A fairly straightforward question - it will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with anything truly insightful. I'm afraid mine are pretty obvious.

Signs the War on Terror is going well.

1. Multiple Middle-Eastern nations moving toward pluralism & tolerance. (Iran hopefully soon, who will be next?)

2. Forces of moderation emerging among the Palestinians and gaining real political influence.

3. A true Arab success story (hopefully Iraq). By this I mean a country embracing some basic free market principals, and rapidly becoming prosperous relative to their neighbors - an "Arab tiger", if you will.

Signs the War on Terror is not going well.

1. More terrorist attacks - particularly if they are supported by states claiming plausible deniability and getting away with it.

2. The dictators in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. using the war on terror as an excuse to "crack down" when the real intent is simply to strengthen their grip on power. We will never win the hearts and minds of their people if this is how this plays out.

3. The cynics being proven right. Ethnic fighting or civil war in Iraq and Afghanistan "prove" that democracy in the Middle East is a quixotic fantasy.

Signs the War on Terror is going well:

1. Serious reform of the Pakistani education system combined with successful diplomatic engagement with India to defuse Kashmir as a major issue. Once Kashmir is taken care of, the byzantine domestic Pakistani considerations of maintaining the two dozen or so jihadi outfits will no longer apply and can be crushed in turn by the current military government there. Ideally, Musharraf will eventually relinquish power after a decade or so or will retain the position of Maximum Leader until his death, after which time a new Pakistani democratic system can be formalized.

2. A grassroots resurgence of traditional Sunni Muslim orthodoxy against innovations introduced by Wahhabism over the last 200 years ranging from the idea of military jihad as an individual rather than state duty, an end to the "fatwa shop" mentality, and above all else the formulation of a moderate counter-ideology that will serve to at the very least marginalize the kind of anti-Semitic and anti-Western mantras that are currently all too familiar in the Arab world.

3. The establishment of a successful democratic government in Iraq that respects both ethnic and religious pluralism. Once preliminary reconstruction efforts are completed, the US should serve to protect the moderate Shi'ite clergy like Ayatollah Sistani and others in An Najaf and Karbala to serve a counter-balance to the Khomeinists in Qom.

Signs the War on Terror is not going well:

1. Simultaneous non-conventional nuclear attacks by al-Qaeda using bombs supplied by rogue elements in Pakistan, VEVAK in Iran, or purchased from North Korea in US, European, and possibly Russian and India cities. The kind of total war envisioned by Michael Totten ensues.

2. Al-Qaeda successfully triggers a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Pakistani state is destroyed in the aftermath and India suffers heavy casualties. Millions die and the end-result is that al-Qaeda makes off with a sizeable chunk of Pakistan's nuclear assets.

3. France's efforts to ban headscarves combined with rising xenophobia stirred up by Monsieur le Pen's National Alliance (among others) caused the Algerian immigrant population in France to begin a full-scale Islamist insurrection that quickly spreads to other countries.

Is this a request to provide the "metric" referenced in Rumsfeld's famously leaked memo?

Kevin

signs that we are actually fighting a war on terror

1) bush gets shitcanned
2) bush gets sent to the hague for his war crimes
3) bush gets hung like the nazi he is

signs that the war on terror isn't going well

1) bush gets to continue his war for oil for another four years
2) the zionist occupiers in isreal don't get buried under radioactive debris
3) anyone but Dennis Kuchinich wins the DEMOCRAT nomination

Oh dear Glynda you forgot to take your medicine didn't you?

Most, but no means all, of the earlier suggestions would be useful metrics. I might add:

Going Well:

• Capture or confirmed death of Osama bin Laden. Not as big in the geopolitical sense, but an important morale milestone.

• Reduced European (France, Germany, Russia) interference in the WoT due to general world consensus that its having positive effects (like Libya.)

Not going well:

* Any nuclear detonation, anywhere.

• North Korea flips out. These last to are fairly self evidently bad, I think.

• American casualties begin to mount - if we start sustaining over a hundred a month, say - it means were doing something seriously wrong, and in all likelihood the American public will pull the plug on the endeavor.

I find it interesting that the same head can contain the thought that Bush is a Nazi deserving a warcrimes trial and a hanging, and advocate a second (radioactive) holocaust. Just sayin'...

Going Well: (GW's)

(1) Arafat expelled from Israel / "Palestine", and no other Arab state will accept him. He winds up in Paris...

