Some time ago, a famous blogger (who was once was a hawk, and is now supporting the dove of all doves, Kerry) wrote about "The Flypaper Strategy" or "Operation Flytrap." Others have called Iraq a sort of terrorist "roach motel" - they check in, but they don't check out - we kill them. The concept is simple, and has since been validated by Bush - in a sense - when he says, as he did in a debate, that "we fight the terrorists THERE so we don't have to fight them here."
I'd like to add, that the Jihadoterrorists who are going into Iraq are not terrorizing Pakistan or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or the West Bank, or Turkey, or Europe - or anywhere else they might have headed if we were not on the offensive in Iraq. Or do you think that - to paraphrase Bush's recent comments about Zarqawi - the Jihadoterrorists who enter Iraq to creat chaos and fear would be peacefully minding their own business and leading quiet lives if we were NOT in Iraq?! Every Jihadoterrorist we kill in Iraq is one less Jihadoterrorist who can takeover a school ANYWHERE, or bomb a bus ANYWHERE, or crash a jet into a building ANYWHERE. And although we - and our allies - continue to confront and kill terrorists all over the world (in The Philippines and in S.E. Asia, and Central Asia, and Russia, and the Caucasus, and in Africa, and South Asia) the main campaign is now in Iraq. If we want to defeat the Jihadoterrorists and win the GWOT then we must defeat them in Iraq.
This will require that the USA have a Commander in Chief who is resolute, who will not waiver or fold when things go badly - as they do in every war.
Bush will stay the course.
Kerry - based on his lifelong commitment to cutting Pentagon budgets, his reflexive embrace of appeasement, and his lifelong pacifism - as proved by his opposition to the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and our actions in Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait - cannot be trusted to stay the course.
Bush will attain victory - at any cost.
Kerry will not. Kerry has said that he will weigh the costs of waging war - what they cost us in terms of multilateralism or alliances or in taxes, or in deficits. Kerry has just as much said that he values those things as much as victory. Kerry confuses "means" with "ends."
If alliances and balanced-budgets hinder our ability to win the GWOT, then we MUST win the GWOT with fewer alliances and with bigger deficits. This is as simple as putting first things first - as the brilliant management guru Steve Covey once said.
Which leads me to the subject of my next long post - "CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY" - which will examine Bush and Kerry in view of Covey's insights into what makes people good effective leaders.