Christians Leaving Gaza For West Bank

‎

President's Radio Address To The Nation

"Good morning. I'm speaking to you from the Middle East, where I have been meeting with friends and allies. We're discussing how we can work together to confront the extremists who threaten our future. And I have encouraged them to take advantage of the historic opportunity we have before us to advance peace, freedom, and security in this vital part of the world.

"My first stop was Israel and the Palestinian Territories. I had good meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas. Both these men are committed to peace in the Holy Land. Both these men have been elected by their people. And both share a vision of two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.

"I came away encouraged by my meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Each side understands that the key to achieving its own goals is helping the other side achieve its goals. For the Israelis, their main goal is ensuring the safety of their people and the security of their nation. For the Palestinians, the goal is a state of their own, where they can enjoy the dignity that comes with sovereignty and self-government.

"In plain language, the result must be the establishment of a free and democratic homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a free and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For this to happen, the Israelis must have secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And the Palestinians must have a state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. Achieving this vision will require tough decisions and painful concessions from both sides.

"I believe that a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that defines a Palestinian state is possible this year. Prime Minister Olmert made clear to me that he understands a democratic Palestinian state is in the long-term security interests of Israel. President Abbas is committed to achieving this Palestinian state through negotiation. The United States cannot impose an agreement on the Israelis and Palestinians -- that is something they must work out themselves. But with hard work and good will on both sides, they can make it happen. And both men are getting down to the serious work of negotiation to make sure it does happen.

"The United States will do all we can to encourage these negotiations and promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. But the international community has a responsibility to help as well. In particular, the Arab nations of the Gulf have a responsibility both to support President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and other Palestinian leaders as they work for peace, and to work for a larger reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. And in my meetings with Arab leaders over the next few days, I will urge them to do their part.

"A democratic Palestinian state is in the interests of the Palestinians. It is in the long-term security interests of Israel. And it is in the interests of a world at war with terrorists and extremists trying to impose their brutal vision on the Middle East. By helping the Israeli and Palestinian people lay the foundation for lasting peace, we will help build a more hopeful future for the Holy Land -- and a safer world for the American people.

"Thank you for listening."

‎

George Bush Moved To Tears At Holocaust Memorial

‎

Remarks By President Bush During Visit To Yad Vashem

"Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your wonderful hospitality. I would hope as many people in the world would come to this place, it would be a sobering reminder that evil exists and a call that when we find evil we must resist it. It also is a -- I guess I came away with this impression, that I was most impressed that people, in the face of horror and evil, would not forsake their God, and in the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls young and old stood strong for what they believe.

"It's an honor to be here. It is a moving experience, and it is a living memory that is important. Thank you, sir."

‎

George Bush Traces Footsteps Of Jesus

‎

Remarks by President Bush and Palestinian Authority President Abbas in Joint Press Availability

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (As translated.) Your Excellency, President George Bush, President of the United States of America, I welcome you in Ramallah, as well as in Bethlehem, on the land of Palestine, that welcomes you today as a great guest, that goes with him, commitment towards the peace process. It's a historic visit that gives our people great hope in the fact that your great nation is standing and supporting their dream and their yearning towards freedom and independence and living in peace in this area, alongside their neighbors.

Our people will not forget Your Excellency, your invitation and your commitment towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. You are the first American President that confirms and reiterates this right.

(Translation earpiece not working.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: I haven't got it yet. You may have to start over. (Laughter.) Not yet. You better stay awake. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ABBAS: Our people, Your Excellency --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree completely. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ABBAS: Your commitment towards an establishment of an independent Palestinian state -- you are the first American President to reiterate this right. The conferences of Annapolis and Paris were an historic step from you and from the American people and the world as a whole to perfect this commitment and push it forward.

Our Palestinian people, who committed to peace as a strategic option, want to see, through your support and your intervention, and end to its suffering and the suffering of its people and their families, and wants to move freely in their homeland, and develop their life and their economy without any obstacles that hinder that progress, and without a separation wall that fragments the land, and without settlements that is governing its land and future. We want to see a different future where prisons are not crowded with thousands of prisoners, and where hospitals are not crowded with tens of innocent victims every day, without checkpoints and queues of ordinary people who suffer from humiliation and siege.

I would like to point out here that we instructed our government to continue the work towards enhancing security and imposing public order, and establishing good governance that is based on the rule of law, and to consolidate the role of our democratic institutions and strengthen the work of the civil society, as well as work on consolidating development and administrative and financial reform and transparency, so that we can lay the foundations for a modern and democratic state.

And the government is taking intensive steps in that direction, and I would like to express our appreciation for the support of your administration in the economic sphere in order to develop the infrastructure and provide new job opportunities, and improve the level of services and all other projects that contribute in improving the lives and the conditions of living for our people.

We and our Israeli neighbors, and under your direct sponsorship -- bilateral negotiations that address all issues of final status are core issues -- that we would like to end these negotiations during your term in office and that we -- it will be ending by the -- ending of the occupation that started in 1967, and that establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and its capital, Jerusalem, based on your vision and the international resolutions, and that we find a fair solution for the tragedy of refugees, according to the Arab initiative for peace and according to the U.N. resolutions.

And on this occasion I would like to reiterate before you our commitment to all our obligations that we agreed to. And we call upon Israel, as well, to fulfill its commitments according to the road map plan, because we firmly believe that peace is made by a will and a shared commitment among all parties.

Your historic visit today to the Palestinian Territories is highly appreciated by our people, and it's a new expression of your deep commitment towards establishing peace on the land of peace. We appreciate the complete seriousness that characterizes your visit and your efforts today to continue and build and capitalize on this important opportunity that is available to us and to the Israelis.

We start with you a new year, hoping that this will be the year for the creation of peace. You will hear today in Bethlehem the call for prayers from the mosques, and the heralding of bells at the Church of Nativity, that confirms our common message, the message of human tolerance and real peace that is deeply rooted in our conscience and in our heritage. Your presence today amongst us, Your Excellency, is a reiteration for the call for comprehensive and just peace that you called for and you committed yourself to. And the echo of this call reaches all the people and the countries in our region, because the voice that is now going out of Palestine is the closest and the deepest in reaching the hearts of all the people in the region.

Please, Your Excellency, trust that peace in the world starts from here, from the Holy Land. We welcome you again, our dear guest and our dear friend, here in Palestine.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, thank you for your hospitality. We have met a lot in the past and I'm glad to finally have a chance to sit down in your office to discuss important issues.

(Interruption in the translation audio.) Is it working? (Laughter.) Listen, they say I have enough problems speaking English as it is. (Laughter.)

I have had numerous opportunities to visit with the President. And the fundamental question I have is whether or not he is committed to peace. It's the same question I had for the Prime Minister of Israel. And I've come to the conclusion that both men understand the importance to democratic states living side by side in peace.

President Abbas was elected on a platform of peace. In other words, he just wasn't somebody who starts talking about it lately, he campaigned on it. He also said that if you give me a chance, I'll work to improve the lives of the average Palestinians, and that's what he has done. It's certainly not easy work. The conditions on the ground are very difficult and, nevertheless, this man and his government not only works for a vision, but also works to improve the lives of the average citizens, which is essential for the emergence of a Palestinian democracy.

