Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

It is unpleasant to think about, but the world is a very corrupt place. In international politics and diplomacy, corruption is the primary currency. In the last six months, this has been highlighted like never before. It has always been there, it has simply become far more visible. A lot of the credit goes to the explosion of information accessibility through the blogosphere and other internet connections.

Just to mention the most visible of recent examples of this corruption we have the Oil-for-Food scandal, French oil contracts in Sudan, and the UN complicity, along with Russia’s, in the 380 tons (or was it 3 tons) of explosives which may be missing from Iraq.

These are examples which have managed to bubble to the surface. They are examples of the rule rather than exeption. Saddam Hussein spent a great deal of his country’s capital buying off various politicians and diplomats. In the larger world outside the US, the political class view such activity as standard business practice. Which is one reason they view Bush with suspicion and disdain. He isn’t playing the game according to their well-established rules–rules that would simply enrich him and others in his Administration if he would just play nice.

Our State Department understands the rules. They prefer to play the game. A healthy retirement income awaits any diplomat who steers the US government in the right direction. Even someone of strong ethics like Colin Powell has difficulty in herding those cats. They know that the Administration will change every eight years at most, and they can simply return to International Rules.

The focus today remains on Saddam, but there are plenty of others out there concerned that they might be next. Baksheesh has already been rendered. Continued payment requires that the UN, and others who know how the game is played, put hurdles in the way of any US action. There are plenty of “leaders” around the world who know their power lies not in a mandate of their citizens, but in the good graces of Kofi Annan.

Any time someone mentions diplomacy, you must consider this.

Robert Mugabe and Kim Jung Il do.

…and the UN out of the US. I don’t see how we can draw any other conclusion. The UN is staffed by the hoi polloi of the international set, and live the good life in New York at the expense, primarily, of US taxpayers. They seem to view us as serfs, as they do their own countrymen.

During the Cold War, the UN actually served a function–to lend credibility to disputes between the First World and Second World. It became the forum for the Third World to exert some influence, although that influence was limited by the authority of the main players: France, China, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States, the five surviving governments of WW II. France often sided with their socialist brethren.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the UN became more a sounding board for dictators hoping to fill the void. And it became a vehicle for “restraining” the last remaining super-power. The drive for a European Government is being championed by the same people who believe a World Government is the best of all possible outcomes. Any sign of strength in the US is viewed as a threat.

Big Trunk points out what I view as the final straw:

…collusion between foreign entities, the MSM, and the Democratic Party to change U.S. policy through disinformation.

The foreign entities, including Britain’s Guardian, are mostly in the UN. Kofi Annan and many others, including his son, apparently made millions off the Oil-for-Food Program which Dubya so rudely ended. Kofi himself has made his contempt for our President known. Others have been more reluctant to go on the record, perhaps out of fear they’ll end up back home rather than in the Big Apple. But they speak in whispers, and those sounds come through clearly, if only anonymously.

The latest issue, to which Big Trunk alludes, is detailed in two articles he cites. In the first, Clifford May makes it clear that people in the UN want Bush gone, and will do what they can to help CBS, The New York Times, and the Kerry campaign unseat him. And they are using what may be imaginary stockpiles of explosives to try.

In a related article, Dr. Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation, points the finger at the nuclear watchdogs at the UN:

There is certainly no shortage of tensions between the IAEA and the Bush Administration. Since U.N. inspectors led by Hans Blix were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of the U.S.-British liberation of the country in 2002, relations between the IAEA and the U.S. government have been stormy. The United States has consistently opposed the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq, despite repeated requests, and has been critical of the IAEA

Today, Ralph Peters addresses the concerns of a friend of his who is now in Iraq. No, he doesn’t fear for his safety. He fears for the conclusion of our efforts in Iraq.

He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.

This fight in Iraq is but a single battle in the overall war against fundamentalists who use terror as their primary weapon. The reason for using terror is to get their enemy to give up–quit fighting. They will then be free to do as they wish. And what they wish is to take over every government in the world and turn them all into Islamic cultures under sharia law. Any government they can cow is one they no longer have to deal with except in times of their choosing.

Peters is one of the best in analyzing strategic situations, and he sums this one up well:

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they’ve accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won’t stop fighting because they can’t. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.

The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don’t get it. The terrorists aren’t committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome’s a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we’re helping the Iraqi people achieve.

This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it’s the “wrong war, at the wrong time.”

