Posted on 10/06/2005 8:33:52 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
WASHINGTON – President Bush went on the offensive Thursday with a spirited justification for the war on terror that sought to refocus Americans on what he sees as the central undertaking of this century: defeating the forces of Islamic radicalism.
In a speech that outlined his administration's step-by-step plan for confronting the 21st century's "ideology of hatred" and that restated why the battle is so important, Mr. Bush sought to address not only waning attention to the war on terrorism but also the debate over exactly why the US and the West are targets.
Citing 9/11 and a string of terrorist acts since 2001 stretching from Bali to London, Bush said, "No act of ours invited the rage of the killers - and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change ... their plans" for burying liberty.
With those words, the president is striving to end the debate over whether continuing terrorist acts are a response to US and Western policies - for example the war in Iraq - or a fulfillment of radical jihadists' own ideology.
"I don't think the president has ever been anything like this comprehensive," Anthony Cordesman, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, says of the speech. Not only was it a "coherent statement of American policy," but it "has implications that go far beyond what he has said before."
For example, Bush repeatedly referred to Iran and Syria as countries that continue to abet terrorists around the world, and thus as players on the wrong side of the battle.
In his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy and with members of the Washington diplomatic corps present, Bush outlined a "comprehensive strategy" that includes:
• Preventing attacks before they occur.
• Improvement of homeland defenses against terrorists.
• Killing and capturing terrorist organization leaders.
• Denying weapons of mass destruction to "outlaw regimes" and others who would share and use them.
• Deny the sanctuary of outlaw regimes. (Bush accused Iran and Syria of a "long history of collaboration with terrorists.")
• Deny militants the control of any nation, as the Taliban once had in Afghanistan.
On that last point Bush made clear that he sees Al Qaeda in Iraq, under leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, as trying to take over Iraq to use as a launch pad for spreading its ideology throughout the Middle East. Calling Iraq "the central front" in the terrorists' "war against humanity," Bush said, "We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against terrorism."
To some analysts, the president's speech was an effort to shore up waning public support not just for Iraq but for the war on terrorism in general.
"What he's trying to do is say, 'It's still terrorism, stupid, and if we don't fight them they'll take over the world and the interests of Americans will be threatened," says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University in Washington. "There's no change in the argument. All he seems to be doing is articulating their rhetoric."
Surveys show that Americans' support for the war is down from levels of past years, but that it has remained relatively stable over the past nine months despite rising violence in Iraq and growing debate over what Al Qaeda is trying to accomplish there.
A mid-September Gallup Poll showed 53 percent of Americans saying Iraq is not worth going to war over, compared with 45 percent who said it is. Those numbers have remained relatively stable this year.
But others see Bush reaching beyond US public opinion in an attempt to frame for the world how this new ideological battle compares with the previous century's fight with communism and totalitarianism.
"This was also a speech about America seeking a partnership with like-minded powers and peoples in the world against a common threat," says Mr. Cordesman. "In that sense, he gave about as good a speech as any American president can about a different culture and a different religion, and the threats within that."
Elements of the speech are sure to cause controversy, Cordesman says. He cites Bush's contention that "our actions," including Iraq, are not a cause of terrorism. "Virtually all experts in international terrorism would argue with that," he says. "Every survey out there shows that Iraq is a source of anger in Arab and Muslim countries that is catalyzing some in the population and prompting them to take action, such as going to Iraq to take part in the battle."
Bush said US and Western intelligence operations had foiled 10 Al Qaeda operations - three of them in the US - and five "casing operations" in the US.
Some experts doubt whether such new information will help build support for Iraq and the broader war on terror.
"I don't think scaring ... the American people will work for him," says independent pollster John Zogby. "The only things that can possibly work for him on Iraq are, No. 1, finding Osama bin Laden or, No. 2, finding those weapons of mass destruction."
Others say that after the national focus on hurricane Katrina and the success the US has had at preventing more attacks here since 9/11, Bush wanted to remind Americans of why the war on terrorism must not slip from the front pages.
Because Bush insists on calling this a "war," and not simply the "struggle" that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others have said it is, the public's main question may be whether the US is winning or losing. With his speech, Bush is seen as trying to answer that question.
"The real issue is not what [the terrorists] are trying to do - we've known that for years," says Georgetown's Mr. Wayne. "The real issue is, are we winning or losing? We haven't had [another] terrorist attack here; the world's been pretty calm." In that context, he adds, the war on terror and the generational battle for freedom it represents "is the only ace in the hole he has."
it will certainly be an interesting millenium...however much of it we get through. less than a quarter, I'm guessing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the real battle is to defeat the culture of death in all its manifestations while strengthening, not reducing, genuine liberty.
The above from the speech gives the plan for military victory in Iraq.
US forces clear out terrorists in a "city by city" or "town by town" method (as needed), and then leaves behind an Iraqi unit to prevent reinfestation.