I talked to him today about how -- what we can do to help and, as he mentioned, the United States has been an active financial giver, we helped at the Paris Conference. I firmly believe that the Palestinians are entrepreneurial people who, if just given a chance, will be able to grow their businesses and provide jobs.

We talked about the need to fight off the extremists. The world in which we live is a dangerous world because there are people who murder innocent people to achieve political objectives, not just here in this immediate part of the world, but around the world. That's what we're dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon. And the fundamental question is, will nations stand up and help those who understand the ideological struggle we're in. And the President understands the ideological struggle. He knows that a handful of people want to dash the aspirations of the Palestinian people by creating chaos and violence.

And I appreciate that, Mr. President. And I appreciate your understanding that, ultimately, the way to achieve peace is to offer an alternative vision, and that's a vision based upon liberty.

Now, look, there are some in the world who don't believe in the universality of freedom. I understand that. They say, like, freedom is okay for some of us, but maybe not all of us. I understand it, but I reject it. I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe, deep in the soul of every man, woman, and child on the face of this Earth is the desire to live in a free society. And I also believe free societies yield peace. And, therefore, this notion of two states living side by side in peace is based upon the universality of freedom, and if given a chance, the Palestinian people will work for freedom.

And that's a challenge ahead of us -- is, is it possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to work out their differences on core issues so that a vision can emerge? And my answer is, absolutely, it's possible. Not only is it possible, it's necessary. And I'm looking forward to helping.

You know, there's a great anticipation that all the American President has got to do is step in, and just say, okay, this is the way it's going to be. That's not how the system works. In order for there to be lasting peace, President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert have to come together and make tough choices. And I'm convinced they will. And I believe it's possible -- not only possible, I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That's what I believe. And the reason I believe that is because I hear the urgency in the voice of both the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority.

Is it going to be hard work? You bet. And we can help support these negotiations, and will. I was asked yesterday at a press conference, you know, what do you intend to do; if you're not going to write the agreement, what do you intend to do? I said, nudge the process forward -- like, pressure; be a pain if I need to be a pain -- which in some people's mind isn't all that hard. And they said, well, like -- yesterday, somebody said, well, are you disappointed? I arrived and it nudged the process forward. In other words, we can help influence the process, and will. But the only lasting peace will be achieved when the duly elected leaders of the respective peoples do the hard work.

And so I want to help. And I want to help in the region, as well, Mr. President. The rest of my trip will be talking about, obviously, security threats, but also the opportunity to achieve peace. And the Arab world has got an opportunity and obligation, in my judgment, to help both parties in these negotiations move the process forward.

I explained yesterday, and I just want to explain again today, there are three tracks to this process, as far as we're concerned. One is the negotiations to define a vision that will be subject to the road map.

Secondly is to resolve -- help resolve road map issues. And today I introduced the President to the General -- three-star Air Force General who will be running this process. We have agreed to a trilateral process and want to help the Israelis and the Palestinians resolve their differences over road map issues.

And thirdly is to help the Palestinians develop the infrastructure necessary for a democracy -- an economy -- and security forces that are capable of doing what the President and the Prime Minister want to have done. And we're very much engaged. I'm looking forward to seeing Tony Blair tomorrow, who is the Quartet's representative, and to find out what he has been doing and what progress is being made.

I am confident that with proper help, the state of Palestine will emerge. And I'm confident that when it emerges it will be a major step towards peace. I am confident that the status quo is unacceptable, Mr. President, and we want to help you. And I appreciate your vision, and I appreciate your courage, and I appreciate your hospitality. And I appreciate you giving me a chance to talk to the press, of course. (Laughter.)

A couple of questions, I understand.

Q Mr. President Abu Mazen, what are the results of this visit? Mr. President Bush, you said more than once that the Palestinian side must fulfill its obligations. And Mr. Fayyad has had a security plan to help the peace. And when Mr. Fayyad went to Annapolis he commended that security plan, and then Israel destroyed all those efforts in Annapolis. How can the Palestinian Authority do security efforts that are successful, and while Israel destroys and undermines all their efforts in the occupied territories?

The other side of the question: Are you willing to give guarantees for the Palestinian side to declaring a freezing on settlements immediately? Thank you.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (As translated.) We are fully satisfied with the outcome that we reached through this visit of Mr. President George Bush. We spoke about all topics that might occur to your mind and that might not occur to your mind, as well. All the issues are in agreement. We are agreed on all topics. All topics are clear.

In the near future, in the coming few days, we are going to meet in bilateral negotiations with the Israelis in order to discuss the final status negotiations, final status issues. And as Mr. President said, there are three themes -- the other theme is implementing the road map through the committee, the trilateral committee. And the third point is the economic and security conditions in Palestinian Territories. We have great hopes that during 2008 we will reach the final status and a peace treaty with Israel.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Each side has got obligations under the road map. Settlements are clearly stated in the road map obligations for Israel. We have made our concerns about expansion of settlements known, and we expect both parties to honor their obligations under the road map.

Secondly, we're spending -- General Dayton is spending a lot of time trying to help the President and the Prime Minister develop security forces that are effective. There's no question in my mind the commitment to provide security for the average citizen is strong. The question is the capabilities. And the truth of the matter is there needs to be a fair amount of work done to make sure that the security forces are modernized, well-trained and prepared, with a proper chain of command to respond. And I will tell you I firmly believe the security forces are improving.

I remember our visit in New York, and we discussed this during the U.N. General Assembly. And by any objective measurement, the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank are improving.

And so my message to the Israelis is that they ought to help, not hinder, the modernization of the Palestinian security force. It's in their interests that a government dedicated to peace and understanding the need for two states to live side by side in peace have a modern force.

It's got -- very important for the government to be able to assure people that if there is a need, there will be an effective force to provide security. That's just step one of having credibility with the people. And to the extent that Israeli actions have undermined the effectiveness of the Palestinian force, or the authority of the state relative to the average citizen, is something that we don't agree with and have made our position clear.

She just called on you.

Q -- (inaudible) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, that's the road map obligation I was talking about.

Q -- (inaudible) --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. He's asking me about the checkpoints I drove through and my impression about what it was like to drive through checkpoints. I can understand why the Palestinians are frustrated driving through checkpoints. I can also understand that until confidence is gained on both sides, why the Israelis would want there to be a sense of security. In other words, they don't want a state on their border from which attacks would be launched. I can understand that. Any reasonable person can understand that. Why would you work to have a state on your border if you weren't confident they'd be a partner in peace?

And so checkpoints create frustrations for people. They create a sense of security for Israel; they create massive frustrations for the Palestinians. You'll be happy to hear that my motorcade of a mere 45 cars was able to make it through without being stopped. (Laughter.) But I'm not so exactly sure that's what happens to the average person. And so the whole object is to create a state that is capable of defending itself internally, and giving confidence to its neighbor that checkpoints won't be needed.

