[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But it's not true that Al Qaeda has been silent; they just haven't mounted any repitition of the attack on American soil--presumably in part or in whole because Ashcroft has been effective.

There have been attacks on Australians and Saudis. Not that the Saudis are themselves blameless . . .

The writer suggests that any administration would be in the bind he attributes to this one. But of course a Democratic administration would be attacked from the left or not at all by journalism, and probably would be aided by spontaneous replays of the fall of the towers if Republicans were to uncharacteristically make hay against a Democratic administration for being too strong on law-and-order.

[beckett]

But it's not true that Al Qaeda has been silent; they just haven't mounted any repitition of the attack on American soil--presumably in part or in whole because Ashcroft has been effective.

There have been attacks on Australians and Saudis...

Al-Qaeda's command structure has been so badly disrupted since we went into Afghanistan that I think it's a bit of a stretch to assign blame to Bin Laden for the "attacks on the Australians (unlikely) and the Saudis (maybe)." In any case, even if Bin Laden personally ordered those attacks, Harris' point still holds --- 3 offensives do not a Clausewitzean war make. Had the Confederates laid low for almost 2 years after Ft Sumter except for one attack in Mexico City and another in sub-Saharan Africa, I don't think the often attributed designation to that conflict of Clausewitzean "total war" would apply.

As I see it, Harris is really just re-emphasizing the asymmetrical nature of this war, and some of the political pitfalls that go along with that asymmetry. I thought it was a point worth making again because I haven't seen it mentioned in a while.

[Coop]

There have been attacks on Australians and Saudis.

Eight Americans died in the Riyadh attack.