The Weekly Standard as an article about the kerfuffle over Southern Methodist University’s bid to host the G.W. Bush library.

LATE LAST YEAR, dozens of faculty members at Southern Methodist University publicly opposed plans by President Bush to locate his presidential library on SMU’s campus in Dallas.

Now, ten bishops of the United Methodist Church, which owns the school, and of which President Bush is a member, are urging SMU to reject the library and are circulating a petition for others to sign.

A chief organizer in stopping the Bush library is a former professor at SMU’s Perkins School of Theology, who told the Dallas Morning News that he doesn’t want his school to “hitch its future star” to the war and other aspects of President Bush’s legacy.

President and Mrs. Bush are members of Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas. Its pastor, the Rev. Mark Craig, is an SMU trustee who supports the library at SMU. The whole thing is, of course, just another example of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but here’s the kicker:

For decades, United Methodist bishops have largely declined to criticize their denomination’s schools as they slipped away from their Christian moorings and became virtually secular institutions. Typical campus life at Methodist schools is not behaviorally different from most other major universities. The faculty, who often adhere to the same academic fads and ideologies of secular schools, are rarely expected to sign faith statements, belong to churches, or even be reverent towards religion. Even United Methodist seminary professors sometimes reject Christian orthodoxy. Some even reject theism itself.

Bishops have almost always defended their schools’ academic independence, even as they often served on the schools’ boards and helped channel church funding to them. But hosting the presidential library of President Bush, a fellow church member, is apparently a bridge too far for some of the church’s bishops and the 4,000 other signatories to the anti-Bush library petition.

They’ve finally found a heresy which they cannot accept.

As long-time readers here know, I am an ordained pastor on the UMC and while I am utterly unsurprised at the knee-jerkiness of the 10 bishops, I am also heartened to see that at last, at last, dear heaven, they have actually decided to stand firmly for something. Okay, against something, but still . . .

Welcome friends from Down Under! I think this is the first time an Australian media outlet has linked to my site. Thanks for following the link.

So wrote Europe’s premier war theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, which he amplified thus, “Without killing there is no war.” This should seem self evident, but its truth is easy to lose, and easiest for the civilians who (rightfully) finally command our military. Even senior military officers, removed by distance and time from personal battle experience, can fail to remember that truism.

Of all the failings of the previous “strategy” in Iraq, directed by the commanders whom Gen. David Petraeus will very soon replace, the main failing was not keeping the main thing the main thing. In counterinsurgency, as with any other kind of fight, the main thing is killing the insurgents, for which civil assistance to Iraqis must play the supporting, not primary role.

Hence, the “surge” of 21,500 more soldiers and Marines being sent to Iraq does in fact represent a new strategy in the recent history of this war, though not new in the history of warfare. Gen. Petraeus, asked recently by one of the Congress’ armed services committees whether 21,500 was enough new troops, replied that how the new troops are used is more important than the number sent.

And lethality is the focus now, as we saw from the release of an unclassified version of the strategy by the plan’s authors themselves, which I analyzed on Dec. 17. Retired General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army, and Frederick W. Kagan, former West Point professor, wrote (and briefed President Bush) that,

We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.

“Securing the population” = “kill the insurgents.” And that is what the troops in Iraq, reinforced by the “surge,” are already doing, says Nibras Kazmi (also posted at Blackfive).

Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them.

In many ways, the timing of this turnaround was inadvertent, coming at the height of political and bureaucratic mismanagement in Washington and Baghdad. A number of factors contributed to this turnaround, but most important was sustained, stay-the-course counterinsurgency pressure. At the end of the day, more insurgents were ending up dead or behind bars, which generated among them a sense of despair and a feeling that the insurgency was a dead end.

The Washington-initiated “surge” will speed-up the ongoing process of defeating the insurgency. But one should not consider the surge responsible for the turnaround. The lesson to be learned is to keep killing the killers until they realize their fate.