We hear from the Kerry campaign that the military is stretched to its limit. In the next breath they will tell you Kerry will increase troop strength in Iraq.

The enemy have put all their eggs in the Iraqi basket. Dubya wants to destroy those eggs. Kerry has been clear he doesn’t.

I heard someone on the radio yesterday say something to the effect that Dubya views Iraq as a battle in the war against terrorism, and Kerry sees it as a diversion from the war. I thought that summed things up nicely, although I believe it was a Democratic Party supporter who said it. I’m not sure he meant it in the same way I perceived it.

A couple of months ago I tried to explain why the move into Iraq was a necessity. If you didn’t read it before, take a look now. One of my regular commenters still felt diplomacy was a better course of action, and you may agree. I don’t.

Kerry’s view is far too narrow for me. Osama bin Laden may have been the leader of the group that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, but there are many other players in the terror world. Getting bin Laden won’t end it. Kerry apparently thinks it would. Therefore, he says he believes we missed our chance in Afghanistan.

On a strategic level, he is completely wrong, for the very reason I just stated. But on the tactical level, I can understand how someone might draw the same conclusion he has. It is completely wrong, but I can understand. If you know something of the culture, society, and geography of the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think you can understand how huge masses of troops would have almost no impact on an operation. Ever heard of the problems the British had in that area? The Soviet Union? Special Warfare teams, light and mobile with air support, are the best way to deal with that kind of target. Yes, it is slower. But it is also far more effective. Perhaps we just haven’t heard of all the car bombs and hostage taking going on in Afghanistan. Or perhaps the Taliban and al Queda are a bit too busy right now to mount any kind of attack.

Understanding that, how can Iraq be a diversion? But is it simply another battle in the war as believed by President Bush?

If you haven’t looked at the previous post, take a look now.

Saudi Arabia is the central player in the whole thing. But the Anti-Bush won’t allow him to do what he needs to do in dealing with them. You want diplomacy? Then you need to support Bush. Because all the rhetoric has made it nearly impossible to do the things that need to be done. We need oil–don’t even think about building another nuclear power plant, drilling for oil in ANWR, or putting windmills off Cape Cod. Until Iraq’s oil fields are producing to capacity, Saudi Arabia is going to hold a ring in our collective nose. We could do nothing before because we needed bases in Saudi Arabia. We can do nothing now because the rhetoric continues to give hope to those who would destroy the Iraqi infrastructure. Without it, we will continue to need Saudi oil. And as long as we need Saudi oil, we cannot finish off those who would destroy us.

In the interim, we can keep terrorists from organizing and training in Afghanistan and Iraq, and make the Iranian mullahs and Bashir Assad sweat. But the Saudis know the beam will soon focus on them if things don’t change. And they are making some changes–although much more slowly than I would like to see.

Here is an opportunity for John Kerry to show some real world leadership. Kofi has decided to send fewer election officials to help in Iraq than the UN sent to East Timor in their first election. And he is having some difficulty getting protection for those people he does get.

Mr. Annan said Tuesday in London that he had sought to form a U.N. brigade to guard U.N. workers and facilities so more staffers could be sent in, but complained that he had gotten no offers of troops.

U.N. officials in New York said yesterday that Fiji was the only nation to respond to Mr. Annan’s request and would send 130 soldiers to Iraq next month to protect senior staff and U.N. offices.

If Kerry is really interested in Iraqi success, he should be on the stump pressing the UN for more support. After all, he says he has the international credibility to do it.

Prove it.

I picked up a link to Currency Lad from Kev. The post is a celebration of Arthur’s rise to fame through the posting of good news from both Afghanistan and Iraq, something seldom seen in MSM.

The trouble is that news agencies and many, if not most, of their operatives choose not to bring balance and breadth to their coverage of affairs. Their sense of journalistic responsibility has been subsumed within a political or, at least, narcissistic desire to provide daily Gotcha Moments for an audience presumed to be on the verge of democratic outrage. Call it the Woodward and Bernstein Syndrome.

If you aren’t following Arthur’s writing, you should be. And the Currency Lad looks like he has a handle on things as well.

While you’re at it, check out this week’s “Best of Homespun Bloggers,” which include Arthur, here.

Chrenkoff is the most famous of our blogging group. With reason. His “Good News” series for both Afghanistan and Iraq have provided information to us all that is seldom heard or read. He collects it all and presents it in a coherent fashion.

He has much this time about the election, and from the perspective of someone who has lived under a tyranical regime. Well worth the time.