An election day for Iraq without massive terrorist violence is certainly preferable to a violent one. But what explains the absence of attacks? Has the military campaign suddently become super-effective? Read this from Spencer Ackerman:

An excellent example of this dynamic comes from the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni organization. Its most prominent member, Saleh Mutlaq, led the Sunni delegation in drafting the constitution until its Shia-and-Kurd-centric provisions led him (and the rest of the Sunnis) to reject the document. Earlier this week, the Council urged the insurgency to allow the election to go forward:

We also call on the zealous, auspicious Iraqis, who dedicated themselves to defending their religion, homeland, and honor for the sake of God, to stop the jihadist operations against the occupation forces and their allied forces for five days, starting 13 December 2005. This is in order for them to prove to the entire world that they have a message and are seeking rights, and that they are neither rabble-rousers nor terrorists as they are described by the occupiers and their agents.

This is also in order for them to prove to their people that it is they who defend their rights and care about their interests. To prove this, they should respond to the people's wish to participate effectively in the elections and preserve their security and safety and the safety of the international observers tasked with monitoring the voting process.

Notice that the Council didn't say that as the Sunni parliamentarians stand up, the "zealous, auspicious Iraqis ... defending their religion, homeland and honor for the sake of God" should stand down. Instead, the Council basically said that after "five days" the Sunni insurgents can return to killing U.S. troops and "their allied forces"--that is, Shia and Kurds--as the new Sunni parliamentarians press the attack through different means.

Food for thought.