"JGK" wrote in message news:viz_b.2306

If this is the case, does it matter now who is President? Their single
minded hatred of the US would not change if Kerry was elected or Bush
Re-elected.

Actually, I think it matters very much, but not for the reason Harry
espoused.

This war was launched by al Qaida et al some years back. Some say the first
WTC attack was the initiator, others cite other attacks, such as the Lebanon
Marine Barracks. Al Qaida actually issued a call for war against the US in
1998. The point is that over the years, a significant part of the attack
calculus was that the US response would be token at best. History had shown
that to be the case. In that context, the individual in the Oval Office
made no difference -- the attack could serve to humiliate the USA, boost the
esteem of the responsible group within the Moslem world, and earn only a
nominal response, such as a few cruise missiles, usually targeted at the
wrong spot after a suitable amount of bluster and dire warning from
Washington..

George W. Bush changed the equation by calling their bluff and responding
with substantial military force. The strategy is working, and the
terrorists' world is now disrupted. Not eliminated, but disrupted.

But the calculus from the other side has now changed also. The specific
person and party sitting in the Oval Office has now become a crucially
important factor to al Qaida -- a matter of strategic significance. They
know that George Bush can and will stay after them - with or without
'approval' from the so-called world community. They must suspect strongly
that any other candidate that campaigns on a basis of opposition to Bush's
strategy would likely be less dedicated to the pursuit, and more willing to
seek a negotiated settlement, to let them win a little something if they
will promise to stop being naughty boys. In short, the outcome of this
election is now part and parcel of our enemy's strategy.

I also disagree with Harry's view that the terrorist organizations have
transcended a single leader. Recent history does not bear this out. The
insurgency in the Sunni triangle of Iraq has shown signs of disorganization
and demotivation since the capture of Saddam. Zarqawi recently communicated
with alQaida, requesting assistance in fomenting an internecine religious
war within Iraq before the springtime political turnover. He acknowledged
that they are stymied by the fact that the Americans will not leave, in
spite of the losses, and clearly stated that if they cannot effect an
American collapse before summer, then all is probably lost. 'Pack up and
leave' is essentially the phraseology that was used. Bottom line is that
with Saddam gone, the Ba'athists and outsiders faltered, and when they need
help to avoid disaster, they turn to bin Laden. The big dog of years past
is still the big dog, and his capture, while not ending the activity
outright, will undoubtedly be very, very big.