Your response was a nice attempt to address my concern that the Administration has diverted resources from from the Qaeda War to an Iraqi quagmire. You also state that Iraq, coupled with Afghanistan, is one of two fronts in the War on Terror. You insist the effort in Iraq was deemed necessary in order to prevent another calamitous terrorist attack at home. It was determined thus, you say, "shortly after September 11, 2001."

Two days before your letter to me, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on pre-war intelligence. Despite their shortcomings, the report conceded analysts were correct in one regard: economic sanctions were weakening Hussein's ability to threaten regional stability. "The body of assessments showed that Iraqi military capabilities had steadily degraded following defeat in the First Gulf War in 1991. Analysts also believed those capabilites would continue to erode as long as economic sanctions remained in place." Whatever your opinion of the Iraqi quagmire, contemporary evidence indicates the "threat" could have been contained until the Qaeda War reached its conclusion. It would have been nice if President Bush had heeded the advise of the greatest Republican. "One war at a time," Lincoln told Seward. "One war at a time."

In order to demonstrate an ongoing effort to successfully prosecute the Qaeda War, you cite an appropriations request for $977 million dollars. Your itemization indicates most of this money has been reserved for infrastructure enhancement. Personally I have little patience for nation-building nor do I view this effort part of the Qaeda War. An attempt to establish a Western-style democracy that respects women's rights and religious tolerance in an area whose tribal culture opposes all of the above seems both foolish and expensive. Our interest in Afghanistan should remain simple. If they stay out of international terrorism, then we'll stay out of their internal affairs.

If you really wish to prevent another calamitous terrorist attack at home, then you will insist that the Administration step up its efforts in the Qaeda War. While the Bushian sabre was drawn to strike Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda remained the group most likely to conduct a calamitous attack. The Bush Administration just conceded that al Qaeda was able to replenish its ranks with new recruits despite our efforts to destroy the network. To explain that phenomena we must understand Osama bin Laden and his appeal.

Bin Laden resonates throughout the Muslim world because his rhetoric is drawn directly from Islamic tenets. Each Muslim has a personal responsibility to defend the faith and his fellow Muslims. Void of religious credentials, he never possessed the authority to call jihad. Instead he successfully argued that Islam is under attack by the United States. To make his case, he demonstrated that the U.S. supports both Israel and apostate Islamic governments (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, et al), it sanctioned Pakistan for its efforts to acquire the very same weapon possessed by India, it demands that Islamic governments control and track contributions to Islamic charities, and it now occupies the three most holy places of Islam. Bin Laden's case is not without substance. As a result too many Muslim's have already joined his effort to defend the faith.

Islam is not simply a religion. As Bernard Lewis demonstrated, it is an identity that transcends nations. The spiritual basis of his political thought allows him to connect with over a billion Muslims on a personal level. This does not mean even a small minority of Muslims will heed his call to defend the faith, but it does provide al Qaeda with a large and diverse pool from which to recruit. Indeed its ranks are filled with Muslims from throughout the world. The cooperation of such diverse people is so intense, that -- despite nearly three years of effort -- we have not been able to capture a 6'5" ethnic Arab living among Pashtuns, Tajiks and Uzbeks.