Now, the vision of the Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory. In other words, as I said earlier in my administration, I said, Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the outline of a state. And I mean that. There is no way that this good man can assure the Palestinians of a hopeful future if there's not contiguous territory. And we -- that position is abundantly clear to both sides. Therefore, the ultimate vision, of course, is there be no checkpoints throughout the Palestinian state-to-be.

And, you know, this is the issue. We're working through how to gain enough confidence on both sides so that checkpoints won't be necessary, and a state can emerge. My judgment is, I can understand frustrations. I mean, I hear it a lot. I heard it -- you know, the chief negotiator spent two hours at a checkpoint. All he was trying to do was go negotiate. And I can see that -- I can see the frustrations. Look, I also understand that people in Israel -- and the truth of the matter is, in the Palestinian Territories -- the average citizen wants to know whether or not there's going to be protection from the violent few who murder.

The security of a state is essential, particularly in a day and age when people simply disregard the value of human life, and kill. And so these checkpoints reflect the reality. And what we're trying to do is alter the reality by laying out a vision that is much more hopeful than the status quo.

Q Mr. President George Bush -- you launched war against Iraq after the Iraqi leadership refused to implement the United Nations resolutions. My question now is, what is the problem to ask Israel just to accept and to respect the United Nations resolutions relating to the Palestinian problem, which -- facilitating the achievement of ending the Israeli occupation to the Arab territories and facilitating also the solution between Palestinians and the Israelis?

And for Mahmoud Abbas, did you ask President George Bush to ask Israel to freeze settlements fully in order to enable negotiations from success?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, but tell me the part about the U.N. thing again? What were you -- I couldn't understand you very well.

Q I just asked why you ask Israel to accept the United Nations resolutions related to the Palestinian problem, just to facilitate the solution, and to end the occupation.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Actually, I'm asking Israel to negotiate in good faith with an elected leader of the Palestinian Territory to come up with a permanent solution that -- look, the U.N. deal didn't work in the past. And so now we're going to have an opportunity to redefine the future by having a state negotiated between an elected leader of the Palestinian people, as well as the Prime Minister of Israel. This is an opportunity to move forward. And the only way for -- the only way to defeat the terrorists in the long run is to offer an alternative vision that is more hopeful. And that's what we're attempting to do, sir.

We can stay stuck in the past, which will yield nothing good for the Palestinians, in my judgment. We can chart a hopeful future, and that's exactly what this process is intending to do; to redefine the future for the Palestinian citizens and the Israelis.

I'm confident that two democratic states living side by side in peace is in the interests not only of the Palestinians and the Israelis, but of the world. The question is whether or not the hard issues can be resolved and the vision emerges, so that the choice is clear amongst the Palestinians -- the choice being, do you want this state, or do you want the status quo? Do you want a future based upon a democratic state, or do you want the same old stuff? And that's a choice that I'm confident that if the Palestinian people are given, they will choose peace.

And so that's what we're trying to do, sir.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (As translated.) The settlement for us is considered an obstacle for negotiations, and we have spoke more than once with Mr. Prime Minister Olmert, very frankly. And we also spoke in this meeting with President George Bush, and consequently, the President understood this issue. And we have heard the statements given by the Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, and she has -- her point of view regarding settlements was very positive.

Q President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert said that peace is not alive here as long as Gaza militants continue their threats on Israel. How do you see, President, about -- (inaudible) -- from Gaza?

And for you, President Abbas, how do you intend, actually, to get control of Gaza, and do you think this is possible by the end of the year and by the end of Mr. Bush's presidency?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, Gaza is a tough situation. I don't know whether you can solve it in a year, or not. But I know this: It can't be solved unless the Prime Minister -- the President has a vision that he can lay out to the people of Gaza that says, here's your choice: Do you want those who have created chaos to run your country, or do you want those of us who negotiated a settlement with the Israelis that will lead to lasting peace?

There is a competing vision taking place in Gaza. And in my judgment, Hamas, which I felt ran on a campaign of, we're going to improve your lives through better education and better health, have delivered nothing but misery. And I'm convinced his government will yield a hopeful future. And the best way to make that abundantly clear is for there to be a vision that's understandable.

See, the past has just been empty words, you know. We -- actually it hasn't been that much -- I'm the only President that's really articulated a two-state solution so far -- but saying two states really doesn't have much bearing until borders are defined, right of return issues resolved, Jerusalem is understood, security measures -- the common security measures will be in place. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a clear, defined state around which people can rally.

And there's going to be -- there will be no better difference, a clear difference, than the vision of Hamas in Gaza and the vision of the President and the Prime Minister and his team based here in Ramallah. And to me, that's how you solve the issue in the long-term. And the definition of long-term, I don't know what it means. I'm not a timetable person -- actually, I am on a timetable -- got 12 months. (Laughter.) But I'm impressed by the President's understanding about how a vision and a hopeful future will help clearly define the stakes amongst the Palestinian people.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (As translated.) Gaza it is considered a coup by us, we consider it a coup d'etat what happened in Gaza. Now -- we consider it a coup d'etat. (Laughter.) And we deal with Gaza at two levels. The first is that we deal with the people as part of us and we take full responsibility that is necessary towards our people. We spend in Gaza 58 percent of our budget. This is not to -- it is our duty towards our people that we provide them with all the need.

As for the issue of Hamas, we said that this is a coup and they have to retreat from this coup and they have to recognize international legitimacy, all international legitimacy, and to recognize the Arab Initiative, as well. In this case we will have another talk.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, all.

‎

Remarks by the President After Visit to Church of the Nativity

"Madam Minister, thank you very much for your hospitality. It's been a -- it's been a moving moment for me and the delegation to be here at the Church of the Nativity. For those of us who practice the Christian faith, there's really no more holy site than the place where our Savior was born.

"And I want to thank the government for arranging this trip. I also thank very much the three different churches for welcoming me here. It's a fascinating history in this church, so not only was my soul uplifted, my knowledge of history was enriched.

"I want to thank the people of Bethlehem for enduring a presidential trip -- I know it's been inconvenient for you. I very much appreciate your tolerating my entourage. Some day I hope that as a result of a formation of a Palestinian state there won't be walls and checkpoints, that people will be able to move freely in a democratic state. That's the vision, greatly inspired by my belief that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to each man, woman and child on the face of the Earth is freedom. And I felt it strongly here today.

"Anyway, thank you very much."

‎

Bush Meets With Palestinians

‎

President George Bush To Visit Some Of Christianity's Most Sacred Sites While In Israel

‎

President George Bush Welcomed To Israel

‎

Iran Is A Threat To World Peace

‎

Huckabee A Friend To Israel

From the Jerusalem Post:

"We cannot live with al-Qaida, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran. Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons on my watch," he wrote. "But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I put their son's or daughter's life at risk, I want to do everything possible to avoid conflict. We have substantive issues to discuss with Teheran. Recent direct negotiations about Iraq have not been productive because they have not explored the full range of issues."

He has also been staunchly supportive of Israel, writing in Foreign Affairs that, "I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel." It is a country he has visited several times, leading groups there as well as taking his family.

Huckabee has drawn on his experience in the Holy Land in making his pitch to voters, which has especially resonated with evangelicals.