(2) Plot against westernized Asian/Pacific nation is foiled. Even if assets used in discovering or foiling said plot are "blown", a success in this theater is necessary to show the "globalization" of the war.

(3) A small conflict (scale of Somalia/Grenada) is settled by U.S. military intervention, establishing that the U.S. forces can, indeed, walk and chew gum at the same time. Possible venues: Haiti, Ivory Coast, backsliding Bosnia/Kosovo conflict.

Horrible Developments (HD's)

(1) Afghanistan suffers attack that kills many in their new government/parliment.

(2) Iran suffers a "Tiannenn Square".

(3) Smallpox/anthrax/Ebola type outbreak anywhere, even if claimed to be "natural".

I have actually written about this elswhere (it's on http://www.nowarblog.org/ somewhere). The key error that most pro OR anti war people make is not making specific predictions BEFORE the events themselves (i'm sorry but predictions post facto don't count). So there are no criteria for success or failure, so everyone ends up convinced that they are right. (incidentally real predictions have to have a date attached too, otherwise you will be able to claim that 'well how do you know it won't happen soon?')
I have making predictions because the future is inherently unpredictable, and because i'm not a fortune teller. The following should be viewed, therefore, as deeply ironic....and i'm well aware that events will almost certainly make all these predictions look ridiculous in a few years....so it goes. Nevertheless....
Signs the war on terror is going well:

1: A reasonably functioning democracy in Afghanistan by (say) 2007

2: A democracy or form of it, and avoidance of civil war in Iraq...2007 for the first, and let's say 2010 for the second...these things take time

3: Capturing of Osama bin Laden (anytime). Actually this is irrelevant but would be a huge propoganda boost.

Signs it isn't going well.

1: Another massive attack (on the scale of September 11 or greater) on Europe/USA in the next few years.

2: Civil war in Iraq with collaboration of Iraqi 'resistance' or others with Al-Quaeda/Palestinian militants/Taleban etc. etc. forming new alliances

3: Another medium sized/large country falling to radical Islamists sympathetic to Al-Queda, again, say by 2010.

1:

Sign it's going well:

1. An increased focus on imams, measuring their opinions,

2. A general improvement of the % of imams who believe suicide terrorism is banditry that leads to hell and not jihad that leads to heaven.

Going well,

The popularity of Jew hatred around the world declines.

Poorly,

The opposite.

Some bad signs of non-trivial possibility:

1. US troops are the only thing keeping Iraq from a three- (or more-) sided civil war (minimum Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, Kurds). Even worse, the war begins, with everyone shooting at the GIs so that after they're forced out, they can turn on each other.

2. The various factions in Iran (including the 'reformers') establish support of Hizbollah and other Middle East terror organizations as a marker of authenticity, and, for domestic political advantage, begin to vie with each other over their commitments to these groups. (Something much like this overran the Palestinian polity.)

3. (and this appears to be happening...) Return of Afghanistan to a failed state status, in which some of the warlords who control the countryside allow Al Qaeda to return as long as their infrastructure remains out of sight and they stay out of internal Afghan politics. (No return to explicit Taliban government required.)

4. Pervez Musharraf is assassinated or overthrown.

Here are some good things, most of which I think are unlikely.

1. Extending control of the Karzai government to the provinces. One excellent measure is whether he is able to collect taxes and duties, which so far he can not.

2. Democratic reform of the Saudi government, including an effective and popular purge of the religious fanatics. Note, undemocratic suppression doesn't count; the fanatic wing is probably more dangerous underground.

3. Death of Arafat from natural causes and his successor willingly enters into negotiations to move the Sharon Fence closer to the Israeli Green Line in return for demilitarizing the Palestinian state (including non-state groups).

I'm skipping the obvious, like a WTC-type attack or the capture of Bin Laden.

Here's one specific development - a woman being named to a high profile position, such as foreign minister, in one of the Arab countries - take your pick, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, UAE, etc.

I think the key will be Iran. I will be watching what happens there in the next few years as a good indication of how the WoT is doing.

Hmmm. Great challenge.

(I write this in Word, not having read any comments yet, jes fer kix)

I’d say –

1) The BIG picture here is “draining the swamp”, i.e. radical change in the way Arab regimes do business. Milestones, pretty much in chronological order –

a) Stability and sane government in Iraq

b) Effective agitation for same by other Arabs and Iranians

c) A Palestinian state, that the departure of Hussein gives Israel the leeway to allow.

d) Free press and power transition procedures in Egypt, Syria, Saudi, etc.

