I have to say I thought this was an excellent speech. The President has neatly described the nature of the war as a war on radical Islam, Islamo-fascism or militant jihadism whatever you want to call it. And, although there isn't a lot that's new here I think it was a good time to sum up what we're doing because there's been too much drift lately (and the President's responsible for that).
This passage is a great answer to the "Let's talk to bin Laden" chorus or those who just want to leave Iraq and hole-up at home.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the 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 inalterable 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.The New York Times dismissed the speech as "that same old formula: the wrong questions, the wrong answers and no new direction".
To an extent they have a point. Some of the tactics used in the war have been of questionable merit and others down-right embarrassingly wrong. But, the Times never gives me the impression that they even accept that the War on Terror is necessary, so I find it hard to take their tactical criticisms seriously. In a second editorial they reveal their lack of seriousness.
Four years ago, we hung on every word when Mr. Bush denounced Al Qaeda and made the emotional - but, as it turned out, empty - vow to track down Osama bin Laden.Bush's talk about bin Laden in September 2001 was emotional and, in hindsight, unimportant. That the Times sees fit to chide the President because bin Laden is still (apparently) breathing is an indication that they do not perceive the War on Terror to be a war at all. They want some form arrest and trial as if this whole matter was just a law and order issue.
Bin Laden's capture and/or death will not change a whole lot. Al Qaeda and their allies are ideologically driven. This is not some form of bin Laden cult and he is but one player among many. No one will be happier than me when bin Laden is plant food, but I don't think that should be the focus for the White House. If some CIA operative happens to devise a means for putting bin Laden out of business, great, but it doesn't have to rise any higher than that as a priority.
I hope this speech is the first move by the President to reenergize the war effort and rethinking some of those tactics that don't appear to be working (such as continuing to ignore the fact that our military is overstretched). The eyes are now back on the prize.