When he spoke to thousands of Republican boosters at the Iowa straw poll this summer, he recalled his trip to Yad Vashem and the tragedy Jews experienced during the Holocaust to call them to action.

Huckabee's son David told The Jerusalem Post that he remembers the trip well and the impact it had on his family.

"I'll never forget the bus ride home. The bus at any other time on the trip, there was laughing and joking. At the bus on the ride home, not a word was said," he said of the visit to Yad Vashem. "It helped him in his parenting role for us in how to treat people equally and not judge them on color and religion. It absolutely has a role in the way we were raised and treats people and teaches us to treat people and leads people."

Click Here to read more . . .

‎

Mike Huckabee's Foreign Policy Speech In Washington D.C.

NEWS RELEASE:

MIKE HUCKABEE DELIVERS MAJOR FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Washington, D.C. – Former AR Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee delivered the following speech, “Paths and Priorities in the War on Terror,” at a foreign policy forum hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. this morning [September 28, 2007].

The following text is a copy of his prepared remarks as written:

* * *

“Saying American foreign policy needs a change in tone and attitude, or an opening up and a reaching out, is as obvious as saying O. J. Simpson might be having a bad month. This Administration’s bunker mentality has been counter-productive both at home and abroad. They have done as poor a job of communicating and consulting with other countries as they have with the American people.

“A more successful foreign policy begins at home with better communication to the American people about Islamic terror. Six years after 9/11, it is still difficult for us, with our religious tolerance, our separation of church and state, to grasp how these people think. After we attend different churches on Sunday, or no church, Americans share meals or movies -- we don’t slaughter each other. We have thrived on our diversity – religious, ethnic, racial -- to become the world’s only superpower. We don’t merely tolerate diversity, we embrace and celebrate it. To Islamic extremists, the concept of a melting pot is as alien as the concept of a theocracy is to us. It takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what these people are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it.

“The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists – and their suicide bombs – tick, and the Administration has not explained it well. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, and the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad, influenced bin Laden and the rise of Al Qaeda. Qutb is to bin Laden as Karl Marx is to Lenin. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore what he considered the “pure” Islam of the seventh century. Besides opposing non-Muslims, besides opposing Shiites, he was a Sunni who opposed Sunni governments because he believed they required their citizens to worship them like “gods,” and so were guilty of a polytheism forbidden by Islam. To him, the only answer was a return to a theocratic caliphate without national borders, and he saw nothing decadent or sinful in murder to achieve that end. Americans, who go to extreme lengths to save lives, can’t comprehend human beings who delight in taking lives, it just doesn’t compute. In our culture, the death of a child is about the worst trial a person can endure, while parents of suicide bombers feel joy, not grief. We believe that every individual has intrinsic worth and value. This culture of life is a cornerstone of our society, illuminated by the conflict with the Islamic jihadists and their culture of death.

“It is also difficult for us, with our culture of assimilation, to understand that life for European Muslims is different from life for American Muslims. Muslims in Britain or the Netherlands or Germany are second-class citizens because those countries have more homogenous populations that don’t readily integrate outsiders. Instead of melting pots, Europe has separate pots boiling over with alienation and despair. In some countries, like France, it is more a lack of economic integration, while in others, like Britain, it is more a lack of cultural integration, but whatever the reason, Europe is a much more fertile breeding ground for terror than the United States. Unintentionally, some of our closest allies are producing some of our clearest threats. Because of our special relationship with Britain and all our similarities with them, most Americans don’t realize that it is very different to be a Muslim citizen of Britain than a Muslim citizen of the United States, so we have trouble accepting that doctors in Britain become terrorists. We have to understand that while educated Muslims in Europe may not be materially deprived, many of them feel socially and emotionally deprived by a lack of acceptance. Earlier this month we saw the arrest of German citizens plotting a terror attack against American targets there. Also this month we saw Danish citizens arrested for plotting an imminent bombing. Both plots had links to Al Qaeda.

“Besides the threat of small groups of educated people launching isolated attacks, we face the danger of mass movements of the dispossessed and discontented rising up in the Islamic world and overthrowing their governments, movements like those that led to the current government in Iran when the Shah was overthrown and to the Palestinians’ election of Hamas and then their takeover of Gaza. To create havoc in the world, you need educated people to provide the intellectual underpinnings and poor, desperate people to provide the manpower. Before the Russian Revolution, the rural peasants who formed the overwhelming bulk of the population weren’t sitting around reading Karl Marx, they were illiterate. It took a small number of intellectuals to provide the theory and then rally oppressed peasants behind them. The ruling class is the spark, but the underclass is the fuel. A strong middle class is the firewall.

“Our biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative. On the one hand, we have existing repressive governments that stay in power by force and suppression of basic human rights -- many of which we support, either with our oil money, like the Saudis, or with our foreign aid, like the Egyptians, who are our second largest recipient. On the other hand, we have radical Islamists, who are willing to fight dictators with terror tactics that moderates are too humane to use. This is how Iran went from the brutal Shah to the brutal Ayatollahs, despite all the Iranians who wanted a moderate government then and who want one now.

“We can’t ‘export’ democracy as if it was Coca Cola or KFC, but we can nurture native moderate forces in all these countries where Al Qaeda seeks to replace modern evil with medieval evil. This moderation may not look like or function exactly like our system, it may be more of a benevolent oligarchy, it may be more tribal than individualistic, but both for us and for the people of those countries, it will be better than either the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under the radical Islamists.

“We see this potential in the way Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq, who had been working with Al Qaeda, have now turned against them and are working with us. They couldn’t stand living under Al Qaeda’s fundamentalism and brutality. The people of Afghanistan turned against the Taliban for the same reason. To know these extremists is not to love them.

“My goal in the Muslim world is to correctly calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to try to accomplish too much too soon, you just have elections where extremists win, but it’s equally self-defeating to do nothing. First, we have to destroy the terrorists who already exist, then we have to attack the underlying conditions that breed terror, by helping to improve health and basic quality of life, create schools that offer an alternative to the extremist madrassas that turn impressionable children into killers, create jobs and opportunity and hope, encourage a free press, fair courts, and other institutions that promote democracy. We have to help other governments mount an active counter-insurgency wherever the terrorists are to be found, but we also have to help them improve their infrastructure to make future terrorists unwelcome. Our strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with our moral obligations as the world’s richest country. If we don’t do the right thing to make life better in the Islamic world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing.

“We have to support moderates with no favoring of Sunnis or Shiites. As for the underlying dispute between them that’s been going on for almost fourteen hundred years, we don’t have a dog in that fight. Our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises. The Saudis want us to support extremist Sunni groups to counter growing Iranian power. The Saudis assure us that they can control these groups and keep them from turning against us. We saw how well that turned out with Al Qaeda.

“We all have much to lose if the Middle East becomes chaos. We have made the Saudis rich – the wealth of their oil is seed money for terrorism. They and Pakistan have much to lose if we lose. They will ultimately accommodate whoever they think has the stamina to win.

