Professor Ganor contends that there is a simple inverse relationship between the capability and the motivation of terrorists. Attacks on the capability of terrorists to carry out their deadly attacks increase their motivation to commit terrorist acts. Every time Israel undertakes a strike against Palestinian terrorists, it angers Palestinians and increases their motivation to attack. Civilian casualties from Israeli military operations, which are inevitable due to the organization of Palestinian terrorist operations in the middle of Palestinian civilian areas, exacerbate Palestinian anger and increase the motivation of Palestinians to carry out further terrorist acts.

However, failing to take military action in response to terrorist attacks is no solution. As one might expect, ignoring terrorism leaves one open to further attacks by terrorists. Israel might avoid increasing the motivation of Palestinian attacks by failing to respond to Palestinian terrorist attacks. However, this strategy would leave Israel extremely vulnerable to a steady stream of Palestinian attacks.

One can also apply these arguments to the situation in Iraq. Eliminating Moqtada Sadr, a thug masquerading as a religious leader, and his forces would undermine the ability of the resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. However, undertaking military operations against Sadr, who has been holed up in the holiest site of Shia Islam, would likely increase anger against the U.S. and increase the motivation for more attacks. This line of reasoning dovetails nicely with Democratic arguments that the Iraq War has increased the danger to the United States. At the same time, failing to address the threat might only allow Sadr to continue his attacks and make Iraq even more chaotic as the Republicans argue.

It is not an easy dilemma to solve. Of course, Democrats and Republicans do not necessarily help matters by making intelligent points but refusing the acknowledge the validity of the arguments of the other side.

Unlike President Bush, Prof. Ganor saw no link between Iraq and terrorism. This claim does violate the presidential infallibility doctrine promulgated by the current administration but Prof. Ganor’s status as one of the world's best experts on the subject perhaps makes his assessment more valuable than that of a Bush administration whose claims about the weapons of mass destruction rested more on faith than facts. Nor can the Bushies discount Prof. Ganor’s views as those of a leftist sympathizer as he is much more closely identified with the right than the left.

Moreover, Prof. Ganor supported the attack on Iraq despite the absence of a link to terrorism or the missing weapons of mass destruction. He views attacking Iraq as analogous to taking on the weakest member of gang in order to deter the gang's other members. According to Prof. Ganor, attacking Iraq will discourage the other members of the axis of evil from taking on the United States. The recent willingness of Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction helps back up this reasoning, though some think this shift by Qaddafi might have occurred without the U.S. attack on Iraq. Moreover, as a realistic and honest supporter of the war, Prof. Ganor agrees that our invasion has increased the motivation of terrorists to attack the U.S. in line with his own theory of terrorism.

Standing up to bullies is admirable. And I do not believe the war is wholly bad. Hussein’s regime was bestial and his removal from the Iraqi scene is hardly lamentable to anyone except Uday and Qusay. Nevertheless, on balance, Bush made the wrong decision. Saddam Hussein had already been backed into a corner by the strong response by the Bush administration to Iraq’s violation of the terms of its surrender from the Gulf War. U.S. determination was demonstrated even without substantial American casualties.

At the same time, the invasion of Iraq has greatly increased terrorist desire to attack our country. As part of its post-hoc rationalization of the war, the Bush administration claims that our invasion has drawn the terrorists to Iraq instead of the United States. In reality, the United States has simply motivated new terrorists there. Many of the attacks against the U.S. probably have more to do with jousting for power in advance of the U.S. withdrawal. Attacking the U.S. seems a good way to gain popular support as the U.S. occupation grows more and more unpopular with the Iraqi people. As American casualties continue to rise and the U.S. keeps quietly ceding territory, as astutely pointed out by Tom Schaller in the Gadflyer, one wonders if the U.S. will gradually appear weaker rather than stronger.

At the same time, the American focus on Iraq has drawn our attention away from Afghanistan. The central government in Kabul has tenuous control over its territory to put it very kindly. Supporters of Al-Qaeda are gaining control of more Afghan territory. One CNN analyst thinks that Al-Qaeda is now stronger than it was on September 11, 2001 as a result of our paying insufficient attention to Afghanistan.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the United States has paid a terrific price in credibility due its failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (and I hardly feel safer if they have been scurried away to Damascus as some administration flaks suggest). If the United States needs to act against a threat in a future, it will find it much harder to gain support. I do not worry so much about the lack of future support from our European allies. The United States is so powerful that it can act alone if necessary. I am more concerned with the lack of credibility of the current administration with the American people. The false nature of Bush's past claims means that he will find it much harder to rally and unite the American people against a future threat. And just because Iraq turned out to be a red herring does not mean that we will not need to take military action against some future threat.

If a stronger Al-Qaeda and a disunited America is success in the War on Terrorism, I would hate to see failure.