By Yasmin Anwar
Advertiser Editorial Writer

At a recent Washington D.C.-area seminar titled "Who's Winning the War on Terror?" the scorecard was about as clear as a Florida punch-card ballot during the 2000 election.

But between the thoughtful analysis and shameless propaganda, a few "knowns" emerged.

We know there's a post-war effort to democratize Iraq, which we are either pulling off or bungling, depending on who's doing the talking.

We know there's a push to win hearts and minds in the Arab/Muslim world, which we are losing sorely, according to the polls.

And we know there's a war on terrorism, which is like trying to lasso an army of jellyfish.

What we don't know is whether there's a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Not one senior Pentagon official or think-tank wonk at the seminar was able to make that case.

In fact the connection today is about as illuminating as the response Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave at a news conference last year when asked about reports that there were no known links between al-Qaida and Iraq:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know," Rumsfeld said. "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

A more concrete answer can be provided by Army Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, deputy director for the War on Terrorism, who told us Iraq earned the bull's-eye because of its "state-sponsored terrorism."

But what about our so-called ally, Saudi Arabia, whose royal family pays handsome sums to Wahabi mullahs to keep the status quo? Where do you suppose that money is going? And while we're on the subject of state-sponsored terrorism, how about Iran and Syria?

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former FBI analyst in counterterrorism operations, calls Saudi Arabia "the epicenter of terrorism financing."

So what are we doing in Baghdad? We can't possibly still be looking for weapons of mass destruction.

It's no secret that the neocons who wooed George W. with the promise of a new world order had Saddam's demise at the top of their to-do list.

Saddam is not a nice man. Many suffered under his ruthless regime. But I would have pegged him as more of a Scotch, Viagra and torture type than a jihadi.

And if there were no "holy warriors" flocking to Iraq before the war, there certainly are now. U.S. troops are dodging suicide bombers and Yankee-go-home resistance in the Sunni triangle, and there's no relief on the horizon.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, estimates the U.S. occupation will last at least five more years.

That's not to say that many Iraqis don't appreciate American intervention. For many Kurds, it was like winning the lottery.

"We have freedom now," said Raz Rasool, a Kurd raised in Baghdad who founded the Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq.

And that's music to the ears of neocons like Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense and policy and co-author of the 1996 paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which advised the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

He told us the Bush administration had no choice but to "take the war to the terrorists to preserve our way of life."

Let me point out that way of life, post 9/11, includes arriving at the airport at least two hours before takeoff, and waddling in threadbare socks through the security checkpoint, clutching photo IDs and boarding passes.

Authorities can check what we take out of libraries and video stores, and detain "suspected terrorists" without probable cause.

If our coveted democratic values are disintegrating in the name of security, then it seems to me the terrorists have won the first round hands-down.