George Friedman, whose subscription-financed global intelligence service 'Stratfor' regularly produces some shrewd and well-informed assessments, has written a book about the invasion of Iraq which, according to this article in the Australian, presents it in strategic realpolitik terms. Although the US believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, the underlying aim of the invasion was a strategic manoeuvre to defeat the financiers of Islamist terror.

The purpose of 9/11 was to stir the Islamic street to insurrection against the west and rebellion against non-Islamic regimes. After the devastating blow struck by the US against the jihadists in Afghanistan, America fingered Saudi Arabia as the core of the problem. But because of the difficulties in waging war against an ally, it decided to attack the crucially positioned Iraq to complete the US military encirclement of Saudi Arabia. The article concludes:

'Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes. The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on." '

Undoubtedly, Iraq was singled out for the second strike against the axis of terror for many reasons -- which certainly does not make any of them invalid. However, the defence against terror hangs in the balance not merely because of the unfinished business in Iraq, but because (see posts below) the hoped for domino-effect has not yet occurred to sweep away the mullocracy in Iran or to bring free societies to other axis rogue states. From this account, Friedman's thesis seems to be a timely corrective to the lunatic conspiracy theories that are now in vogue about American motives, as well as a sober assessment of the nature, scale and implications of the vital task in hand.