At the heart of the Kerry strategy is to draw a big line around Iraq while declaring simultaneously that Kerry is the best man to lead the war against terrorism -- anywhere but in Iraq. I suppose that means Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Phillipines. All these are hotbeds of terrorism where supposedly Kerry will be winning the war.

But not Iraq.

Here's Kerry, talking tough today in Philadelphia:

The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy – Al Qaeda -- which killed more than three thousand people on 9/11 and which still plots our destruction today. And there’s just no question about it: the President’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win. Iraq is now what it was not before the war – a haven for terrorists. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority. As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror.

But I thought terrorism was not in Iraq! Al Qaida is not in Iraq! (And I suppose Zarqawi is not in Iraq, either?)

And of course even as he claims he'll end the war there, Kerry admits there are terrorists in Iraq:

Every week too many American families grieve for loved ones killed in Iraq by terrorist forces that weren’t even there before the invasion. The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the world. An estimated 18,000 al Qaeda trained militants are operating in 60 countries around the world in a dangerous and more elusive network of extremist groups. Al Qaeda shouldn’t be hitting us anywhere. They should be losing, everywhere. We should be winning, everywhere.

Kerry gets the figure of 18,000 from a critical-of-Bush Institute for Strategic studies report, but even that report's own figures show the number is down:

The United States is al-Qaida‘s prime target in a war it sees as a death struggle between civilizations, the report said. An al-Qaida leader has said 4 million Americans will have to be killed "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory," the survey said.

"Al-Qaida‘s complaints have been transformed into religious absolutes and cannot be satisfied through political compromise," the study said.

The institute said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime.

In the ensuing war on terrorism, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.

Here's what I just don't get: if they're in Iraq, why does Kerry insist on fighting them somwhere else?

Now, I could understand an argument that Iraq should have been further down on the list of countries to invade, but seeing Iraq in a vacuum -- asserting Iraq had nothing to do with the current U.S. war on terrorism -- overlooks some important historical facts.

Consider its geopolitical status.

To this Kerry replies that we should not be in Iraq, but that we should fight al Qaida somewhere else.

Where might that be? What playing field does Kerry have in mind? He says he wants to return to Afghanistan (which he calls "the front line") to finish the job.

But will Osama accomodate?

He may have no choice! Because, if Kerry's wife is right, Osama is all but captured. Meaning no more Osama!

Which, according to Kerry's latest plan means the war is all but over.

Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden, and there'll be peace in our time!