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

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.