For some reason, this is a lesson that the US seems to have to learn anew every war. It wasn’t until 1863, for example, that the Union Army finally came to understand that the army of the CSA would not be defeated until it had been vanquished in the field one time after another, over and over again. U.S. Grant was the first Union general to understand this fact, for which President Lincoln rewarded him with command of all the Union armies in the field. “I can’t fire this man,” Lincoln told critics, “he fights.”

But I digress. The major, and unsurprisingly unheralded, accomplishment in Iraq in recent months was to squeeze the life (literally and metepahorically) out of the domestic Iraqi insurgencies. That means the Sunni insurgencies, who were mainly oriented toward the preservation of Baathist party and Tikriti tribal power. The Shia militias weren’t really trying to overthrow the central government (PM Maliki was in their pocket, so what’s the point?) but until the end of 2006 the Sunni insurgents entertained the notion that could could wield majority power again.

What changed their mind, at least most of them? Well, Saddam’s short drop and sudden stop had a lot to do with it. But mostly it sank in to them that they cannot win. US and US-led direct action against them (that is, killing them) unintentionally combined with the ruthlessness of the Shia militias made them come to reality, says Kazmi.

The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. …

The enormous carnage the media report daily in Iraq is the direct result - in fact, the actual intention - of al Qaeda in Iraq, whose now-dead chief, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, made plain early in 2004 that killing Iraqi Shiites was his only means of finally defeating the US in Iraq. After tacitly admitting that al Qaeda cannot defeat America militarily in Iraq, Zarqawi wrote that al Qaeda must turn to terrorism against the Iraqis in order to destabilize the country so much that its return to sovereignty that summer would not be effective.

“So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle,” the writer of the document said. “It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands” of Shiites. …

“You noble brothers, leaders of the jihad [meaning other al Qaeda leaders - DS], we do not consider ourselves people who compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did,” the writer says. “So if you agree with it, and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you to work under your guidance and yield to your command” [emphasis added].

Zarqawi went on to write that al Qaeda fighters in Iraq must wage war against the Shiite Iraqi majority (i.e, the “perverse sects”) and that the war on them must be well underway before the US returned sovereignty to the country. That way al Qaeda could propagandize that the Americans are responsible for the sectarian violence.

Like so much that Zarqawi planned, this tactic backfired. The Shia majority in Iraq did not turn against America (in the main), as Zarqawi thought they would, but against the Sunnis, and ferociously so. Kazmi again:

Sunni sectarian attacks, usually conducted by jihadists, finally provoked the Shiites to turn to their most brazen militias — the ones who would not heed Ayatollah Sistani’s call for pacifism — to conduct painful reprisals against Sunnis, usually while wearing official military fatigues and carrying government issued weapons. The Sunnis came to realize that they were no longer facing ragtag fighters, but rather they were confronting a state with resources and with a monopoly on lethal force. The Sunnis realized that by harboring insurgents they were inviting retaliation that they could do little to defend against.

Sadly, it took many thousands of young Sunnis getting abducted by death squads for the Sunnis to understand that in a full-fledged civil war, they would likely lose badly and be evicted from Baghdad. I believe that the Sunnis and insurgents are now war weary, and that this is a turnaround point in the campaign to stabilize Iraq.

The upshot of this is that now there is no significant insurgency in Iraq except al Qaeda. This is a huge accomplishment, though not entirely the doing of American action. Now the focus in Iraq has swung toward two main goals: bringing destruction upon al Qaeda there and bringing to heel the Shia militias, especially the Mahdi militia of Ayatollah Moqtada al Sadr. About these ends PM Maliki spoke to parliament yesterday. As you read this account by Iraqi blogger Mohammed Fadhil, remember the first of “15 rules for understanding the Middle East:” “What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. … In the Mideast, officials say what they really believe in public. …” So here is Mohammed’s account:

PM Maliki spoke to the parliament to explain the goals and strategy of his new plan and to hear their feedback, suggestions and reservations.

Maliki’s speech was sharp and straightforward. He stressed that the Baghdad plan was not directed against one faction over the other. He called it a plan “enforce the law” and said it would use force to apply the law against those who kill Iraqis and displace them from their homes.

