Gunning for Victory; Mullahs for Kerry

This morning's Washington Times runs a story by Borzou Daragahi reporting that terrorists in Iraq are, in effect, gunning for a Kerry victory.

"Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"'If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,' said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

"Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.

"'American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together,' he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. 'We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud.'

"Mowafaq Al-Tai, a London-educated architect and intellectual, said different types of resistance fighters have different views of the U.S. election.

"The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists — Ba'ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life."

The terrorists miscalculate, however, on the effects of their actions among military families. One Abul Jalal says: "'They say there are 1,100 dead soldiers. That means 1,100 families hold grudges against Bush and hate him. There are 6,000 families whose sons were injured who hate Bush and will not re-elect him.'"

As polls show, military families overwhelmingly back the President.

But the charge that Iraqi terrorists are employing such a strategy is further strengthened in a new column by Ralph Peters, which Hindrocket at Power Line highlights today.

"Soldiers don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.

"He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.

"Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.

"'Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on,' he wrote. 'They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones.'"

Via Captain Ed, Reuters is reporting that Iran's nuclear-happy mullahs are rooting for a Kerry victory, as well. " Iranian officials like to portray U.S. presidential elections as a choice between bad and worse but there is little doubt they would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry to win next week."

More to the point, they think Kerry will back away from efforts to democratize the Middle East, something his previous statements leave little doubt about:

"[T]he Massachusetts senator's emphasis on a multilateral foreign policy approach and hints he would negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program appeal to the country's bazaar-rooted instincts to bargain its way out of a crisis.

"'Logically speaking, everything points to Iran supporting Kerry,' said Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad.

"'If Bush is re-elected it will be on a platform of a radical strategy to democratize the Middle East, if necessary by force. At least what Kerry has hinted at provides the possibility for Iran to get out of this deadlock, to buy some more time.'

"Conservative strategist Amir Mohebian, who advises some of Iran's top policymakers, agreed.

"'We prefer Kerry because he favors diplomatic methods rather than pressure. Iran is better off if he wins,' he told Reuters."

His preference underscores the changes Bush has made to U.S. foreign policy -- changes that moved away from accommodating tyrannical, terrorist-sponsoring regimes (something that "realists" like Jonathan Clarke and Stephan Halper still favor, as does Kerry) to confronting them and advocating regime change. Reuters continues:

"Iran has tended in the past to favor the pragmatic, business-oriented style of Republicans over Democrats who were perceived as more pro-Israel and tougher on human rights."

Yet: "But Bush's presidency marked a watershed in Iranian thinking.

"'Going into the last election Iran strongly favored Bush,' said Siamak Namazi, managing director of Atieh Bahar Consulting.

"Not only was Bush a Republican but he was from an oil state, Texas, and his running mate Dick Cheney was linked to an oil company, Halliburton, with large business interests in Iran.

"'But that was before Sept. 11, the emergence of the neo-conservatives and the "axis of evil" speech. That stood the pro-Republican theory on its head,' [emphasis added] said Namazi."

Which is to say, historical events changed Bush's perception of the world and of that region. New times called for new approaches to old problems that had been underestimated in previous decades. The left, ever reactionary, now embraces the "realist" policy that gave us 9/11 -- liberty be damned.

Terrorists in Iraq and Iran's mullah's want to see Bush defeated. Doesn't that resonate here at home? I'll bet that it does.