Much the same is happening in Iraq right now. We have taken an ancient civilization, and rather than plundering, we are rebuilding, in order that we may show the advantage of a democracy over a thugocratic Islamic republic. Our success will demonstrate the inferiority of the other states in the region, shaking the foundations of their belief that their Islamic states will inevitably overcome us. The Islamic fundamentalists cannot allow this, and so Iraq is a target that must be attacked.
Thus, we have combined both strategies for drawing an attack: we have proffered a target, and threatened an attack which must be met. If our strategists are doing their jobs, which it seems they are, they must be prepared for an inevitable counter-attack, using tactics we've seen before: suicide bombings; truck bombs; attacks on civilians, schools, malls, homes; attacks using whatever weapons are at hand, the more widespread the damage the better. They will not be attacking the infrastructure of Iraq, except as a means to their real target.
Which is, as always, our will to fight. We cannot, as a nation, be beaten by a conventional force. We can, however, surrender. We can decide that the game is not worth the candle, that it is better to retreat, as we have before, behind our oceans and our borders, and ignore the fermentation in the rest of the world. I believe this to be a mistake. The fight, if we do not take it to them, will come to us; indeed, has come to us. Our choice is not between peace and war, but war on our terms or on theirs. I know which I would prefer.