Maliki didn’t forget to criticize the media that accuse the plan of being impartial and he asked the local media to support the plan and encourage the citizens to cooperate with the authorities.

Maliki’s most important warning was when he said that no one and no place would be immune to raids. Mosques (Sunni or Shia), homes or political offices will all be subject to searches and raids if they are used to launch attacks or hide militants.

There was considerable parliamentary, ah, discussion about the PM’s presentation, but it would seem that Maliki has put his personal honor on the line by saying his government will crack down on sectarian death squads. On a b-roll I saw on the news, Maliki emphasized to parliament that these operations were Iraqi led and that coalition forces were in a supporting role, although my guess is that it all depends what “supporting” means.

So can al Qaeda be defeated in Iraq? Most definitely. As more and more Sunnis realize they will never rule Iraq again, they will distance themselves increasingly from al Qaeda, whose leaders and ranks are mostly non-Iraqi. The alliance between Iraqi Sunnis and al Qaeda was only one of convenience for the Sunnis, whose politics remain mostly Baathist secular rather than Islamist religious. Al Qaeda has bungled that relationship, too, over the past few years, by attempting to terrorize Sunnis into supporting them. But murdering Sunni sheiks and other dastardly deeds brought open reprisals from Sunni clans. Now I think that Sunnis will increasingly turn against al Qaeda because they realize there is nothing al Qaeda can do for them in Iraq anymore.

The main task now before us is simply to kill al Qaeda, top to bottom. What I wrote last December is still true: this new tactic “is the final roll of the dice in Iraq that this administration, or the next, can make there. Either we crush the enemy, various as they are, or we lose the war.”

Update: Further evidence of the new focus on lethality is the President’s approval of killing Iranian agents inside Iraq.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have been catching Iranian agents, interviewing them and letting them go. The Post says the administration is now convinced that was ineffective because Iran paid no penalty for its mischief.

As one senior administration official told the Post, “There were no costs for the Iranians. They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.”

I think this development buttresses the claim that our strategy is indeed different than before. I also think that US political and domestic opinion will “wait and see” no more than six months whether Gen. Petraeus can turn things around, and the general probably knows this. So I expect that al Qaeda is going to have a very rough six months ahead of it, and Maliki will be squeezed even more to clean up his own house.

Update: This kind of focused lethality is working well in Afghanistan, too.

Dutch police search for man with broken neck:

Amsterdam police are seeking a British man who has a broken neck and may be in risk of severing his spinal cord but doesn’t know it.

The man, identified as 29-year-old Benjamin William O’Connor, was involved in a traffic accident on Saturday in Suffolk, where he lives, police said.

He was released from hospital, but later that day, doctors later examined his X-rays and realised the dangerous nature of his injury – but couldn’t contact him.

British authorities investigating his movements found he had already departed for the Netherlands.

“He is in danger of serious injury or death,” said a spokeswoman for Amsterdam police.

Amsterdam police have published a photo of O’Connor, hoping someone will recognise him and alert him to contact police and seek immediate medical treatment.

Let’s pray authorities find poor Mr. O’Connor quickly. As for the rest, well, there ya go. nationalized health care at its ordinary.

FNC reports:

An American GI assigned to one of the harshest posts in Iraq had a simple request last week for a Wisconsin mattress company: send some floor mats to help ease the hardship of sleeping on the cold, bug-infested ground.

What he got, instead, was a swift kick from the company’s Web site, which not only refused the request but added insult to injury with the admonition, “If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.”

Army Sgt. Jason Hess, stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, said he emailed his request to Discount-mats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers.

In his email, dated Jan. 16, 2007, he asked the Web-based company, registered to Faisal Khetani, an American Muslim of Pakistani descent:

“Do you ship to APO (military) addresses? I’m in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for ships to APO first.”

The reply he got basically said get stuffed. See the FNC site for the rest of the story.

Unbelievable.

ABC News:

WASHINGTON Jan 19, 2007 (AP)— The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports.