“In the past, we’ve been constrained because our dependence on imported oil has forced us to support repressive regimes, to conduct our foreign policy with one hand tied behind our back with an oil-soaked rope. It’s time, it’s past time, to untie that hand and reach out to the moderates with both hands. Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy, it has deformed it. When I make foreign policy, I want to treat Saudi Arabia the way I treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent. These folks have had us over a barrel – literally – for way too long. Saudi Arabia funds madrassas all over the world that teach extremism. The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence, which we will achieve by the end of my second term. To those who say it will take twenty years, I compare the lackadaisical pace of work when you bring your car in for service with the urgent, concentrated effort made when a NASCAR driver pulls up for a pit stop. We must view becoming energy independent like a pit stop where every second counts, not like dropping off the family station wagon for Goober and Gomer to work on. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all avenues of alternative energy – nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, ethanol and other biomass, and biodiesel. Why did Iraq and Iran fight? Oil. Whoever controls oil controls the Middle East and the world. If all the Middle East unites behind Iran, then the price of oil won’t be our problem – we won’t get any.

“But supporting Islamic moderates and moving toward energy independence won’t protect us from the terrorists who already exist. We still have to fight this war on terror hard and we have to fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might. The terrorists have sympathizers all over the world, people happy to show up and be filmed shouting “Death to America,” but the actual number of those willing to sign up for suicide missions is relatively few, and they train and plot in small, scattered groups.

“It’s an enemy conducive to being tracked down and eliminated by using the CIA and our Special Forces. We can accomplish a great deal, we can achieve tremendous bang for the buck, with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units, as we’ve recently done with the Ethiopians in Somalia. These operations are impossible without first-rate intelligence. When the Cold War ended, we cut back on our human intelligence, just as we cut back on our armed forces, and both have come back to haunt us. As president, I will beef up our human intelligence capacity, both the operatives who gather information and the analysts who figure out what it means. I’d rather have more people in Langley, so we can deploy fewer in Baghdad. Once we gather information, it will be immediately shared with those in other agencies to whom it is relevant. Anyone in my administration caught protecting his turf instead of protecting us from terror will be shown the door.

“We have urgent concerns about Iran’s military and financial support of Shiite militants in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas among the Palestinians. We have urgent concerns about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. More is at stake than just Iran going nuclear -- faced with a nuclear Shiite Persian Iran, the Sunni Arab regimes to the west will feel the need to match them.

“The Administration has quite properly said that it will not take the military option for Iran off the table. Neither would I. But if we don’t put other options on the table, eventually the military option becomes the only viable one. Right now we are proceeding down only one track with Iran – armed confrontation. Nothing would make Osama bin Laden happier – he would welcome war between the United States and Iran, his two biggest enemies. I try to avoid doing anything that brightens bin Laden’s day.

“Al Qaeda and Iran seek control of the same territory – what Iran sees as its potential Shiite crescent is a large part of what would be Al Qaeda’s Sunni caliphate from Spain to Indonesia – not just Iraq, but Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Both Al Qaeda and Iran seek not just to dominate Israel, but to destroy her, and control the Palestinians. The Huckabee Administration will not waver or flinch in standing by our ally Israel. The difference in America’s mission is that Al Qaeda must be destroyed as a movement, while Iran just has to be contained as a nation. How do we achieve that?

“To contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. When we overthrew Saddam Hussein, who functioned as a bulwark against Iran, we upset the balance of power in the region. We must stabilize and strengthen Iraq not just for their security, but the security of the entire region, and our own security. We can’t allow Iran to push the power of its theocracy westward into, and then beyond, Iraq.

“Another way to contain Iran is through diplomacy, while never taking the military option off the table. We must be as diplomatically aggressive as we have been militarily aggressive since 9/11.

“We must intensify our diplomatic efforts with Europe, Russia, China, South Korea, and India to put more economic pressure on Iran. If we end up taking military action, they will bear responsibility for failing to maximize peaceful options. So far, they have been much more interested in maintaining their trade relationships and making money. We have all kinds of leverage in our wide-ranging relationships with these countries, and given the severity of the threat from Iran, we need to demonstrate unequivocally how important it is for them to stand with us. With the change in France from Chirac to Sarkozy, we now have an ally much more willing to join us in taking on Iran, and we should take full advantage of this new opportunity to explore fresh initiatives. I agree with President Sarkozy’s statement at the U. N. earlier this week that ‘We can only resolve this crisis by combining firmness with dialogue.’

“To show how seriously we take the Iranian threat here at home, we must encourage the burgeoning movement of our states and private entities like the Teamsters to divest their pension funds of Iran-related assets. We should put more of our money where our mouth is.

“Normally we speak to Iran only indirectly, through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. Our recent direct negotiations about Iraq have been very narrowly-focused and not productive because we are not exploring the full range of issues. We have valuable incentives to offer Iran in exchange for helping to stabilize Iraq; not supporting the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah; and abandoning its nuclear ambitions – trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations and security guarantees. While there can be no rational dealing with Al Qaeda, Iran is a nation state looking for regional power, it plays the normal power politics that we understand and can skillfully pursue, and we have substantive issues to negotiate with them.

“Time is of the essence and the situation continues to deteriorate and become more complex. The recent Israeli strike against Syria is said to have involved nuclear material from North Korea. If that is the case, then we know Iran is somehow involved because Syria is an Iranian proxy in the Arab world.

“The wisdom of Sun-tzu from almost 2,500 years ago is relevant today: keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost thirty years, my whole adult life. A lot of good it’s done us! Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling or a friend, it’s impossible to accomplish anything, impossible to resolve differences and move the relationship forward. The same is true for countries.

“Our experience in Iraq provides a valuable lesson for Iran. We have since learned that when we overthrew Saddam, we invaded an “imaginary country” because our information was so out of date. We relied on exiles who had long since fled the country, who exaggerated the condition of Iraq’s infrastructure, the strength of its middle class, and the secular nature of its society. If we had had diplomatic relations with Iraq and an ambassador in Baghdad, we obviously would have had better information. So before we put boots on the ground in the future, we’d better have some wing tips there first.

“Many Iranians are well-disposed toward us. We should remember that on 9/11, while there was dancing in the street in other parts of the Muslim world, there were candlelight vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we first invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with their allies, the Northern Alliance. They wanted to join us in fighting Al Qaeda, hoping this would lead to better U. S.-Iranian relations. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and Pentagon did not. When President Bush included Iran in his Axis of Evil, everything went downhill fast. As the only presidential candidate with a theology degree, along with years of political experience, I know that theology is black and white, but politics is not. My enemy today on one issue is my friend tomorrow on another.

“The bottom line is this: Iran is a regional threat to the balance of power in the Middle and Near East; Al Qaeda is an existential threat to the United States. I know we can’t live with Al Qaeda, but there’s a chance that we can live with a domesticated Iran. There is no way Iran will acquire nuclear weapons on my watch. But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I had to put their son’s or daughter’s life at risk in military action against Iran, I want to know that I have done everything possible to avoid that conflict.

“While our failure to engage Iran seems to be leading inexorably to our attacking them, our failure to engage Al Qaeda in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to their attacking us again.

