Rusted Sky

Over on Instapundit there's varying reactions here and here and here.

My own take one it (and I figure you're here for my take on it all) is very slightly mixed.

I had the chance to listen to some of the speech at lunch, and it was a powerful one. He explained clearly what was going on, he also wasn't afraid (as he has been in the past) to finally start swinging at the folks who've been obstructionist in ways that hurt the country and the war effort more than help. This was very good to see and much overdue in my thinking. The historical revisionism being attempted at the present time is neither helpful or constructive, and is soley an attempt to get a political advantage later on. And I'll be honest here, I think it's a damn shabby pile of tricks that makes it much less likely for me to ever consider a Democratic candidate again, regardless of the faults of any other candidate. Enough is just plain enough - and this latest crap from the Democratic side is just too damn much.

At the same time I find myself thinking - why now? Is Bush tired of being 'Mr. Nice President' who wouldn't say shit about his opponents if he had a mouthful, while they gleefully fling any crap they can find? I'm a firm believer in the truth being the best defense against a lie, but silence isn't a substitute for truth in that conflict. Bush seemed to believe otherwise.

I'm wondering if the suicide bombings in Jordan caused the more strident tone in today's speech. I particularly like this bit:

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, 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 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, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

There seems to be a sub-group in the peace movement that believes that we can co-exist with the radical elements in Islam. I don't agree that such a thing is possible. Attempts to appease aren't seen as anything but weakness - and weakness is seen as a lever to be used to get what they want.

And what they want is the whole ball of wax. One world, united under the flag of Islam. (Damn, where HAVE I heard that sort of aim before?)

So it seems to me there's two choices at this point. Take them on while their power and influence is low. Attempt to exterminate the movement completely, which I'll admit could take years or decades - by changing the governments in the ME to be much more democratic instead of autocratic. Or we accept the status quo, allow them to build - to influence countries to be passive when faced with violence. You've seen it in France. You've seen it in Spain. Afghanistan was ignored after the USSR pulled out - and the cockroaches moved in. We didn't do shit about them - after all, who'd believe such a screwed-up offshoot of Islam as the Taliban would exist? Nobody believed the stories... but they weren't stories, we just didn't want to believe that such unsane behavior would be tolerated.

And that's what they depend on - tolerance. It's been pretty difficult finding Imams and mullahs who've been willing to speak against the extremists. The attack in Jordan seems to have knocked some sense into them, but it's hard to tell how long that'll last. Al Quaeda could be forgiven simply by attacking some US interests - or they might be permanently on the outs - it's hard to tell.

One problem is that Al Quaeda central's planning for the long-term. This isn't a simple "Do the job and go home" sort of thing. This is something they'red dedicated to completely - and if it takes 20, 50, or 100 years to do the job then they'll move slowly. One disadvantage they've got is Zarqawi - HE wants to see the Caliphate created in his lifetime, and he's pushing the schedule.

Which brings us back to Bush's speech. He outlines what he wants to do. He's giving a clear outline for what needs to be done.

It remains to be seen whether we're farsighted enough to commit to it, or whether politics as usual will rule the day. It's hard to fight an enemy who thinks in terms of decades, when you're too busy maneuvering to get advantage at the next election. Our politicians MUST start thinking long-term - further ahead than the next election. If they don't - we're in deep trouble.

So what am I upset about with this speech? That he's taken so damn long to give it.

J.