Yes, it will. One of the fundamentals of economics is, “That which is subsidized, increases.” Likewise, remove the subsidy and its beneficiary will fall. Without arguing here whether oil companies should even get industry-specific subsidies in the first place, if the whole Congress votes to remove them, and the president signs, the economic effect will be to reduce oil companies’ financial incentive to explore and pump domestic oil. The reason is that the House’s measure targets for deletion exactly the tax breaks that provide incentives for domoestic production.

The legislation would impose a “conservation fee” on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s.

What the House, or at least the Members who voted aye, seem not to understand is that the price of petroleum is completely internationalized because the market is, too. If US oil companies can produce oil wholesale cheaper than its retail, or spot market, price on the international market, then they will sell the oil on the market and make a profit. At least the oil company will sell internationally the oil it produces that is excess to its domestic-retail capacity.

But if the cost of producing domestic oil is greater than its price on the international market, then companies shut down domestic production (never entirely, of course, because the restart costs would be prohibitive when/if the world price rose again and companies need a retained production capacity to surge production in that case). Since federal taxes are a major part of overall production costs for the US oil industry, increasing those taxes by removing subsidies simply raises the costs of domestic production. That makes it more likely that the oil companies will simply cut domestic production and make up the difference in imports.

But let gets real, folks. This whole thing isn’t about the money anyway, not really. It’s about eeevvviiiillll oooiiilll. They are simply making too much money, many people think, and therefore must be punished. Well, any product that is consumed by 100 percent of the population is certainly going to return huge revenues to its producer. Just wait until agri-fuels become Big Agrifuel or hydrogen becomes Big Hydrogen and see what their revenues are. (Yes, every person in the country, without exception, uses petroleum products, including persons who don’t own a car or use air conditioning and heat their homes only with wood.)

But wait, one may object, it’s not the gross revenue that is the point about hitting Big Oil, it’s the fact that their profits are so high.

Really? In October 2005 the Washington Post put oil company profits into context:

[I]n 2004 Exxon Mobil earned more money — $25.33 billion — than any other company on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations. But by another measure of profitability, gross profit margin, it ranked No. 127. …

A $9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil’s size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company. … Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil “earn” more, depending on what measure is used.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil’s gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.’s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.

By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout.

Let’s compare oil to iPods:

Apple, Inc. on Wednesday reported record revenue of $7.1 billion and record net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share, for the quarter that ended Dec. 30 2006, the company’s first fiscal quarter of 2007.

That’s a profit of more than 14.3 percent, five points higher than Exxon Mobil’s. Yet there’s no bill in Congress to impose windfall-profit taxes on Big Computer - or Big Banking, either. Congress may also need to consider that it might be about to bite that hand that feeds it. Business & Media Institute:

The Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge and Jonathan Williams noted in an October 26 report that “in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.” In fact, “since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections.”

When pump prices rose to record levels in the months after Hurricane Katrina, some states cut gas taxes to give consumers relief. Will imposing higher production costs through higher federal taxes put that pressure on state governments again?

Back to the ABC News story:

Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

Just where do the think that $15 billion will come from? Reduced oil company profits? Not a chance: company managers are ethically bound to maximize profits for their shareholders. CEOs who deliberately decline to do so get fired, and should be. No CEO of any kind of company would fail to pass on to the consumer the cost of increased corporate taxes as much as possible. This supposed $15 billion windfall (why is it okay for the feds to get a windfall but not private businesses?) will come from the only place all taxes can possibly come from in a free-market economy: the pockets of consumers, you and me. “Corporate taxes” is a myth, a piece of bookkeeping legerdemain . All taxes in America, of whatever nature or name, all always really paid by consumers. Why? Because that’s where the money is.

Thanks, House - just at a time when pump prices are finally falling, you couldn’t resist meddling. Way to look out for the little guy, the painters and plumbers and pizza drivers and salespersons who have to buy gas to make a living. Thank you also for smacking the aviation industry with higher fuel prices when they have just begun to return to profitablity.

