I like the approach we're taking. Keeping it to what's needed, trying to get other nations to get in and help us out. Right now, al Qaeda and the Ba'athists might view the lack of a UNSC resolution about Iraq as an inducement to attack and further fracture what support Bush has. We get more foreign troops in there, scale our numbers down, it starts getting harder for al Qaeda (and whoever else) to attack an American. Then al Qaeda has to ask itself- how many more nations do I want to piss off by killing their soldiers? How many of my assets do I want to devote to Iraq (if I'm bin Laden) when American involvement is growing smaller, not larger?
The author doesn't mention Pakistan. That nation is going to come into the mix sooner or later as well. How do we target al Qaeda in Pakistan? You just know the Pentagon is cooking up something and that they also have some sort of contingency plan on stand-by in case it goes tits-up there and the fundies take Musharraf down.
The author does mention the elections and this is good. Al Qaeda gets a vote in the war and they certainly get a vote in the elections. I look for them to watch the political situation on the ground in America very closely. If they believe Bush is vulnerable to losing- they will try to cue their attacks in such a way as to help Clark or Dean or whoever Bush is facing come next November. Not such a big attack that everybody rallies around the Chief again but withering attacks. A steady stream of casualties for the American media and democrats to pontificate over. The democrats are, after all, more or less al Qaeda's best friend in America.
The President needs to have Iraq looking presentable come next year. Maybe not 100% ready to walk baby democracy, but at least with its hair combed, the dirt washed from behind the ears and able to sit still in polite company...