The battle of Iraq has long been referred to as just one more battle in the war against terrorism. It began in Afghanistan, and may have to go elsewhere later. I can dig up old quotes if necessary. No need; I recall references myself. I never bought them when I heard them, though. If Saddam had sheltered al-Qeda members and refused to hand them over then I would have supported an invasion on those grounds. As things stand, with the "proof" that I have seen, it seems to me that putting invasion (or whatever Dan wants me to call it) of Iraq in "the war on terrorism" was more of a way to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq.

As for the "flypaper" theory, how do you nail down as a certaintly whether or not the war in Iraq is decreasing terrorism? Since no major acts of terror have occurred in America or Britain since 9/11, one could say that the operation might be working. Hard to draw a curve with one datum, or even two. If the anniversary goes by without incident, I think an important point will have been made. Well, bear in mind that the real war on terrorism is also going on. It is much harder than it used to be for terrorists to stay hidden and to go about their business. Hopefully security is better too.

The attacks in Iraq, by any reasonable standard of occupation or warfare, are trivial. Most Iraqis are on our side, and most of the attackers aren't even Iraqi. If there was a major uprising in the population, you'd know it. And we are beating them. These are good things and I agree with you. Though, I'd have to guess about your inductive assertions about most Iraqis and most attackers, I would guess they are true as well.

The Baathist's one hope is the Vietnam/Somalia Syndrome. If they can wear us down politically, they don't have to wear us down militarily. Don't know and don't care what Iraqi Baathists might hope for. They haven't a prayer, regardless.