What you have done, House, is effectually impose a highly regressive sales tax. And like all sales taxes, its marginal costs will be highest for the poor and low-income people of the country. Oh, how you cried that the minimum wage wasn’t enough to support a family of four, but oh, how eager you are to gobsmack those min-wage workers with higher heating and transportation and food prices by raising the price of oil production! Well done, well done! You have, as usual, lived down to our ever-decreasing low expectations.

Isaac Newton, that is. Today’s demolition derby is brought to you by your Mom. Good ol’ Mom Nature.

Strategy Page explains why:

Continuing budget problems have already forced Britians Royal Navy to mothball (put into inactive reserve) 13 of its 44 warships. Now it has been decided to mothball another eight, and to cancel construction of two Type-45 destroyers. That will leave only six new Type-45s, plus two new aircraft carriers being built. The government is also considering closing one of the three bases the navy maintains. The budget problems are caused by cost overruns in procurement problems for new ships (destroyers and nuclear subs) and aircraft (the new Eurofighter), as well as training costs associated with troops being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. The government believes it can get away with these cuts because, well, the U.S. Navy is more powerful than all the world’s navies combined, and a close ally of Britain. So if there’s an emergency requiring warships…

Whenever people complain that the US defense budget is so large compared to every other nation, I point out that we are paying for their defense as well as our own, and have been for some decades. Probably the only nation under America’s security umbrella that is mostly pulling its own freight is Japan, whose navy long ago surpassed Britain’s in size and power. Australia, too, can likely handle any conventional threat, though the US provides strategic deteerrent for both it and Japan. Britain, almost as steadfast an ally as Australia, has been near-completely dependent on American power since 1940, especially our seapower.

Pessimism abounds these days and if you are one who understands the gravity of the threat of our enemies in the War on Terror you have reason to be pessimistic Too many don’t even believe we are really in a war. Our leaders who know we are at war are taking a minimalist approach to the war. No one with access to a bully pulpit is effectively articulating what is at stake in the war. God bless President George W. Bush but even as he has had the courage to take the punches of the opposition he still has failed to communicate effectively with the nation and to commit fully to victory.

I am reminded of the 1970s - a time when not only many in America were rooting for communism but when many actually believed we had lost the moral high ground and that it would be democratic capitalism eventually left on the ash heap of history. Fortunately we found a leader who effectively reminded us of the goodness of our system and values and who had the courage to commit to victory. We are fortunate that he was able to lead us to victory by committing the necessary resources - and thereby prevented us from ever having to commit the ultimate resources of total war against communism.

We are there again. We are really nowhere new. Today many of our own doubt our nation’s moral standing, many are rooting against our victory, and many believe we have already lost. Once again we need a leader who reminds us of who we really are as a nation, who can communicate articulately what is at stake, who like Bush is willing to take the punches, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve victory before we find ourselves in the corner with only the resource of total war left to use. I am waiting for that leader to emerge to inspire us to believe what is good about us and to inspire us to victory.

So with all of that in mind, with our minimalist approach to terrorism (Islamic militancy, jihadism, your term of choice…) and the lack of national unity we are seeing in our government today, the following is the speech I’d like to hear and the plan I’d like to see:

There is great fear that exists in the world today.

Here at home in these United States many fear we are revisiting the unpleasant times of Vietnam - that we are being dragged into a quagmire in which we cannot win. But in fact we have more in common with the unpleasant times of the late 1930s that led to the abandonment of free nations - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and others to Nazi tyranny and millions of people abandoned to die horrifically in the Holocaust. Out of our fear of a despotic dictator not even 100 years ago we abandoned others, thinking we could buy our own national security. But in the process of that fearful appeasement and isolationism we were abandoning our own security, that is, until a man who had the courage to tell us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself led us out of fear. That man led us from the fear of economic collapse when he first came to office with those words and his words were every bit as applicable a few years later when he led us out of our fear of Nazism. Then a nation that was divided at that time - with 82% of Americans opposing potential war with the Nazis and thus unwilling to face the truth of the threat - finally united in a common cause for the survival of our freedom. Roosevelt refused to be led by that fear and instead led us out of fear as the institutions of America united behind him seeing the security of Americans at stake. Roosevelt saw the moral imperative of the victory of freedom over the evil of tyranny.