“When we let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora in December 2001, and he fled Afghanistan into Pakistan, we played Brer Fox to his Brer Rabbit. We threw him into the perfect briar patch, protected directly by Islamic extremist tribal leaders who revere him and don’t consider their land part of Pakistan, protected indirectly by the Pakistani government who believe that it is.

“On September 12, 2001, President Musharaff agreed to sever his relationship with the Taliban and let us fight Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. Distracted by Iraq, we have allowed Musharaff to go back on his word. While warning us not to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty with our forces, he promises to go after Al Qaeda for us, then claims he can’t because he doesn’t control the territory where Al Qaeda has its safe haven.

“What exactly is our policy toward Pakistan? Just like Musharraf since 9/11, the Bush Administration has played both ends in the middle – assuring the American people that it is doing everything it can to protect them, while tiptoeing around our supposed ally, afraid of upsetting the apple cart, even though that cart contains poisoned apples destined for export to the United States.

“This muddle of a policy became apparent in July, when a National Intelligence Estimate confirmed what we already knew: Al Qaeda has successfully regrouped and enjoys a safe haven from which to plot and train for attacks against us in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, the remote lawless region along its border with Afghanistan. Several intelligence officials testified before Congress on July 11. Asked why we weren’t doing more against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Tom Fingar declared, “It’s not that we lack the ability to go into that space. But we have chosen not to do so without the permission of the Pakistani government.” Speaking off the record, other officials confirmed that permission was being denied. When a congressman asked the CIA’s Director for Intelligence, John Kringen, why the CIA wasn’t coordinating with tribal leaders to get bin Laden, he replied that those leaders “are the very people who are protecting him.”

“Then Frances Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House, struck a more aggressive – and encouraging -- note. When asked about military action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, she said that if we had “actionable targets, anywhere in the world, we would pursue those targets. The president’s been clear: Job No. 1 is to protect the American people, and there are no options that are off the table.” But when Pakistan took offense, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher dodged and weaved, backing off of Townsend’s statement by saying that we respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, which seemed to take the unilateral military option off the table. His boss, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte repeated that message just a couple of weeks ago.

“Also contradicting Townsend’s assurance that we will go after “actionable targets” was the news leaked in early July about a classified, aborted raid into Pakistan by Navy Seals, Army Rangers and the CIA in early 2005 that had targeted bin Laden’s top deputy, Zawahiri. Despite pleas by Porter Goss, head of the CIA, Donald Rumsfeld called off the raid at the last minute when Navy Seals were already in C-130’s in Afghanistan with their parachutes on. He acted not because he questioned the intelligence, but because he felt the size of the mission had grown to the point where we couldn’t do it without Musharraf’s permission. A dozen former and current military and intelligence officials leaked this story because they were furious that we gave up this opportunity, which they considered our most promising since Tora Bora.

“The leaked report raises tantalizing questions. Why did Rumsfeld call it off and not President Bush? Did the President even know about it? Did Rumsfeld ask for Musharraf’s permission or just assume he wouldn’t get it? One thing I can assure you is that when I’m president, I will make the final call on such actions, not my secretary of defense or any other official.

“When this story broke, a former administration official said, “The Special Operations guys are tearing their hair out at the highest levels” because “they are looking at targets on a daily basis and can’t move against them.”

“This missed opportunity in 2005 was especially detrimental because in September of 2006, Musharraf agreed to a cease fire with the frontier tribal leaders that helped Al Qaeda and the Taliban operate even more easily and freely. The cease fire was actually signed by leaders of the Taliban rather than the tribes. Musharraf agreed to leave the tribal leaders alone if they would keep the Taliban from making cross border raids and would go after Al Qaeda. Musharraf kept his end of the bargain, but the tribal leaders did not. Despite their constant breech, the cease fire stayed in effect until this July, when Musharraf raided extremists who had taken over the Red Mosque in Islamabad, angering the tribal leaders.

“Lamenting that cease fire in July, Frances Townsend said, ‘It hasn’t worked for Pakistan. It hasn’t worked for the United States.’ We lost a whole year when they should have been going after terrorists, and we have no assurance, now that the cease fire has broken down, that they will try to go after targets of high value to us, like bin Laden or Zawahiri.

“More recently, Townsend said on September 9, in response to Osama bin Laden’s latest tape to mark the 9/11 anniversary, ‘This is a man on the run, from a cave, who’s virtually impotent other than these tapes.’ She said this two days after CIA Director Michael Hayden reached a very different conclusion: ‘Our analysts assess with high confidence that Al Qaeda’s central leadership is planning high impact plots against the American homeland.’

“It cannot be denied that Al Qaeda has made excellent use of its safe haven in Pakistan. When we went after them right after 9/11, they were a tumor that needed to be cut out. By failing to do that, we allowed Al Qaeda to metastasize and get into the blood stream of the Islamic world, with its “franchises” of local terror groups who give their allegiance to headquarters in Pakistan and get assistance in return. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are charismatic, inspirational leaders and eliminating them would be an important psychological blow to the movement.

“Al Qaeda has of course sent fighters to Iraq and made that country a revolving door of terror. Fighters pour into Iraq to train and conduct operations there, then they pour out to use their evil skills elsewhere. Some of them return home, but what is especially frightening is that the training they get in the urban environments of Iraq translates well into unleashing terror in similar environments in Europe and the United States. Not only will they follow us home if we leave Iraq, they’ll know what to do when they get here.

“Al Qaeda collaborated with Kashmiri terrorists in the multiple bombings in Mumbai, India, in July 2006 that killed more than 200 people. It has similarly been working in Lebanon with Fatah al Islam, in North Africa with Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb, in Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.

“While I disagree strongly with Democrats who claim that we are fighting on the wrong battlefield, I am convinced that our focus on Iraq at the expense of Pakistan or Iran is like dealing with a neighbor’s house that is on fire, while ignoring the house on the other side that is filled with carbon monoxide. Iraq may be the “hot” war, but Pakistan is where the cold, calculating planning is going on. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a branch office, corporate headquarters is in Pakistan. If Al Qaeda attacks us tomorrow, that attack will be postmarked Pakistan, not Iraq. Pakistan is the new Afghanistan.

“Another attack will spark justified outrage that we let bin Laden and his top people get away. Concerns about Pakistan’s delicate sensibilities will be drowned out by the wailing over American casualties. The American people will not understand why our supposed ally refused to help us or why our government put up with their intransigence.

“I would prefer to skip the next attack and the exasperated fury it will rightly generate and cut to the chase by going after Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan. We almost suffered that next attack – the plot Britain foiled last year to blow up ten airliners belonging to American, Continental, and United over the Atlantic was hatched in Pakistan. We almost suffered the attack against American targets in Germany that was planned to coincide roughly with the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and has been traced back to Pakistan.

“We’re in an absurd Catch-22 -- the Pakistanis say they have to pursue the terrorists because it’s their territory, but then they say they can’t do it because they don’t control that territory. If they’re really our ally and can’t go after bin Laden, they will allow us to do it; if they can go after him and won’t, they’re not our ally. The successful raids they conducted earlier this month against extremists who had attacked their troops indicate that it may be a matter of will rather than ability. If they lack will, that’s fine, because we don’t. Someone has to step up to the plate before our luck runs out and Americans are attacked again, either here or abroad.

