...that's not a real solution, and indeed, mirrors the way tyrants have held power throughout recorded history.

In other words, it works. That's why the article gave a lot of examples. And that's the horrible part.

In an insurgency, or a terrorist infiltration of a civilian population, the author holds that you need to make people think they'll be better off going against the terrorists (who would saw a family member's head off in front of you), than going against the ones handing out the candy and building schools.

Maoist theories of cheerful popular support of the guerillas aside, in fact these groups control large populations by terror, not by appeals to their better nature. The article gives many examples of that, too.

The tyrannical ruler sees that you simply have to be more frightening than the terrorist's side. That going against you has to be more painful than being for you. The article seems to show by historical example that offering democracy, prosperity, and other things makes very little impression compared to the impression made by the terrorists.

Your analysis is not correct, at least in the views of the article's author. The people of Iraq and other Middle Eastern populations don't go along with the most Islamic leader. They go along with the one who is most likely to kill them otherwise. The article shows that religion wasn't a big factor in the past either. In fact, if you think about it, if your theory was correct, Saddam should never have succeeded.

Do I have an answer? Wish to hell I did. I hope the author is wrong and Bush is right. Maybe that's the case...most of the big anti-al Qaeda hauls that have been made involve Iraqi citizen tips. That's encouraging.