Still, I think we have the rough outlines of a desired policy: 1. A democratic government in the true sense of the word, which includes limited government and protections for the rights of the minority. That precludes sharia, to be sure, although not a nod to Islam as the basis for all law. (Indeed, our own founding docs have plenty of nods to a Creator.) 2. An Iraqi government and security apparatus capable of maintaining a reasonable level of law and order.

And for how long? Until we leave? We keep saying we won't leave until the gov't is running itself.

I agree with your conclusion about achieving political objectives, but those objectives must first be _defined_, and I don't think either side has done a good job of that yet. We _say_ we want Iraq to have freedom and a western-style democracy, but in _private_, we hint that it better be pro-US. But they continue to declare Sharia as the basis of law, which throws a big monkey-wrench into that. The various insurgents can't be against _any_ form of gov't in Iraq; they just want one that benefits them & their interests, and they'll keep bombing their fellow muslims (and us) until they get one they like.

Neither side has a firm grasp on what they want Iraq to look like when they're through, and until that happens, there can be no 'dick sucking' :-)

Vines is almost certainly right that the terrorists are discouraged that, despite their success at creating violence, fear, and disruption that the Iraqi people lined up to vote in staggering numbers.

Well, I'm sure the terrorists/insurgents/whatever would be thrilled that people were voting, if they were voting for the right people. Curiously, this is also the position of the Bush administration. Don't oversimplify these people's motivations - they're not simple 2-dimensional cutouts, frothing at the mouth and waving sticks of dynamite.

But I�m curious to see how the �flypaper strategy� people will react.

As long as a strategy works, it's a good one. As soon as it ceases to work effectively, you adopt a new one. That's -- you should pardon the expression -- reality-based strategy.

If the bad guys are leaving Iraq, that's good for Iraq. If they avoid going to other places we might be headed in the GWOT, that simplifies those missions.

If the terrorists come here and start blowing up Americans in America, well, it wasn't exactly good for them in 2001...

Didn�t Westmoreland say something similar about winning right before the Tet offensive?

Militarily, Tet was a disaster -- but for the VC, not for us.

Maybe some day it really will be the last throes. And whoever is saying "last throes" right at that moment will look really smart. I don't think this is that moment.

From 'round the sphere this evening... - Stop the ACLU looks at PETA's Staged Crucifixion at a Cathedral On Good Friday - Michelle Malkin tips us to a great way many people are letting illegal alien advocating politicians know how......

But I'm curious to see how the "flypaper strategy" people will react. I mean, if our goal was to attract Al Qaeda to Iraq so we could fight them there -- and achieving that was a "good thing" -- then wouldn't this be a big setback? I mean, assuming they actually believed what they said about the flypaper strategy.

they have to be ecstatic that both George W. Bush and Tony Blair are doing poorly in the polls and even minor Coalition leaders like Italy�s Silvio Burlesconi have been defeated by their own electorate.

This is debatable, no? If you believe the war in Iraq is helping the war on terror, then you probably agree. If you think it is hurting, then keeping Bush/Blair in power helps the terrorists.

While I certainly hope this to be true, we cannot underestimate the durability of the insurgency and the tenacity of al Qaeda to hold on a while longer. If anything, now is the time to redouble efforts to stamp out the insurgency and al Qaeda element.....