Since it is clear that the war will continue regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, it is time to focus on the single most important strategic issue facing the United States: the size and composition of the U.S. armed forces. Unless jihadist opposition throughout the Islamic world ends suddenly, which is unlikely, the war will continue for several years. The U.S. military, however, is in no position to continue fighting the war with current forces — particularly Army and Marine forces. Therefore, something has to give. To be more precise, there will be a massive increase in the size of the U.S. military in 2005.

During the two debates held so far, we have learned three things. First, that George W. Bush never made a mistake. Second, that John Kerry would never have made any of the mistakes Bush made, and that he does not intend to make any mistakes in the future. Third, and most important, that there is precious little substantial disagreement between the two candidates on war strategy going forward. 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.

For the first time in history, oil prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange breached the $50 a barrel barrier on the back of the threat of supply disruptions in Nigeria, a new expatriate assassination in Saudi Arabia and leftover damage from Hurricane Ivan.

Last week, we analyzed the U.S. presidential elections in terms of foreign expectations, merely touching on the internal dynamics of the election. This week, it is time to bite the bullet and analyze the U.S. election as we would analyze any other — on its own terms.

For better or worse, the United States is now the center of gravity of the international system. It is the most powerful country politically, economically and militarily. Therefore, any change in political leadership can have a profound effect on every country in the world. This is a fact that is both universally resented and the fundamental reality in the world today.

he U.S.-jihadist war is now nearly three years old. Like most wars, its course has been an unfolding surprise. It is a war of many parts — some familiar, some unprecedented. Like all wars, it has been filled with heroism, cowardice, lies, confusion and grief. As usual, it appears to everyone that the levels of each of these have been unprecedented. In truth, however, very little about this war is unprecedented — save that all wars are, by definition, unprecedented. Only one thing is certain about this war: Like all others, it will end. The issue on the table on the third anniversary is: What is the current state of this war, and how will it end?

Late Friday night, the FBI leaked to the media that an Israeli mole had been caught within the Office of Special Plans (OSP), an analytic and intelligence team inside the Defense Department. Within hours, the suspected mole was identified as Lawrence Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst seconded to OSP, and a specialist in Iranian affairs. According to the leaks, Franklin had passed classified information to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is a powerful lobbying group on behalf of Israel. In addition, it was made clear that Franklin had been under investigation for a year because he had had extensive contacts with the Iranians and had — in some way — provided Israel with information concerning U.S.-Iranian intelligence.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr have reached an agreement to end the standoff in An Najaf, putting in place a cease-fire, providing for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the city and the Mehdi Army from the Imam Ali shrine. With al-Sadr’s forces isolated — and with no other Shiite forces coming to their rescue, and the Iranians backing away and making it clear they never supported him and never provided him with assistance — such a deal was almost inevitable.

Of the many things that were included in the 9/11 Commission’s report, perhaps none was more significant in the long run than its criticism of the name the Bush administration has given the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001: the war on terrorism. The report argued that the idea of a struggle against an enemy called “terrorism” was too vague to be meaningful. It argued that the administration should shift away from fighting a “generic” evil and more precisely define the threat — the threat from al Qaeda and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world that “is gathering and will menace Americans and American interests long after” Osama bin Laden is gone.

The FBI has ratcheted up its counterterrorism intelligence collection efforts as the U.S. presidential elections draw nearer, and both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security remain highly concerned that an attack could come at anytime.