A Thought On The "Decisive Ideological Struggle"

In his State Of The Union Speech President Bush said...

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy.

Or, what if it's simply Islam? That answer is feeling more and more correct to me as we go along here.

To pick out one piece of this....

Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance.

Really? Perhaps someone should have mentioned this to the 7/7 bombers in London?

The problem here is that I understand implicitly why the president is taking this rhetorical stand, but I think he's wrong. I think we are decisively engaged with Islam. And I have no idea where that takes us if true, but I do know that dealing with reality is most helpful when engaging an enemy that has no compunctions about killing you.

This is the basic question underlying everything we do in the Middle East. Yes it would be nice to believe that Muslims are just the same as us, and want the same things as us.

But what if that simply isn't true?

Technorati Tags: islam, jihad, islamotards,

powered by performancing firefox