The intent of the bombings, and of the sporadic clashes in Fallujah is to reignite the conflict that has damaged the coalition and its political will. It is here that the hard core forces are attempting to demonstrate that the coalition is, indeed, muscle bound and dangerous. The guerilla wants to provoke a disproportionate response: he wants the occupier or organized military to do more damage looking for a few guerillas, and thus become labelled "equally criminal". The legitimate military cannot ever be placed as being "equal" with guerillas, it undermines the entire source of legitimacy. If the organized polity is seen as "just the largest faction", it removes the very basis for the argument that it is "winning". And the sense of inevitable and inexorable victory is what sustains any government against violent opposition.

Thus it is no accident that, just as a truce seemed at hand - based on US money diplomacy - these attacks took place, and took place in Basra, where the Iraqi security forces have made deals with the British occupation force. The intent is to divide Iraqis between pro- and anti- occupation, a line of cleavage which overwhelmingly favors the violent factions.

The goal at this point of the guerillas is to score some large success: as predicted in these pages, one of their targets is the Abu Ghraib prison complex, where they are using clumsy mortar fire in an attempt to blast the walls down and create the possibility of a mass prison break. Another would be the shooting down of a US troop carrying craft. Since the international airport is close to the prison complex, holding this suburb of Baghdad serves to advance both aims. But to hit an aircraft requires anti-aircraft missiles.

It is also for this reason that the tendrils of smuggling and dirty money are reaching ever further into the rest of the world in search of weapons.. Including what is right now the most valuable tool in the guerilla arsenal: the shoulder fired, heat seeking, anti-aircraft missile. Missiles of this type - the updated SAM-7 or Igla and Stinger - were core in Afghanistan, simply because they put the guerilla within reach of the great advantage of the occupier: air mobility. It strikes at the vulnerable phase of the occupier, and creates the capacity for spectacular body count - Chechens brought down a Russian troop helicopter with 118 aboad, all of whom died.

In short, the US has been using massive bombing to roll up the body count - and slaughter civilians - but it has not touched either the military or terrorist wings of the violent opposition. Both still maintain operational cohesion, indicating that we have been chewing on firepower fodder - but not attacking the leadership, nor destroying their ability to operate.

For this reason there is an increasing perception that the US military strategy in Iraq is unsound. This perception, should it reflect on the political leadership, will crack the will to remain in Iraq. The cost for leaving will not be as severe as the crowish would have us believe. Long term, any Iraqi government will want AlQaeda and the rest of the terrorists out. However, they will, equally, want the foreign ownership of their country, and Versailles-esque reparations removed. The US is holding on, not because of terrorism, or the threat of instability, but because of the desire for profit. The guerillas know it, and that is why they continue to hunt down and kill businessmen in Iraq - a Dane was found dead yesterday - and attack the sinews of security.

The arab peoples know it - which is why our "ally" states, such as Egypt - are now turning against the US.

This progressive isolation of the US, and the increasingly expensive need to ship billions to Iraq for mercenaries, will only end with an overwhelming repudiation of the current executive. This is not yet in the offing in US electoral politics. This is, indeed, the hope of the current executive - to force the quagmire of their creation on the next executive - as the mishandling of Iraq after the first gulf war was forced on Clinton - and use this as an argument to take power again later.