Today there is also fear abroad. But it is not us our enemies fear. What they do fear is what we stand for. Today medieval powerbrokers fear granting women rights. Today medieval powerbrokers fear educating their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear the economic independence of their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear liberty for their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear allowing people to worship in different ways. It is not that these medieval powerbrokers do not understand our ways and the ways of freedom. They fully understand and they fully reject it because it threatens their medieval position of domination.

There is also another fear abroad. A fear of the people dominated by these overlords. They fear that we will abandon them to these medieval powerbrokers as we abandoned over 65,000 free people to be executed by communists in South Vietnam after 1975; as we abandoned over 250,000 South Vietnamese to communist reeducation camps, as we abandoned over two million Vietnamese who said “you will not abandon us and we will not abandon freedom” as they became the boat people of the 1970s. They fear abandonment as we abandoned Beirut in the early 1980s after we were attacked there; as we abandoned Afghanistan once we saw their purpose as served in the late 1980s; as we abandoned Somalis in Mogadishu and Shiites in Iraq in early 1990s. They fear they too will be abandoned as we abandoned so many in the West when we were willing to abandon Eastern Europe to communism until a man said to tear down the wall that represented the enemy’s fear of liberty.

Our allies fear we will abandon them and our enemies are counting on that. Today - sad to say, but this is the ugly truth - our allies and enemies alike wonder if we are gutless. They believe we lack will and perseverance.

So today to answer that question we have to face the facts of our sad actions - and inactions of our past - that the fearful policies of appeasement, isolationism and abandonment have never worked when we’ve tried it and are in fact immoral. Those policies empowered our enemies and cost more lives in the long run. The policies of Churchill, Roosevelt and Reagan are our model if we want security at home and abroad. We have to face the mistakes of our past when we acted fearfully but we can also look to our past for hope when we finally acted with courage and confidence.

We are not gutless. We know - the American people know - that when we abandon our friends that we are then abandoning our own security. After the 1930s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed the world from the Nazi yoke. During the 1980s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed millions from the shackles of communism. And we maintained our peace and security. As in the 1930s and 1980s, we today have the ability to summon the superior industry, technology, military doctrine, and moral superiority of liberty that no other nation on earth can do. So the question today is will we once again have the will and perseverance.

Let me tell you something. Way down deep Americans always have and Americans always will. Americans know that ours is a unique place in history that respects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We know we are the nation the world turns to when earthquakes and tsunamis occur. We know we are the nation even whose poor are the envy of third world nations. We know we are the nation who gives more in aid - both public and private - than any other nation on earth. We know we are the nation to whom the oppressed look for hope and help. We are the nation to whom the sick throughout the world look for cures. We are the nation where churches, synagogues, mosques, and secularists live side by side without constant fear of firebombings or death squads. Ours is a nation where a speech like this can be given without the fear of literally having ones tongue cut out. Americans know that is why today we simultaneously fight a battle with medieval powerbrokers who fear those principles while we also fight to control our borders as people from all over the world invade those borders not to suppress liberty but to find it. We know ours is a nation worth defending and of values worth promoting. We count on it and our friends and those who yearn for liberty count on us.

Americans deserve leaders who have as much guts as they have. Americans deserve leadership that is farsighted and not shortsighted, that can see past the next election, that can see the ramifications tomorrow of abandoning your friends today. Americans of tomorrow deserve leadership today that will not abandon them. My friends, if we do not have the will and perseverance demanded to protect and secure our liberty today then we had better hope our children have it because they will need every ounce of it. Roosevelt told us not to fear our own fear. Reagan told us we could have peace by standing strong and looking to the future with hope and confidence.