“We have no desire whatsoever to ‘invade’ Pakistan, fight its forces, or harm its citizens. But we have an urgent need to pursue non-Pakistani terrorists who have declared war on us into this no man’s land. I greatly prefer to do it with Pakistan’s blessing and cooperation, but, one way or another, it has to get done. If we have to step onto their soil briefly to protect our own, so be it. As a child sometimes goes into a neighbor’s yard to collect a baseball hit over the fence, so we may be forced to go over the fence.

“As commander in chief, our president must constantly balance risks and threats in calculating how best to protect the American people. We know we are living on borrowed time against the next terror attack. That risk is far more likely and far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against Al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.

“Pakistan is an inherently unstable country that has never had a constitutional change of government in its sixty years of existence. It has alternated between military and civilian rule, punctuated by assassinations and coups. Pakistan has never known true democracy because, even during times of nominal civilian rule, the army and its affiliated intelligence service, the ISI, have been the most powerful institutions in the country. That is not about to change.

“Both civilian and military governments have consistently favored the rich. Economic growth has been strong under Musharraf, but the benefits have gone mainly to those who were already well off, not to the poor. Social progress has lagged dramatically behind economic progress, with per capita income in 2006 at $720 a year. Estimates of its literacy range from 30 to 50%. While the military gets twenty-five percent of the budget, health, education, and other social services get less than 3%.

“Musharraf’s top priority is not American survival, but his own, both physical and political. While he does his best to convince the Administration that our destiny and his are inextricably interwoven – that after him, the deluge – it is not true. Musharraf isn’t keeping Islamic extremists from seizing power in Pakistan, they simply don’t have the strength and support to do it.

“Many of Musharraf’s problems have nothing to do with us or the war on terror, they are purely internal and of his own making. His insistence on being both president and army chief of staff, by virtue of a constitutional amendment that expires at the end of this year, led him to suspend the chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court because he knew this justice would oppose his seeking reelection while keeping his army post. This led to widespread rioting and deaths. The chief justice was recently restored to office, but the incident left Musharraf weakened and more unpopular.

“He was further weakened by the Supreme Court decision allowing former prime minister Sharif to return from exile, followed by Mursharaff’s arresting Sharif supporters and deporting him to Saudi Arabia as soon as he arrived.

“We are backing someone with an extremely tenuous grip on his office.

Musharraf has called for a presidential election by the parliament and national assemblies on October 6, promising to give up his army position only after he is re-elected, not before, as many have demanded. He has made it clear that he will remain as army chief of staff if he is not re-elected. Challenges to his running have just been rejected by the Supreme Court. Since announcing the election, he has had dozens of opposition leaders and activists arrested, which isn’t exactly the best way to run free and fair elections. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ordered that they be released.

“Added to the unstable mix is a new tape from Osama bin Laden calling for the Pakistani people to rise up and overthrow Musharraf. As we stand by and watch, things are getting better for Al Qaeda and worse for us in Pakistan.

“The United States isn’t terribly popular in Pakistan, not because the people back religious extremists, but because they see our aid benefiting the increasingly unpopular military, not them. Instead of our making Musharaff unpopular, he makes us unpopular, since we are so closely tied to him.

“Musharraf claims that he agreed to our demands on September 12, 2001 under Richard Armitage’s threat to ‘bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age.’ Instead of making such a threat, I’d rather promise to help build them into the 21st century. If we help meet the needs of Pakistan’s poor, they will have less reason to support the religious parties. If we support just the top of Pakistani society, we may someday see that layer swept away, and in the ensuing struggle, extremists could take power.

“Since 9/11 we have given Pakistan about $10 billion. About $5.6 billion has been specifically to pay them back for counter-terrorism along the Afghan border, i.e. going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We have reimbursed Pakistan for counter-terrorism operations that it didn’t conduct – kind of like the “no show” and “no work” jobs that Tony Soprano used to arrange. Of that $10 billion, less than $1 billion has been used for projects that directly help the Pakistani people – schools, food, medical aid. The lack of schools creates demand for the madrassas that produce terrorists. We’ve wasted all this money on counter-terrorism that hasn’t happened and very little on projects to win hearts and minds. Congress recently tied our continued aid to progress on counter-terrorism, and to me, that means fighting not just current Al Qaeda and Taliban, but those who will inevitably join them if we don’t address Pakistan’s poverty and lack of human rights.

“Having put all these golden eggs in Musharraf’s basket, we now see his power waning. Musharraf’s reign has worked against our need to strengthen moderates. He has done his best to sideline Bhutto’s and Sharif’s mainstream parties. Because these parties are personality-driven, they have languished during the absences of Bhutto and Sharif. It is in our interest to see them reclaim votes from the religious parties.

“Both Pakistani clerics and military leaders tend to come from the middle class, so there is a natural alliance between them. We would expect the military to be more of a secular institution, a bulwark against the religious parties, as it is in Turkey, but the situation in Pakistan is counter-intuitive. The political leaders of the mainstream, non-religious parties tend to come from the upper class of feudal landowners. This is another way in which Pakistan is the new Afghanistan – the same lawlessness and lack of justice that exist in Pakistan’s feudal areas are what led the people of Afghanistan to turn against the war lords and embrace the Taliban. The religious extremists in Pakistan are gaining support among their powerless peasants the same way. This is what we should be afraid of, not the after-effects of a raid against Al Qaeda.

“Whatever happens in the emerging power struggle among Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, policy toward the United States is unlikely to change. Sharif would sound more anti-American, Bhutto more pro-American, but both their parties are secular and centrist. We won’t have our Al Qaeda problem magically solved for us. It is our problem, and we have to face up to it.

“We need to assure Pakistan that we will be with them for the long haul. In the past our relations with them have been on-again, off-again. When the Russians left Afghanistan, we lost interest in Pakistan pretty quickly. They fear the same would happen without Al Qaeda and the Taliban to keep us engaged. We can’t blame them for not trusting our intentions, for taking our money and running while they can. To the extent that we sign long-term agreements with them, that will show our good faith. As part of this effort, we must use our good offices with our strong ally India to improve their relationship with Pakistan and increase trade and cooperation between them. We need to bring greater stability not just to Pakistan, but to the Afghan-Pakistani-Indian region. Just as Pakistan poses a regional rather than an isolated problem, so does Iraq.

“I have supported and continue to support the surge. Given that the surge reached full strength only in mid-June, the gains in security have been significant, but remain fragile and tenuous. The National Intelligence Estimate released in late August, which represents the consensus of all our intelligence agencies, made it clear that if we withdraw too early or too quickly, these hard-won gains will be lost and the cycle of violence will spiral upward. Now is not the moment to lose heart or lose faith, too much has been sacrificed and too much is at stake. When has an army ever turned the tide and then given up? War is about will. Whoever gives up loses. We can’t afford to lose. How we handle this will determine the kind of world our grandchildren will live in – or die in.

