Is the "war on terror" lost? UK troops (as part of NATO ARRC ISAF) are likely to rotate from Iraq into Afghanistan to "finish the job" of 2001/2002. This will leave a security gap in Iraq. Will the US fill this - perhaps making things worse? No-one else will! Where will further troops come from? More reservists? Can the Iraqis take over security? The South Vietnamese did three decades ago in a similar situation! The US admit publicly that the insurgency is delaying reconstruction. As a lack of reconstruction fuels support for insurgency, then this is a vicious cycle! Will Iraq descent into irretrievable chaos? Can Afghanistan be stabilised? Have inept attempts to curb poppy cultivation caused unrest that could lead to an uprising? Dubya only has 2 years left to make the best of a bad job before the Republicans need to pick a successor. Will the "war on terror" be a campaign issue? Will the US public be pro, anti or bored? What will a post-Dubya US do? Will it pull the troops back and adopt an isolationist stance? Where did it go wrong? I would say with Iraq - an invasion was unnecessary. This led to premature withdrawal from Afghanistan with the consequences we now see. Even if it is accepted for arguments sake that Iraq was a necessary target, then the timing of military action was appalling (spring is followed by summer north of the Equator) and it went ahead in the face of widespread international opposition. The occupation has been handled in the most inept manner possible and this is wholly the fault of the politicians and senior officials in the US and UK who mostly remain in their jobs or who have been promoted in some cases.