Outside the Middle East

e) Stronger confrontation by free societies of Islamic fascists, whether in their homes or abroad

f) Structural changes in the UN which will essentially dis-empower if not kick out non-representative governments

g) An end to North Korea’s psychopath-ocracy

h) A growing, global, intellectually based leftish opposition to, if not Leftism per se, opposition to it’s unfathomable alliances with tyrants, again and again and again.

2) Signs of losing.

a) Any ascension of Islamist government, in Pakistan, post-Saudi…Arabia, etc.

b) An electoral repudiation of Bush’s confrontation of fascism

c) Major terrorist successes, obviously

d) European caving to Islamist threats, and further distancing them from US, likely killing NATO

" 1. Name 1-3 specific developments around the world that you would see as indications that significant progress was being made in the War on Terror."

Collapse of the Mullahcracy in Iran and replacement by true democratic institutions and an open, free society, preferably through "Velvet Revolution" (as in Eastern Europe). The fall of the "original Islamic Government" would show that such theocracy is not the wave of the future.

2) The appearance of a genuine "Moderate Faction" of some strength in the Arab World. By this I mean more than a few intellectuals (that exists already and would form the seed of such an event), but consist of outspoken popular reaction against Wahabbism, and would include a large faction of Moslem clerics. The emergence of a vocal, outspoken "Moderate Faction" has obvious benefits. I do believe that there are a large number of moderates and would-be moderates, but most of them are intimidated into silence. Speaking up and organizing would certainly show the direction has changed.

3) Serious reform in Saudi Arabia, moderation in tone and content of the theology they export. Uprooting of the worst elements of the House of Saud from positions of influence. This will likely involve a major internal struggle. There are some small signs that this could be begining, though at early stages. Again, obvious benefits if it involves a change in curriculums that the Saudis export to Madrasas.

As for bad signs, I'll post those in a bit.

I'll second Brendan's comment (2:42pm) that dates ought to matter in the prediction/metrics business. Though most Good and Bad criteria mentioned here probably could have "in the next few years, say by 2007" appended to them.

A second point is that those of us living in the Democracies can nudge our side to take, or not take, a given action. We have to remember that we don't have the ability to so affect the actions of our Enemies' organizations and states--their motives stem from their very different assessments of the Good. Wretchard of Belmont Club wrote (somewhere) the truism that every side in a conflict, no matter how strong, has weaknesses. Our opponents will seek to identify and exploit ours, and are sure to enjoy some significant successes over, say, the next three years.

Signs it's going well by 2007:

1. Emergence of Islamic voices willing to publically question the Salafist, Wahibbi, Qutb-based views of concepts like jihad, dar-al-Islam/dar-al-harb, dhimmitude, and the meaning of 'tolerance' in majority-Muslim and minority-Muslim countries.

2. Debate within the Islamic world about the ongoing Algerian civil war, specifically about the intentions of the Islamist side and the consequences of their campaign.

3. A turn away from the teaching of jihad (etc.) by the madrassas of Pakistan, Indonesia, and Western countries.

4. Iraqi optimism about the prospects for a democratic and prosperous Iraq.

5. Governmental reform in Iran.

Name 1-3 specific developments around the world that you would see as indications that significant progress was being made in the War on Terror. They must refer to events or milestones that haven't happened yet. For each, add a sentence or two explaining why it would matter in the big picture.

If and when we build a bridge over the Bearing Strait the threat of mass terrorism and totalitarianism will essentially be over. I guess that's not quite the question you asked, but such a bridge is not only powerfully symbolic, but would also effectively double the energy capacity of the world (assuming a massive super-conducting electical linkup is included). It, of course, won't be achieved until the terrorist threat becomes minimal, but since it would also bind and reinforce the world's economies the most troublesome economic inequality between north and south would be diminished: a prime mover of terrorism and totalitarianism. We will have ratcheted our way out of danger.

Name 1-3 specific developments around the world that you would see as indications the War on Terror was facing serious trouble and not just casual difficulties. They must refer to events or milestones that haven't happened yet. For each, add a sentence or two explaining why it would matter in the big picture.

1. One or several successful attacks using WMD, mostly because the West would be under powerful pressure to employ the "dominant solution" of total war.

