Much discussion and divergent views on whether the barbaric murder of Nick Berg was caused by the publication in the western media of the pictures from Abu Ghreib. Erick Stakelbeck seems to me to get it right when he says:

'Berg would have met the same sad fate if Abu Ghraib had never been built. That much was assured as soon as he fell into the hands of his captors. Berg was killed because he was an American, plain and simple, and because Islamic terrorists are hell-bent on doing everything they can to hasten the departure of Coalition forces from Iraq. If that means exploiting the Abu Ghraib fiasco as rationale for their atrocities, so be it. Berg's murder was not carried out in a moment of righteous anger that sought to avenge U.S. abuses of Arabs and Muslims, as the terrorists would have us believe. Rather, it was the latest in a long line of unspeakable acts committed by al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups for intimidation purposes and, disturbingly enough, for their own sick pleasure.'

Clearly, there was some link in that Zarqawi's mob timed the murder -- as has been the case over and over again in this conflict -- precisely to exploit the weakness of the west as it flagellated itself over Abu Ghraib. As Stakelbeck comments:

'Unfortunately, such a strategy will play right into the hands of the Blame America First crowd in the United States and abroad, who never hesitate to label any misfortune that befalls the U.S. as just punishment for its own past transgressions. The initial instinct among such people, when confronted with a horrific incident like Nicholas Berg's death, is to cut and run, rather than stand and fight. This is precisely why Berg's slaying can also be seen as yet another volley in the psychological war being waged by al Qaeda and its ilk against the U.S. Indeed, the deeply disturbing image of a thoughtful young man from the Philadelphia suburbs being sadistically murdered by Islamo-fascists is not helpful in convincing those who were already wavering in their commitment to fight the Islamic terrorist threat. And the situation promises to only grow more precarious in the coming weeks. With "Abu Ghraib" as their rallying cry, radical Islamists, particularly those in Iraq, will no doubt look to carry out further executions like the one visited upon Nicholas Berg. Their history — and their ideology — demand it.'

Indeed, it's becoming ever clearer that this is now as much a psychological war as one of terrorist atrocities. The jihadis have shown an unerring shrewdness about the decadent defeatism of the west, its greatest -- and possibly fatal -- weakness. As the editors of National Review point out with understandable urgency, the mistakes that have been made in Iraq and the parlous military situation are not as grave as the collapse of nerve among the American political class:

'But nothing going on in Iraq is quite as alarming as the panic of our political class about it. We have been there a year, really no time at all. Local elections have been held, a free and vigorous press has been established, and the infrastructure has been greatly improved. This is not nothing. There are still encouraging signs on the ground. Protests against Moqtada al-Sadr in the south have been growing, demonstrating that most Shiites reject his radicalism and oppose Iranian influence in the country. Two issues ago, NR argued that we needed to lower expectations in Iraq — to accept that a truly liberal democracy is not in the offing, at least not anytime soon. But since then expectations have plummeted beyond all reason. Even stalwart hawks such as Andrew Sullivan are in a panic. The emerging conventional wisdom is that Iraq is an unrecoverable disaster. Make no mistake: Iraq still may become that, but we need to muster all our resources and shrewdness to try to avoid it.'

Yes, the setbacks in Iraq and the evidence of US incompetence are spooking all of us. But the one thing that might lose this war for the west is its loss of nerve. Buck up, chaps. Stop panicking, and get smart.