Submitted by J L Rosner, Nov 16, 2006 13:53

The argument that Al-Queda used the insurgency in Iraq to move the US
elections is rather far-fetched to me. First, it gives them much too
much credit for understanding the US political scene. If it were true that Al-Queda plays the US electoral system expertly, the stronger argument would be that they are Bush supporters because,
without 9/11, Bush was going nowhere and Al-Queda won the 2002 and 2004
elections for him. In fact, some professional friends have said that
Bush created 9/11 for that very purpose and I told them they were crazy.
Second, Abizaid said yesterday that the violence had peaked in August.
and if Steyn's idea was correct, we should have seen it peak just before the election. Further, we should see a major decline in casualties over the next 2 months. I doubt we will see this because it
is not the foreign Al Queda who are killing us but Iraqis who are
fighting each other (Sunnis vs Shias) and wanting us out. Nothing has
happened to make them stop. It is one of the tragedies of this war that
a few thousand Jihadis (at the very most) have been able to take
advantage of our blunders and keep 140,000 overwhelmingly armed US+
British forces neutralized and stalemated, and overextend our National
Guard and the entire Armed Forces, in general, and limiting our military
possibilities everywhere. This is all because we have gotten between
Sunnis & Shias. Police will always tell you that they are most in danger
when they try to break up a domestic quarrel.

So let's see whether the US casualties decrease significantly. What would Steyn estimate to be the
drop-off? 50%? I'd guess 15% at best but more likely that it will increase. If there is an increase, will Stey argue that this is intended to elect Russ Feingold in 2008?

Overall, I'd say the article had too much invective and too little
logic.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.