2. The election of a "Copperhead" President and legislature in the US. I'm not sure under what conditions this is possible, but it's really the only way we'd lose the War in Iraq, which is really the crux of the attempted liberal vaccination of the patient. Such a development would also give the totalitarians enough respite to build parity, resulting in a far more deadly conflict later.

The number one indication that the war on terrorism is going well is that average moslems stop implicitly or explicitly defending terrorism and begin to see it as a tragedy. The number two indication that the war on terrorism is going well is that average Arabs start seeing their current situation as something that they have brought upon themselves, and decide that the solution is not to embrace some more reactionary and more violent brand of Islam. Once it occurs to the average Arab that they might need to appease Allah the all-compasionate by being, well, more compassionate then the whole system will start turning around.

But, I have no idea how to implement that sort of internal change by external means. You might as well ask me how to force the KKK to stop being racists, or how to force people to stop taking illegal drugs. But if the change doesn't occur, and instead, faced with another crisis of faith, the Arab people (and Islam as a whole) decide the solution is a even more militant and more zealous jihad, then it is entirely too possible that the only way to implement that sort of psychological change is to inflict upon the collective militants the sort of privation and experience inflicted upon the German and Japanese people in WWII. If that happens, then by definition, the current state of affairs will not be going well - however 'well' the war might be going from a military point of view.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'm not suggesting that the war on terror can be boiled down to a war on militant Islam. The war on terror can equally be considered a war on tyranny and terror enabling and terror supporting states. There are fronts in this war from South America to North Korea that have nothing directly to do with Islam.

I wholly reject that there are easy answers to this problem. I likewise wholly reject that this is problem that we could ignore. If we have not already passed it, then we are rapidly coming to a crisis point. That crisis point occurs when populations in which majorities or significant minorities openly declare that they 'love death more than they love life' also have access to nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine worked during the cold war in large part because the underlying assumption was that anyone with the technical capabilities to acquire nuclear weapons would be 'sane' by Western definitions of sanity. We knew that the Soviets were as terrified of the possibility of a nuclear exchange as we were.

That assumption is resting on increasingly shaky footing, and I think it is the eyes wide open recognition that it might be resting on shaky footing which lead to declarations about the Axis of Evil and the current war in Iraq - which must I'm afraid be seen as only a minor prelimenary engagement in a much longer and wider war. DO NOT GET ME WRONG THOUGH, I'm not saying that there is an inevitablity of more open conventional warfare of the type we saw in Iraq (and to a certain extent are still seeing). What I am saying is that one of the reasons for 'Iraq first' might well be that it was one of the few areas that lent itself to at least a partial solution by the conceptually compartively simple solution of (as the Pentagon calls it) 'heavy metal' warfare.

At present, I truly think that terrorism is supported because it is seen to be working.

For example, I get the strong impression that while the average Moslem disapproves of 9-11 as 'un-Islamic', he nevertheless holds the position that overall it was a good thing. Why? Because he believes that terrorism in general and 9-11 in particular encourages interest in his religion and leads to a higher rate of converts to the religion. The mark of success is (to them) 'how many converts is Islam making'. If Islam is growing, then everything is well in the 'House of Islam'. If Islam is in retreat, then it must be because the Moslems have failed to trust in Allah or have otherwise offended him with impious behavior. So, as long as Moslem believes that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, he can believe that this is evidence that Islamic terrorism is not a real problem.

For another, terrorism allows what are otherwise rather petty dictators who would probably be ignored on the world stage to exhert massive ammounts of international influence, gather to themselves a great ammount of what must be self-affirming prestige, and for the most part elicit large ammounts of international aid. This aid can either be overt, as in the case of the PLO's relations to the UN/EU or North Korea's blackmail of the US, or it can be covertly funneled in to 'support the cause' from charities in the West or from backers in Saudia Arabia or other oil states with wealthy aristocracies that are largely above the law. Also, terrorisms tools of the trade can be readily adopted to taking over highly profitable criminal operations like drug and weapons smuggling.

I'm a cynic by nature. I don't expect good things to happen. I would see a nuclear detonation on American soil as the tragic consequences of 50 years of failed US foreign policy (in everywhere from Korea to Iran) and failing to learn the most important lesson of the 20th century - wars must be well and truly finished, else they just go on and on. I would not see it as a sign that we are losing the War on Terror, but as a sign that we must give up on the course of moderation and mercy so far adopted (and which I approve of). But, OK, I'll do my best.

