Bush's War Speech

Today President Bush gave an immensely important speech in which he explained clearly and completely just how he sees the war on terror, what he has done and why, and tries to answer his major critics.

He reminded us that the war on terror is a global struggle involving all the peoples of the world against a common enemy, Islamic radicalism.

[T]he evil of [9-11] has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Natanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.

In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again.

All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the new can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.

And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.

Bush is careful to distinguish between these radicals and the Islamic mainstream.

[T]his ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.

These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics.

And these radicals have as their goal, not the liberation of Iraq from imperialistic invaders, as lefty propaganda would have it. They dream of a restored Calphiate and the global dominance of their particular brand of Islam.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and Web sites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace and stand in the way of their ambitions.

….

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

….

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme and they should not be dismissed.

And for those who would counsel retreat or accommodation in the face of Islamist violence, Bush says:

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals.

I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, and Al Qaida attacked us anyway.

The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet militants killed more than 180 Russian school children in Beslan.

Over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: Israeli presence on the West Bank or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the defeat of the Taliban or the crusades of a thousand years ago.

In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.

No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.

Bush specifically compares the Islamist threat to that of communism half a century and more ago.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.

In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.

Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women.

They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.

While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.

And he explains our coherent strategy to respond to the threat of Islamic radicalism and why, in the face of such a threat, democratization and liberalization are so important.

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence and a comprehensive strategy.

Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond.

Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

…

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist network before they occur.

…

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.

…

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror.

The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder.

Bush then turns to the situation in Iraq, and specifically answers his critics on a number of points. First, the military situation.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified.

With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots or resistance fighters. They are murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress: from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution in the space of two and a half years.

With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month.

At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces.

Progress isn't easy, but it is steady.

And regarding the political situation:

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom.

We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who disagree, building consensus by persuasion and answering to the will of the people.

We've heard it said that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy.

In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country

.

And as for withdrawal:

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?

Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.

And finally he comes to the case for democratization:

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East.

This is a difficult, long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked.

If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger for our generation and the next.

If the peoples in that region are permitted to chose their own destiny and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end.

He issues a call for

all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends and defiles a noble faith.

Read the whole thing here.

Well, there you have it. The clearest expression of the reasons the administration has pursued the course it has and its plans for the future.

Reaction to the speech has been predictable.

On the left:

Senator Kennedy, quoted on Hardball, said that criticizing the radicals would only spur them to greater actions against us. [Sigh!]

Tapped points out two weak points in the President's argument, noting that: 1) that the attack on Beslan was a response to Russian aggression and 2) that rather than causing Islamic radicalism, the invasion of Iraq may have strengthened it. [here]

Over at Huffy, Bob Cesca argues that Bush is guilty of the very things he accuses al Qaeda of -- he is just projecting his faults and sins onto others. [here]

The Carpetbagger Report dismisses the speech as unimportant. "There wasn't much in the way of new content in today's not-so-major speech from the president". [here]

Left I On the News argues that the speech is a pack of lies rolled out to distract the country from Bush's political problems. He also sees the NY subway alert as an element in this distraction strategy. [here]

This pretty much sums up the reaction from the left: 1) isolating one or two points in the speech and quibbling with them; 2) declaring the speech to be unimportant; 3) declaring Bush a worse monster than his opponents; 4) declaring it to be an effort to distract the public from Bush's political problems.

On the right:

Donald Sensing writes: "[T]his morning’s speech by President Bush was one of the finest (probably the finest) he has given on this subject, and really on any subject. It was lucid, well organized and detailed." A detailed commentary on the first half of the speech continues. He promises more later on. Read it here.

All Things Conservative writes: "President Bush hit it out of the park today in a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy. It was one of the most important speeches Bush has given...."

That's pretty much it on the right. They declare that it is an important speech, express their agreement, and then let the President's words speak for themselves. [I guess I fall into this camp, even if I'm not usually on the right]