showed itself unable to fight effectively after having relied on US military support for so long. In Iraq, the rapid transition to home rule maybe a lesson learned from Vietnam? Hopefully, the Iraq security forces and its people are up to the task.