Signs We are Winning
1) Saudi Arabia undergoes a period of civil unrest, after which one of more progressive Princes ceases power in a coalition with the military and busness leaders. The result is an American style middle-class lead revolution, in which the middle class consolidates power by a hard crack down on the Wahabists clerics and their increasingly independent militias and enforcers. Saudi Arabia turns around its economic slide, and is therefore increasingly seen as a model in other states on the verge of failure - like Eygpt, Pakistan, and the newly constituted Iraq.

2) Pakistan signs a treaty with India affirming the line of control as the border between the two countries. Democracy is restored to Pakistan within 10 years, and between the carrot of prosperity and the stick of US nuclear intervention should the militants gain control of the nuclear arsenal, moderates win control of the legislative branch.

3) North Korea collapses internally and the South Korea nation is not overly economically harmed by the resulting war.

4) Reforms in Columbia continue, and the Columbians actually start insisting on honest mayors, governors, and other elected officials. Catholic clergy start speaking out against the sins of corruption and nepotism. The militias disarm. The economy begins to improve enough that rural farmers feel that the can earn a living by other than raising coke.

Signs We Are Losing
1) Appeasement becomes a politically popular strategy in the West as the growing demands of the War threaten people's comfort.

2) The civil war occurs in Saudia Arabia, but it is won by a Prince with the support of the hard-line militant clerics and the new King subsequently eases off the terrorist backers in the Kingdom forcing America to take an official stance on Saudi behavior.

3) The civil war in Pakistan becomes more general.

4) North Korea collapses internally and the resulting war devestates the South Korean economy.

But really, I think it is less about events than it is about will and attitudes.

Bad:

1) Escalating rather than de-escalating violence in Iraq, preventing democratic institutions from taking root. Obvious bad-sign that would derail further progress in this area and make people say "see, it wasn't worth trying, we shouldn't try stuff like that, it only makes the problem worse" and cause people to return to a fetish for "stability" (the dictatorial tyrant we know rather than an unknown mess).

2) Intifada/"Low-Level Insurgency"/endemic waves of terror attacks in France (cites), Holland, Germany, UK, and/or U.S. from a persistent segment of the Moslem communities in those nations. Would clearly show things going in the wrong way and likely result in very ugly backlashes and conflict.

3) A Nuking or other major attack creating large casualties. The thing we're trying to avoid and a rather obvious "bad sign" that doesn't need much explaination. Such a success would probably improve the morale in the terror networks and cause an upsurge in recruitment, as well as potentially causing a "disproportionate response" on our end. Not a "Happy Ending" for obvious reasons.

• The Syrian and/or Iranian regimes are replaced with civilized governments, with or without American military action.
• Iraqis resolve their differences peacefully and form a democratic government.
• Saudi government goes postal on their Islamonazis, with popular support.
• U.A.E continues its policies of liberalization and modernization, becoming the real beacon and example for the Arab world.
• Afghan central government starts to get real control over the provinces.

• Musharraf is replaced by an Islamonazi sympathizer.
• Civil war in Iraq.
• President Bush defeated in 2004 (shows a lack of will to continue the WOT).
• A string of successful terror attacks on American soil.

1. the world realizes the vision of bush is the way to go. we rule and control everything from marriage, what god to worship, what to wear, what to watch.

this is already happening just be patient.

1. nasty reality that the world is very complex comprised of many different views all of equal credibility. the empire mythical vision of world dominance is crushed by a collective nation state resistance to american pie and lilly white christianity. twilight empire.

Most lillies are not white.

Thanks cheesy, for defening the stoning of women who have been raped.

Going well...

Saudi Arabia is invaded by US and its' allies. All mullahs are praying in Guantanamo.

Going bad....

Bush loses in November.

Going well:

1) Afghanistan still stable - it won't be democratic or have a 'civil society' as we expect it anytime soon, but a stalemate among the warlords as opposed to a civil war wouldbe good.

2) Moderate (secular) forces in Saudi come out on top after the death of King Fahd; brief civil war is won without Western intervention.

3) Egypt - not sure what needs to happen here, but I keep thinking that is a 'moderate' strain of Islam is going to appear, it'll appear here.

Going badly:

1) Two or more major actions by AQ;

2) Afghanistan in a bloody civil war;

3) Wahabbi extremists win is Saudi - or lose with Western intervention.

A.L.

Oh no, FH. Muslims don't stone rape victimm, anymore. They just give them 100 lashes. Isn't it wonderful how enlightened the Muslim world is becoming?

