Now you're starting to contradict your original premise that this is a global fight, and that one can't independently analyze Iraq and Afghanistan. As you put it, "Iraq is just a battle...in the [larger] war."
...
You can't look at that one depressed region of the balloon and say "look, I made the balloon smaller."

Analysis of human intel can be like that. In this case, the contradiction is not nearly as deep as it seems; Have we seen large numbers of such people moving over the Afghan border? No, we saw a group of about 40, all of whom died in the attack. This represents a very small portion of the number of people involved in attacks on us in Iraq, proper.

I think Iraq has done terrible things to bin Ladenism. bin Laden said that once the U.S. got its nose bloodied it would leave. It didn't happen that way. Al Qaeda declared Iraq to be its central front and they are the ones leaving. That can't be good for recruiting.

Further, the horrendous acts perpetrated on fellow Muslims by Al Qaeda created a considerable number of counter-terrorists in the native population. I also suspect that a large number of Iraqis now have a reasonably favorable view of Americans.

Were that the case, Iraq would still be under their control.

Now you're starting to contradict your original premise that this is a global fight, and that one can't independently analyze Iraq and Afghanistan. As you put it, "Iraq is just a battle...in the [larger] war."

We are seeing an uptick in violence in Afghanistan coinciding with the lull in Iraq, sort of like a balloon that gets pushed in at one point, and bulges in another. You can't look at that one depressed region of the balloon and say "look, I made the balloon smaller."

Bit, this all assumes that we can kill the terrorists faster than new ones are created. I would argue that for every terrorist killed, the continuation of violence, further entrenchment of each side's cause, and the unavoidable collateral damage would create > 1 new terrorist(s).

Were that the case, Iraq would still be under their control.

In the short term, it amounts to 'whack a mole". but in the longer term, the bad guys are losing a lot of assets.... and even in the terrorism mode they've set themselves, they can't last forever.

Bit, this all assumes that we can kill the terrorists faster than new ones are created. I would argue that for every terrorist killed, the continuation of violence, further entrenchment of each side's cause, and the unavoidable collateral damage would create > 1 new terrorist(s).

Since the rate created is greater than the rate destroyed, at steady-state, the "whack a mole" approach is untenable. Efforts must be taken to reduce the "creation rate" of said terrorists--you can't just "kill harder" with your eyes closed and somehow expect that to magically result in victory.

It's become increasingly obvious over the years that a substantial number of people in the country, apparently including Sen. Biden, disagreed fundamentally with that characterization but, for reasons of their own, chose not to dissent from the president's stated objectives however much they disagreed with them. No pulling together; just silent disagreement.

My guess is that the unity was real. It's just that over time, with the perceived risk of a terrorist attack greatly lowered, it's easy to change views for either political purposes or new information. The towers falling had a profound impact on virtually all Americans. The unthinkable happened and we had no idea what was next. I remember feeling anxiety about turning on the TV in the morning for a couple of months after 9/11. Given the lack of knowledge of the enemy we faced, a broad approach seemed reasonable. Personally my views haven't changed.

When we invaded Iraq public support was around 80%, despite American casualty estimates of 3 to 8k from the initial invasion. Americans were willing to handle the costs at the time do to the perceived risks. As that perception changed, ironically in part do to American success in Iraq, Americans no longer felt the price was worth it. Little is ever said of how things would be today if Saddam was still in power. It would all be speculative of course, but the range it seems would be between bad and horrible.

And of course these can be depended upon not to fight for said nutjobs, as they ahve in the past?

You mean when the old maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kicked in because they were fighting against the US? Yes folks, we were the very cause of this alliance. Once we are gone, so will it be. At least, this is how I see it...

Where the warlords in Iraq will cheerfully slit their throats...

And of course these can be depended upon not to fight for said nutjobs, as they ahve in the past?

Your leaving out that point is verrrry reassuring.

There are several candidates: poverty, Islam, and unfree societies

We might want to add western support for said unfree societies for political and economic gain and lack of respect for the culture and religion in the middle east to the list...

that the Islamic nutjobs wouldn't be rushing back toward Iraq?

Where the warlords in Iraq will cheerfully slit their throats...

. I don't know that anybody's ever claimed that Afghanistan was anything but, as you say, “whack-a-mole”.

I would suggest that Bush's initial statement as I allowed the other day, amounted to laying all this out as a war of attrition.
In the short term, it amounts to 'whack a mole". but in the longer term, the bad guys are losing a lot of assets.... and even in the terrorism mode they've set themselves, they can't last forever.

Though we may disagree on our most important root causes above, are we in agreement that an indefinite "whack-a-mole" approach is not sufficient and should not be the sole focus of debate between the candidates and the blogosphere?

Sure. I don't know that anybody's ever claimed that Afghanistan was anything but, as you say, “whack-a-mole”. Iraq was initially framed as something more although that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Remember “Iraq the Model”?

My own view is that a lot of selling will need to be done to get the American people to go along with anything other than increasingly violent “whack-a-mole”. I don't see any political support from either side of the aisle for significantly increased engagement with the Middle East/Southwest Asia.

Specifically, I don't see a wave of support to remove our military from Iraq and replace them with significant numbers of diplomats and developers, what Tom Barnett calls a “Sys Admin force”.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. The question seems to be what are the root causes? There are several candidates: poverty, Islam, and unfree societies.

My own view is that, ultimately, our best grand strategy is to pursue the Whig agenda we've pursued over the last 150 years or so which has both economic liberalization and political liberalization components.

I agree for the most part, but I'd argue that more specifically THE cause to focus on is the I/P issue. I think the things you mention lay the foundation for hatred to potentially develop, but the I/P issue, combined with religious collectivism, provides the spark, so to speak.

Adressing that issue, as well as encouraging American independence from oil (thereby allowing the US to distance itself from Arab despots, whom are viewed as un-Islamic), I believe will do more to resolve the problem of terrorism in comparison to more general goals of reducing poverty/tyranny.

Though we may disagree on our most important root causes above, are we in agreement that an indefinite "whack-a-mole" approach is not sufficient and should not be the sole focus of debate between the candidates and the blogosphere?

And John's right: one wonders how these guys maintain their outrage without collapsing in exhaustion.

I think there is a disconnect over who the bad guys are and even where they live.