The idea that American and Iraqi interim government forces are pounding Iraqi pockets of disaffection into submission in the name of holding elections in January doesn't quite ring true.

Iraqi deaths -- in Samarra, apparently nearly subdued during the weekend; in U.S. bombing raids on Fallujah, another Sunni center of resistance; in Baghdad itself in Shiite and other areas of the city; and in Mosul in the north -- are adding up at a formidable rate. U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in September stood at 80, a number that has risen steadily each of the past four months.

The Bush administration says the reason for the joint U.S. and Allawi forces' offensive now is to put as much of the country under the control of the interim government and the United States as possible in advance of the Iraqi elections, scheduled for January.

The proposition that one can prepare the way for successful elections by systematic assaults on significant urban areas of a country is dubious, to say the least. It comes close to the Vietnam-era concept that critics of the war used to call killing for peace.

A better approach would have been to increase greatly economic development aid in the troubled areas. Instead, $3.5 billion intended for reconstruction in Iraq was recently shifted to security.

It's worth asking if the stepped-up military campaign isn't timed instead to the American elections. A blazing, resistant Iraq stands in stark contrast with the picture that President Bush is putting forward in his political campaign of American success and Iraqis longing for freedom and democracy.

The trouble is, first, that the military approach won't work if the goal is successful, peaceful elections. As sympathetic a friend of the United States as King Abdullah II of Jordan said last week that he believes elections in Iraq in January are "impossible." It is hard to imagine that successful elections could be held three months from now in places like Samarra, Fallujah, Najaf and Sadr City in Baghdad, bombed and shelled into submission only weeks before.

The second problem is that American soldiers and many more Iraqis -- insurgents, Allawi government forces and civilians, including children -- continue to die in the fighting.

If the justification for the current military campaign is to narrow the gap between the sunny picture Mr. Bush is presenting and the gloomy reality of the place, to counteract criticism from Mr. Kerry, that is not a good reason. Losing American and Iraqi lives to make a campaign point is both repugnant and completely unacceptable.

If Iraq isn't going to be ready for elections in January, which appears to be the case, the administration should say so. It is definitely not worth killing hundreds of people to be able to claim that it is.