Riyadh delenda est!

Dear Joe,

As you can tell from the range of responses you've received this is a very thought provoking question. Before I give my responses I'd like to give a few comments on the previous responses.

First, although it would be tragic, I don't believe a second major terrorist attack against the U. S. within our borders would be a sign that the "war on terror" was running into trouble UNLESS there was a concomitant turn to pacifist or accommodationist policies. I do believe it would greatly increase the likelihood of a genocidal war.

Second, I think that the major changes listed in most responses e.g. Arab states become democracies, civil rights improvement, religious reform etc. are such long-term propositions (think fifty or a hundred years rather than three years) that they are useless for tracking progress in the "war on terror" in the near term. I'm going to try to limit my list to a few large or small things that might actually happen in the next year.

So, here's my list.

The "war on terror" is going well if:

1. Musharraff begins purge of Pakistani military, begins crackdown within "tribal" areas, or invites active U. S. military participation with Pakistani borders or all three.

2. Tony Blair continues to face no serious competition within his own party.

3. "Arab street" continues to do little more than whine.

The "war on terror" is going poorly if:

1. Musharraff is assassinated.

2. A candidate espousing pacifist or accommodationist policies is elected to the Presidency of the U. S. Unfortunately, this includes most of the Democratic candidates.

3. In one year we're stilling sitting around wondering what to do about North Korea.

Going well:

1. Global strategic realignment leaves US, Russia, Israel and India as partners/allies with China, Western Europe and the ME on the other side. This sounds bass-ackwards, but it isn't. We have to figure out who are friends are and who they aren't.

2. Another terrorist hotbed is invaded (e.g. Syria). Everyone gets the hint and there are no longer any nations willing to harbor terrorists (e.g. Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc).

3. CIA/FBI/NSA, etc are dramatically reformed. US intelligence abilities become a deterrant to terrorists and their state sponsors.

Going Poorly:

1. US enters into more agreements like the 1994 "Agreed Framework" with N. Korea. Reasons behind this should be obvious.

2. US crams a "Peace Plan" down the throats of the Israelis and Palestinians. How will we fight terror with one hand and reward it with the other?

3. US declares victory in the WoT, or one of its many battles (e.g. Iraq), within the decade. We won't know how things are going to go in Iraq for another 4 or 5 years, and that's one small piece of a very large puzzle. If we start declaring victory and disengaging it means we're tired of fighting, not that the job is done.

4. Extra Credit--US hands off any aspect of fighting the WoT to the UN. Again, obvious.

I put up a longish post re scenarios, not much indicators, over here:

http://www.pacificavc.com/blog/2004/01/16.html#a511

Ack! S/B:

....not so much as indicators...

Preview is your friend,....

A major sign the War on Terror is going poorly:

President Bush is not reelected in November of this year.

This is not a partisan prediction. It does not say that whoever were to replace Bush would necessarily fail in their prosecution of the War on Terror. It is explicitly a METRIC of how the War on Terror is doing by one point in time--the November, 2004, election. It measures what has happened BEFORE that time period, not what is likely to happen afterwards.

Honestly, if by whatever metric you define, the War on Terror is going well, can you see Bush NOT being reelected? This is the central issue in the campaign. Alternatively, if Bush is removed from office, that is very likely to be due to a popular perception that the War on Terror has gone poorly, due to a failure of leadership on his part.

This is a good short-term metric. Most of the others depend on specific progress in other countries that might not mature until 2007 or 2010. This one, though, is simple, binary, and proves its point, one way or the other, by the end of the year.

There are some good thoughts here. I came up with a

longish list, but ... We could tell if we were winning if the Saudi official theological position asserted the nobility and sanctity of manual labor and their official organs didn't mention jihad of the sword more than once a quarter. One sign we're losing would be if the triple "I divorce you" becomes law in the new Iraq.

GW
1) A state sponcered ( Iran, Syria) major terrorist attack in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2) Some of the mad Mullahs in Iran have "accidents"
3) Musharraff making it through the year alive.
Bonus
4) Unrest in Lebanon, North Korea and or Syria
GB
1) Pakistan civil war
2) Moderate Princes in Saudi Arabia having "accidents"
3) 'The Barbarian effect' the continuation of large scale emigration of populations (that would be needed to maintain Democracy in any country) out of the Middle East. Unfortunately the Barbarians will follow.

Shari'a imitates Steve Martin... or is it the other way 'round?

