"Most people supporting the resistance think that if Kerry wins he will pull the troops out of Iraq, or that's what they wish."

I'm a little worried that history is repeating itself. First we invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, then it was because of the possibility of Iraq starting weapons of mass destruction related programs.

Now are you suggesting that the reason we invaded Iraq was to fight the resistance that arose after we invaded it? I thought the reason we fought Iraq was to get rid of Saddam?

So, if the resistance takes over the country at some point now, is that the biggest tragedy? Do you see a US friendly democracy being created anytime soon?

This will really be a "war without end" if we can't even settle on who the war was fought against. Saddam is out of power, didn't we win the war already?

What is this new war we "have" to fight against the Iraqi resistance? George Bush didn't mention this war before we invaded Iraq, or did I miss that?

In fact, if John Kerry pulled the forces out of Iraq, it would actually be putting a "mission accomplished" on all the reasons George Bush sent us to war for. Remember those reasons? Threat of weapons of mass destruction (no threat now exists in Iraq), Connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda (with Saddam in jail we can assume those connections are gone), the evil acts of the regime of Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi people(Saddam is in jail and awaiting trial for those crimes).

So, yes, definately, let's declare victory and leave. The majority of Americans no longer believe the war was necessary, it is not a BAD thing if we elected a President who shared the beliefs of America. The President is supposed to represent US, we are not supposed to be defending the Presidents faulty judgements. Our soldiers are too important to waste in covering the President's political butt.

...it could be self-defeating for terrorists to directly attack the U.S. at this point, because doing so would only serve to energize the War on Terror.

War is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted.

The terror vote is probably divided: Iraqis want Kerry, al Qaeda wants Bush.

I'm not making any suggestions about why we invaded Iraq, nor am I making a value judgment in this case whether or not I think it was a good idea (although the recent polls I've seen seem to indicate a recent dead heat in public opinion).

The post was mainly to assert that in order to affect the U.S. elections to bring about troop withdrawl would be anti-military terrorism.

Regarding Iraq's transition to a U.S. friendly democracy, I think there are certainly a lot of hurdles, but I think the Iraqis are a stout and hardy people for having lived through the last 30 (and 5-6000) years, and I think there are a lot of good reasons for optimism.

Their interim leadership has relatively high approval ratings, the nation's electrical power capacity is larger than it was before we were there. People, increasingly, are enjoying basic, bill of rights type freedoms that they didn't have before.

Granted, this is under the spectre of continual conflict, but from the information I've read, most Iraqis are intolerant of and unsympathetic to the so called resistance, even if they do want America out.

I think it would be irresponsible for us to leave at this point, though. We've made the mess and we ought to clean it up.

Does anyone know if it's true that:

This latest attack attempts to foil the Australian election proceedings ...

Actually, the suicide bombers did leave notes. And I did qualify my first statement regarding the Australian elections. Apologies for not being soe careful the second time, Hal.

That being said, there is a general agreement that it *has in fact, had some effect on the elections. From an Australian TV interview:

ELEANOR HALL: Peter Coleman, can I ask you, what do you think the bombing in Jakarta has meant for the election campaign? Has it changed things significantly?

PETER COLEMAN: Well, it has obviously, as every commentator agrees, it's revived security as a centrally important issue and it took some of the momentum out of the tax and welfare policy that Mark Latham was attempting to emphasise, so it's had its influence.

If I read the linked data correctly, the notes had nothing to do with the Australian election.

An attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta would have an effect on the discussion of Australian security, but I still don't see anything proving your contention that the "latest attack attempt[ed] to foil the Australian election proceedings." An attack on an American embassy on foreign soil would certainly elevate security discussions in this country, but would not prove that the bombers expected "to foil the American election proceedings."

Your claim still looks like attempted right-wing spin, as the data does not support it.

Good discussion, nothing really to add, but I'd like to mention something:

You are correct that the Chechen and other terrorists who committed the Beslan murders did absolutely nothing for their "cause" and care very little about the Chechen people at all.

However, to say that Russia may have made mistakes with regard to Chechnya is entirely too gently worded. A policy of genocide and murder of civilians has long been the norm. 42,000 Chechen schoolchildren have died. Some as the horrible but inevitable result of war---there are always civilian casualties. But many are kidnapped, raped, shot in the street, or otherwise. The Russian army has concentration camps, they indiscriminantly bomb civilian areas. Most Chechen people, unlike those of areas like Gaza/WB, Iraq, or other Muslim nations, still do not express public support for terrorists, their society still does not make martyrs of these people. It is a unique thing for the amount of suffering they have endured, probably mainly because they are often just as afraid of the rebels and warlords who commit the same atrocities but on a smaller scale of course. Most interveiwed expressed grief, outrage, and disbelief at the Beslan attacks. We cannot justify murder on either side. These are not Russian children or Chechen children, they are the world's children, and must always remember all the children on both sides who have been killed at the hands of cruel people.

I'm sorry going off on a tangent there, but something about the way you mildly worded that didn't sit right with me. :-)

As for the elections, I don't really know what's going to happen, but I'd agree with whoever said Al Quaeda probably wants Bush to win. Just like the Chechen rebels, most of these terrorists care little about the actual oppressed people whose causes they purport to support (except for the lowest footsoldiers who are coerced and brainwashed into it as a result of despair or grief). They want their Jihad, and Bush is willing to serve it up.

How long, how long must we sing this song?