I HOPE THIS IS TRUE: A reader emails me a Stratfor analysis on Iraq strategy. I won’t reprint the whole thing, but here’s the key bit:

Whatever Kerry has had to say about Bush’s execution of the war in the past, he has made it clear that he will continue what Bush calls the “War on Terror” and that he will not abandon the war in Iraq.

This last is by far the most important thing to have emerged during the campaign from a geopolitical and strategic point of view. However much the candidates argue over who would be better at fighting the war, it has become clear that the war will go on regardless of who is elected or re-elected — and that that includes the Iraq campaign. Neither is promising a radical redefinition of the war. Each is claiming simply to be the more effective in executing the war.

Therefore, on this fundamental level, the election has become unimportant.

As I’ve noted repeatedly, I’m a single-issue voter. If I could be persuaded of this, I might be able to look at other things. I have to say, though, that I don’t have tremendous confidence in Kerry’s follow-through.

One other brief bit from a rather long analysis:

Since al Qaeda initiated the war, it is critically important to understand that it has completely failed to achieve its strategic goals. From a purely political standpoint, the war has thus far been a disaster for al Qaeda. At the same time, assuming that al Qaeda has not lost the ability to carry out operations, the United States has not yet secured the homeland from follow-on attack.

This seems right to me. As for the earlier part, well, I’d sure like to believe it.

UPDATE: It’s worth reading this piece on democracy in the mideast by Jackson Diehl, from today’s Washington Post, too. Sounds like “root causes” are being addressed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Many readers say that I shouldn’t rely on Stratfor. Fair enough — I haven’t followed their analyses, but those who say they have aren’t impressed. Meanwhile, reader Alexandre Leupin thinks their faith in Kerry is unjustified on the facts:

“As I’ve noted repeatedly, I’m a single-issue voter.”

I am too, in the sense that, if our security is not preserved, all the rest (freedom, prosperity, the rule of law, equality of women, etc) becomes meaningless.

I’d say I am a 1 1/2 issue voter, since I like the state confined to a reduced perimeter in my life. And here, W. Bush record is not good, he has tremendously expanded federal spending on domestic issues, excluding the needs of security and defense (understand that I would not object if he ratcheted defense spending up to 7% of GDP- the level at the heigth of the cold war – from the present 4%) . To me, on that point, Kerry would be only a bit worse.

Reading a lot about Kerry’s positions on defense (especially the piece in this sunday’s NYT magazine), I have come to the conclusion he is not a flip-flopper at all: since 1971, he is at his core, consistently, a pacifist, with a deep reluctance to projet US military might abroad and a hasty willigness to cut spending on defense. This comes without a doubt from his Vietnam experience. In other words, he is not fit to be commander-in-chief today, we are not in Vietnam anymore, Toto.

I’m afraid that’s how I see it too. I could be wrong of course — I’ve been wrong about Presidents, before, though usually in the direction of being disappointed, alas — but that’s how it looks to me.