Thoughts on the President's Speech

We were at a friend's house, so I did not watch the President's speech tonight. I did read it, though. The first thing that struck me is that the President and al Qaeda agree on the importance of Iraq to the war on terror. Here is the President:

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.

Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.

Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.

And here is Amir Tehari, summarizing a new book by Yussuf al-Ayyeri, a senior al Qaeda operative until his death in a gun battle in June:

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities."

This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.

He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world," Al-Ayyeri writes.

Well, if the Democrats won't believe President Bush, maybe they'll believe al Qaeda. Here is Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Democrat candidate for President:

Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who opposed the war and is a candidate for his party's presidential nomination, said the $87 billion is "more than the federal government will spend on education this year, twice as much as the federal government will spend on our roads, bridges, highways and public transit systems."

"The president is clearly making a judgment that it is more important for us to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan than it is to deal with the very serious problems that we have in the United States," he said on "Larry King Live."

Ignoring the principles of federalism one would assume a Senator would be familiar with, it's interesting that the Senator believes that federal education spending (a very small fraction of education spending, mostly done at the local level and by States) is more important than winning the war on terror.

The President lays out a summary of our strategy in Iraq:

Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

Then he discusses each in detail. First, the aim of destroying the terrorists:

First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.

This is key. The "flypaper strategy" - that of drawing terrorists in to fight our Army in Iraq, rather than our citizens in New York - even if originally unintended, seems to be working. Islamists are flooding into Iraq, and we are killing them in droves. This is crucial, because it makes all future battles easier, while at the same time distracting the terrorists from attacks on the US and the West. Likewise, engaging the Ba'athists in continued fighting, and destroying them, makes Iraq's future more secure. As these true believers are killed off, they are no longer capable of making trouble in a future free Iraq. It is crucial that we remain engaged militarily in Iraq, and use this opportunity to rid the Earth of some of its most destructive denizens.

The President then addresses the recent proposal the US put to the United Nations. He pegs the motivation for the US at providing cover for other nations (though I think France and Germany in particular want to make sure that this stays a diplomatic circle jerk.

Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America.

In addition, the President is laying the groundwork for further distancing the US from the UN, should the UN prove as ineffective now as it has in the past:

I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.

As the third element of our strategy, the President recognizes the central role of Iraqis in creating a free and prosperous Iraq. The use of concepts from the preambe to the US Constitution ("secure the blessings of their own liberty") is interesting rhetorically:

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We're helping to train civil defense forces to keep order, and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders, and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country, and we are accelerating the training of more.

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.

It seems that the President recognizes that more US troops in Iraq is not the problem, but I wish he had more clearly stated the need for Iraqis - more importantly than international forces - to take up the work of providing security in Iraq:

Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.

The keynote for the war is struck near the end (and the speech probably should have ended here):

The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator, to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear, when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

All-in-all, this was a good speech. In reality, the message given by the President and the major figures in his administration since 9/11 have been amazingly consistent, Leftist hand-waving and media misreporting aside. The message has been very simple: we are in this for the long haul, we are in great danger, and we will take this war to our enemies and their supporters until they die or give up the fight. "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

Posted by Jeff at September 7, 2003 11:40 PM | Link Cosmos