Today I present a five point plan that puts our fear behind us and that calls for national unity for the security of our values. We have been nickel-and-diming our security and future. In many cases we have refused to see the seriousness of our enemies. That is a policy of fear and the path to failure. Today we must:

One, keep our enemies out of America by defeating them abroad wherever they may be. This means in the Philippines, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa, and yes in Iraq. We must strike at terrorist cells and confront the nations that support them. In Iraq we must seal her borders and crush the militias with whatever it takes including the broad use of US military might. Telling the Iraqis they must fend for themselves is like telling an alcoholic to remain sober in a bar. These long suffering people are addicted to survival and if we do not assist them they will survive in whatever way they can. The patrons in their neighborhood fear liberty as the drunks in a bar fear the wagon. Our allies will only fight with us if they believe we will stick by them. Our friends who desire liberty need our help and it is the only way we will maintain our own liberty.

Two, we must unleash the free market which leads to freedom. We must do more in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere with a responsible and aggressive Marshall Plan. We must provide security so that these programs have the opportunity to take root. We must cut out bureaucracy and we must increase the presence of our civilian agencies in addition to our military in these regions.

Third, we must fight an aggressive economic and energy war against terrorist groups and the nations that support them - including especially Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Our energy and economic polices must not enable our enemies. In some cases this will cause short term losses for some American interests and hardships for our people but is crucial to causing the collapse of our enemies and our long term viability. We must isolate our enemies economically and become more self-sufficient ourselves.

Four, we must rebuild our military in a robust way. Transformation does not mean tiny. What is does mean is more flexibility, greater mobility, and soldier skills that relate to effectiveness in different cultures. But we need boots on ground to build relationships and trust and mutual security. Today our nation spends less of its GDP on national defense than at any time since Pearl Harbor. That is unconscionable in a day when we are actively at war. In a world in which our enemies seek our total destruction we can only achieve peace through strength. Strength is what they respect. And they must fear us. Diplomacy is preferred but it only works when it has teeth.

Finally, we must use our bully pulpit. We need to call upon the leaders of the world religions for regular and public summits between the leaders of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The religious leaders of the world need to come out of their ivory towers while their people are suffering. We must support groups who seek liberty throughout the world with moral, economic, and every level of support necessary. We must announce hope to all those who seek liberty across the airways of a Radio Free Liberty that gives hope to the oppressed throughout the world. We must speak directly to the peoples of the Middle East and across the world that we stand by them even as their own governments oppress them and impoverish them for the sake of their own personal power. We must kindle their hopes for when the time comes that they too may be free.

Essentially, we must make our enemies afraid and must give the people of the world hope. There was a day when so many feared Hitler, when so many later feared Brezhnev, and then Saddam. Today many fear Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez. But the day came when Hitler feared us, Andropov feared us and Saddam feared us while those they oppressed found their hope in us. If these tyrants of today are smart then Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez will fear us too while we bring hope to others and security to ourselves.

Our best days are ahead. The best days of all humanity are ahead. Do we have the will and perseverance to make those days happen or will we abandon our challenge and leave our children to do tomorrow what we refuse to do today? Will we leave them to carry out the last resort because we failed to carry out lesser but no less necessary measures today?

You know the answer and so do I. Let’s do what we have to do. Americans - have no fear. Friends - have no fear. And to our enemies - you have once again awakened a sleeping giant. Freedom and security are on the march once again. History has brought us here. Today the wolves have entered the sheepgate and they must be engaged. We are morally compelled to do so. Jefferson said the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. McArthur said there is no substitute for victory. Make no mistake. We will conquer our fear. Liberty will triumph over oppression. We will be secure. Yes, we do have the willpower and we will persevere.”

That’s a presidential speech I’d like to hear, and soon. Today, from what I can see, John McCain and Joe Lieberman may be the only people at the levels of high political leadership who get this to a great degree. Bush understands the threat but it seems only McCain and Lieberman understand that we must go all out. One of the problems is that ours is largely a nation that goes about its business as if there were no threat looming over us - at the recommendation of the Bush administration by the way. A mistake, a big mistake in a day when people must understand what is at stake. Ours is the only nation that can morally stand up to tyranny. However it happened - and whether you like it or not - history has brought us here. Others depend on us and believe it or not we depend on others if we are to maintain security and a viable economy such as the one we are accustomed to. It is a moral imperative that stand for and commit to liberty.

Someone needs to make that clear and to commit us to preserving just that.