"You Americans are so naive. Like when you break up with a girl, it's a big deal. In my country, when a man wants to end a relationship, you go to her and says, "I break with thee, I break with thee, I break with thee" - and then you throw dog poop on her shoes.

So then when my brother and I go to the swinging singles bars, we look for the girls with the dog poop on their shoes." (Steve Martin, "Wild and Crazy Guy")

Signs the war on terror is going well:

1. Fewer than five Iraqi cops killed per month for three months.

2. India-Pakistan ceasefire continues through hot season in India (usually until May).

3. International observers declare Iraqi elections largely free and fair, if flawed.

4. Constitutional monarchy in Arabian peninsula; human rights brought up to level enjoyed in Malaysia.

Signs the war on terror is going badly:

1. Thousands of civilians killed in terror attack.

2. Intifada begins against US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

3. Martial law declared in Western nation. Bodies floating in the Seine.

Going well:

1. France and Germany keep their middle fingers fully erect, and continue raving about George Bush.

2. Howard Dean elected, on promise to withdraw from middle east, and build health clinics like Osama. This triggers a wave of building - Saudis build a parliament, Iraqis build a mass grave for remnants of Fedayeen, and Iran builds a city that meets code.

3. Osama found between election day and innauguration day, and also between a chunk of granite, and the floor of a cave.

Going badly:

1. France and Germany increase defense budget to a statistically significant portion of their respective budgets, pledge full support in the war on terror, accede to U.S. leadership in the war on terror, commit troops to an actual combat zone, and Howard Dean, victim of a 50 state landslide, admits that 'in my heart of hearts, I know we need to go through the middle east and parts of the far east like a dose of salts.

2. Pakistan orders a couple thousand radiation bibs, like your dentist uses when taking an X-ray - enough to outfit the upper echelon of their intel services. India follows suit about 10 minutes later. So does Israel, Iran, and Saudi. And North Korea. And some guy named Ahmed in Brooklyn.

3. Chinese dad talking to son in Northern China: "Yep, 220 million screaming Americans have promised to help us wipe out the Islamofascists who keep attacking the West, and slipping in and out of our hinterlands." Son: "I thought there were 280 million screaming Americans." Father: "There were son. There were."

Are we evaluating strategy or tactics or just luck? There is a decent chance that Musharaf gets assasinated regardless of how godd our overall execution of the War on Terror. There is a substantial chance that terrorists will acquire and use at least one nuclear weapon regardless of how well we are doing in Iraq. The correct analysis here is not to measure whether these events occur, but instead to anticipate the consequences of these sorts of events.

For example, if Musharaf is assasinated, a sign that things are going well would be that he is replaced by another non-wacko who uses tha assasination as an excuse for a crackdown on the Islamists in the ISI. A sign that things are going poorly is that Musharaf is replaced by someone who is outwardly friendly to the West but is actually secretly allied with the Islamists through whom he supplies nukes to terrorists.
Replacement by a non-closeted Islamist who declares war on the US would actually be less bad because it would then allow for simple preemptive "heavy metal" warfare to take control of Pakistan's nukes and perhaps the return of Pakistan to Indian control.

Good points, Alex.

"Return of Pakistan to Indian control"? With examples of Pakistanis I've met in Canada [mind you], I think that's too far fetched: Many of them casually told me that it's a good thing to be killed for your beliefs and your country. The independence of Pakistan based on Islam, is THE centrepiece of the Pakistani identity, and they are indoctrinated into that, either by Islamic tradition or by education.

Interestingly, there is only one mention of the word "Pakistan" in the recent state of the union speech, and even that is not what it is supposed to be. I don't like that at all:

Alex beat me to it about Musharraf. We've already seen two nearly successful attempts on his life. If they had been successful, would the underlying forces and reasons behind those attacks be any more powerful, or just more lucky?

Similarly, it's clear to me that another attack on American soil isn't necessarily representative of broader trends. There are terrorists desperately trying to slip one by us. If their numbers and bases of support (financial, for instance) dwindle, so should the chances of such an attack. But it could still happen. And cornered animals are often the most dangerous.

So I'd look to broader indicators, as Rumsfeld's memo suggested. Are the madrassahs growing or shrinking? Are median incomes rising in the Islamic world? Is a culture of self-criticism replacing the culture of victimhood? Are reformist movements in Iran, Syria, and Egypt gaining strength?

And so on and so forth.