Ah - the truth emerges...

This week's presidential address to the nation is a most telling bit of speaking, and possibly the most candid that Bush and his administration have been since reaching the White House.

One does have to do a little bit of reading betwixt the words, but statements are made that are very clear about the intentions of Bush and his advisors:

As the September the 11th Commission concluded, our country is safer than we were three years ago, but we are not yet safe.

Ah - so, you are going to continue to introduce legislation that curtails individual rights and freedoms? (a la what was proposed for "Patriot II") Or, is this simply another one of those lines used to further spread fear and uncertainty among the people?

The United States is determined to stay on the offensive, and to pursue the terrorists wherever they train, or sleep, or attempt to set down roots. We have conducted this campaign from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the heart of the Middle East, to the horn of Africa, to the islands of the Philippines, to hidden cells within our own country.

Let's be honest here - what you're really saying is that you believe the United States has the right to impose its will on other sovereign nations - with or without their cooperation. More or less, the stance of the US since 9/11 has been that it is their right to invade countries at will, under the graceless excuse of 'excising terrorists' - regardless of any persuasive evidence to substantiate those allegations being put to the public?

The United States is also determined to advance democracy in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring the peace and security we all want. When the peoples of that region are given new hope and lives of dignity, they will let go of old hatreds and resentments, and the terrorists will find fewer recruits.

I hate to point out the obvious, but it took the civilizations of 'Western European' tradition about a millenium and half for democracy to emerge. Even if the Middle East were willing to become democracies based on that tradition, it will take a minimum of 3 - 5 generations before the countries will truly be "democracies" in the sense that we are familiar with. Simply imposing a model of government is guaranteed to create the very conditions under which strongmen and madmen are able to eventually assert power. Imposing any government on a nation under military occupation guarantees a government that will only survive as long as its control over the military does.

I will grant that giving people legitimate hope and dignity will make it harder for shadow organizations like al Qaeda to find recruits - but it won't solve the issue entirely. In the United States itself, the liberty and opportunity of that land didn't stop Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols from setting off a huge truck-bomb in Oklahoma. It would be foolish to believe that the Arab world will "welcome" a cultural structure that is highly individualistic when they are still living in a loosely tribal mode that has survived since the collapse of the Roman Empire. Many will resent the changes, and will attempt to reverse them, or will carry their grievances to violent acts.

Our present work in Iraq and Afghanistan is difficult. It is also historic and essential. By our commitment and sacrifice today, we will help transform the Middle East, and increase the safety of our children and grandchildren.

Urk! Logical disconnect here. The chances of successful 'transformation' of the cultural context that exists in the Middle East is slim at best. Consider the history of the Middle East as a whole:

1. The Roman Empire tried to occupy and tame the region, stretching almost into the Persian Gulf. Ultimately, they were unable to control it directly, and governors placed in the region were largely unsuccessful in their efforts.
2. Various Popes tried to redefine the Middle East via the Crusades. Aside from creating a lot of dead bodies on both sides, neither really succeeded.
3. The British Empire tried to remap the region into what it thought would improve the lot of their interests there. Needless to say, their success was limited at best.
4. The Soviet Union tried to occupy and control Afghanistan - with a decided lack of success.

So...what would make any rational human being believe that this most recent foray into the Middle East by a "western power" is going to succeed where others have failed over the millenia?

So - is the objective really about making the world safer, or is it about placing a veneer of American values over the world, and believing that somehow this makes things "safer"?