It makes very good sense, and is modeled on the Fallujah campaign of about a year ago.
Identify, condon, search, clear, secure. Textbook stuff.
Beats the heck out of soldiers in static locations responding/reacting to enemy initiatives while builders/engineers/politicians win "hearts and minds."
this is the closest that George has come to telling the truth .....this is a war against islam .......they know it .....why don't we?.........they started it,we will finish it........if the left doesn't turn it into another Vietnam .......they are trying
this is a war against islam
Nonsense of the first order.
"Nonsense of the first order."........if that's what you believe(no offense on a personal basis) you haven't been paying attention..//the koran(q'uran..whatever) says all infadels(sp?) should be killed tiis is the justifacation(sp?) that bin laden and his cohorts use
TO DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM EXPECTED ROVE
INDICTMENT, BUSH TALKS UP WAR ON TERROR
There is just one question the President must ask the American people: Do we want to live in a Islamic fundamentalist society and under a Islamo-fascistic government (look back: Afghanistan under the Taliban)? Because this is Bin Laden's and Zarqawi's grand vision for the world.
Amazingly, Hollywood types do not see the threat...in a strict Islamic state their careers would be the first to go.
I dunno, I reckon a burkha could improve Barbara Streisand's chances of getting leading roles.
Sorry. It is a war against Islamo-fascism.
Compare the many fascists movements of Europe Pre WW II
to the current Jihadists movement: Same techniques of terror, same interference with democratic elections, its a near 100 % match. However , we sat around on our dongs while Churchill convinced FDR of the cause. Now we are not sitting on our dongs, we are kicken ass and preventing the rise of Islamo-fascists to national power in an axis that would stretch from Indonesia, across asia to Turkey.
If these turban winder Islamo fascist pull it off they will a) control the western worlds oil supply and therefore economy b) they will have nuclear weapons
Waht President Bush has said is right. We are in a struggle every bit as important as the Cold War. This struggle is worthy of bi-partisan support, or in a generation and a half, our grandchildren will be dealing with nuclear fall out, and avoiding the necessity of becoming Muslims of the Shia persuasion.
The President is right.
This is a fight we must win, no choice guys! Because Europe is gonna just step and fetch if we leave.
If Cordesman is right in his assessment here, it stands as powerful and compelling proof to any rational observer that the President has got it right.
1 It also says they shouldn't
2 Explain why we don't see blood running in the streets from Muslims killing infidels?
3 Why did the voters in Malaysia, Indonesia (two counties with a couple of Muslims living in them) hand the radical Islamic parties their heads in the elections last year?
4 Why are Muslims fighting and dying along side Americans(infidel) soldiers, killing fellow Muslims?
You see the problem is you've taken the most bloodthirsty, xenophobic verses from the Koran, applied the most bloodthristy interpretation to them and say this is Islam. The problem with this is it doesn't jib with the real world.
BTW I do pay attention to this sort of thing. I've become somewhat obsessed with the war on terror.
this is a war against islam
Nonsense of the first order.
And WW II was not a war against the Germans and the Japs, either--after all, many of them may have disagreed with their rulers, weren't even in their armies, and never threatened America. Did they.
See reply 13.
"Nonsense of the first order."
That's your whole argument? OK, then. I guess because you say so, this isn't really a war against Islam.
I'll just ignore the fact that Western Civilization has been at war with Islam since 650 or so. Philip Martel defeated them at Poiters in 672 or they would have made it clear into across the Rhine.
They were almost single-handedly responsible for the dark ages (the Vikings helped out around 954).
Though the crusades have been painted as a big bunch of Catholic bullies all going over to the Peaceable Kingdoms of the Middle East and destroying all those happy lives, more like the opposite was actually true.
Christian and Jewish pilgrims were being molested and killed in their pilgrimages to Jerusalem almost cotinuously until the Pope got the French Knights to go over and kick some goat fornicator carcass.
The point here is this: It's always been a battle between a bunch of Idiots stuck in the Seventh Century vs. the rest of the civilized world. We always let it get to the point where someone finally has to stand up and say, "You won't listen to reason, so I guess we are finally going to have to slaughter you all."
Of course, we never finish the job and they grow right back.
But hey, since its nonsense I guess I'll just drop it.
Sorry. It is a war against Islamo-fascism.
Agree!
That's right, blame California for this chaos. Brilliant.
Bush and others being a globalists could be using the muzzies like rented mules to foster "the" globalist agenda.. pretty smart really..
The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of well being granted to them by World Government. -- Henry Kissinger, Amiens, France, 1991
We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," warned Arthur Schlesinger Jr, in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.
"2 Explain why we don't see blood running in the streets from Muslims killing infidels? ".........WE DON'T???????.......I would love to continue this conversation but I must sleep (1:53AM and I promised dad I would paint his kitchen in the AM).......perhaps tomorrow evening
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.