“I have confidence in General Petraeus and the plan he has presented. He has earned our trust by the significant progress he has made in a short time. Things were going downhill fast when the surge began, he has reversed that spiral dramatically.

“I would certainly not withdraw any faster than he recommends. His plan should take us to pre-surge levels of about 130,000 troops by the middle of next July. We will bring home the Marine Expeditionary Unit from the surge now, one Army brigade in December, and then four additional Army brigades and two Marine battalions in the first seven months of next year. I agree with the General that we can’t schedule additional withdrawals beyond next summer because there’s no way to predict what conditions on the ground will be like then. By not projecting beyond pre-surge levels, we send a strong signal to the Iraqis that we will be there for them and to our enemies that they can’t just wait us out. Our troops must come home based on conditions on the ground, not the calendar on the wall.

“General Petraeus’ reasoning makes eminent sense to me – it is too soon to reduce our mission simply to counter-terrorism and transition to the Iraqis without focus on population security as well. If we don’t continue to maintain and expand population security, with the significant number of forces that requires, we can lose all of our hard-won gains. As the General points out, if we hurry our withdrawal, as the Democrats want us to do, we will just be “rushing to failure.” I would rather take the slower, steadier path to victory.

“The Sunnis rejecting Al Qaeda to stand with us in places like Anbar and Diyala and parts of Baghdad has been a truly extraordinary shift, a blessing. Anbar is only one of Iraq’s 18 provinces, but before the “Anbar Awakening,” almost one-third of American casualties occurred in Anbar. By April of this year, every tribal leader in the province was cooperating with us, a truly stunning reversal. Iraqi Sunnis who embraced Al Qaeda as liberators now see them for what they are – brutal oppressors who want to take Iraq back to the seventh century. The Sunnis have joined us at tremendous risk to themselves and placed enormous trust in us that we will protect them. If we abandon them, Al Qaeda will kill them. We are winning this crucial war within the war – the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Just as our withdrawal would be an enormous propaganda victory for them, so the turning of local Sunni populations against them is an enormous propaganda victory for us in the overall war on terror. Sunni insurgents rejecting Al Qaeda is a “man bites dog” story that will resonate throughout the Muslim world.

“We must continue funneling aid directly to these tribes for local projects and salaries for those willing to fight on our side, bypassing the government in Baghdad. This model of the Sunni tribes turning against Al Qaeda is being used to turn Shiite tribes against their militants. We’ve been banging our head against the wall dealing with ineffectual leaders in Baghdad – with local leaders, we can poke our head into open doors and get some results. The goal is to end the violence – the paradigm we use to get there is less important. In future elections, some of these local leaders may become national leaders who can end the paralysis in Baghdad.

“Contrary to the Democrats’ gloom, we are seeing reconciliation, only it is ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down.’ Bottom up reconciliation can end the violence faster, since it comes directly from the people. We must stay to strengthen and expand this grass roots reconciliation, which shows that many Iraqis are fed up with violence and with their own ineffective leaders. Just as violence can intensify and spread quickly, so can peace. We also must recognize that most of the benchmarks we have set for Iraq depend on top down reconciliation, so we have to come up with alternative benchmarks that gauge bottom up progress.

“We also are seeing some of the goals of the benchmarks being achieved in fact, if not in law. As Ambassador Crocker told Congress, oil revenues are being distributed, de-Baathification is taking place, and the Shiite-dominated government is giving financial resources to the provinces, including to Sunni areas, even without passage of legislation called for in the benchmarks. These actual deeds among the people are more meaningful than mere words on paper would be.

“We are getting control of situations that seemed beyond our control. The Iranians have been sending fighters, trainers, and weapons, including rockets and the especially deadly explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) across their border. We are building a base, which will be completed in November, four miles from the Iranian border to stop this flow. We are adding X-ray machines and explosives detectors at the main border crossing. Soldiers from the former Soviet republic of Georgia are going to man six checkpoints on the main roads from Iran to Baghdad.

“We have seen our “peace dividend” from the fall of the Soviet Union turn into a ‘war deficit’ with the rise of Islamic terror. We didn’t send enough troops to Iraq initially. Admiral Fallon, chief of the Central Command and General Petraeus’ boss, is especially worried about Iran and has been pushing for troop reductions in Iraq. In fact, we can’t continue the surge any longer than we now plan without extending deployments beyond fifteen months, so the size of our military is dictating that we get down to pre-surge levels by mid-July. We don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan – neither does the rest of NATO – and we are losing our hard-won gains there.

“Our current armed forces simply aren’t large enough – we have relied far too heavily on our National Guard and our Reserves to provide the support structure for our active duty forces, we have worn them out. This has been a strain not just on them, but on their families and communities. It has also left us under-manned here at home in coping with natural disasters and terror attacks.

“When our enemies know that we’re spread thin, as we are now, they’re more apt to test us by provoking a crisis. Having a sizeable standing army makes it less likely that we’ll have to use it. The Administration plans to increase the Army and Marines by about 92,000 over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize that it will be a challenge to increase our enlistments without lowering standards and to expand our training facilities and personnel, but that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. We need to return to that 6% level.

“We have to stop using our active duty forces for nation building and rely on other government agencies for building schools, hospitals, roads, sewage treatment, water filtration, electricity, legal and banking systems. The State Department should be in charge and coordinate with the relevant departments of Energy, Housing, Education, Treasury, Justice, and Transportation.

“If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an “occupation with a light footprint” that was our model for Iraq always struck me as a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Our invasion went well militarily, but the occupation destroyed Iraq politically, economically, and socially. In the former Yugoslavia, we had twenty peacekeeping soldiers for every thousand civilians. For the occupation of Iraq, that would have worked out to a force of 450,000. Instead of marginalizing General Shinseki when he said we needed several hundred thousand troops for Iraq, I would have met privately with him and carefully weighed his advice and his underlying analysis. Our generals must be independent advisers to the president, always free to speak without fear of retribution or dismissal.

“Staying in Iraq will bring continued challenges, but leaving now will bring chaos. To withdraw before Iraq is internally stable and secure in its borders would have serious strategic consequences for us and horrific humanitarian consequences for the Iraqis. Iraq’s neighbors on all sides will face a refugee crisis and be drawn into the war: Iran to protect the Shiites; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to protect the Sunnis; and Turkey to protect its control over its own Kurd population. Iraq is the crossroads where Arab meets Persian and Kurd, Sunni meets Shiite, so if it’s not a peaceful buffer, it can easily become a tinder box. When we deposed Saddam, we emphasized Iraq’s central location as a prime place to establish democracy and have it spread. That was the potential dramatic upside. Now we face the potential dramatic downside that the terrorists want to take advantage of – Iraq’s central location as the perfect place to create anarchy and have it spread. That is both an unnecessary and an unacceptable outcome. The answer is not to stay the course, but to continue to adapt the course, to take advantage of change faster than our enemies, as we have the last six months, to bring the Iraqis to that safe place where they will thrive and terror will not.

“Cancer treatment can be rough, but the alternative is death. That’s how it is in Iraq: difficult as it is to stay, the consequences of leaving would be disastrous for the Iraqis, for the entire region, and for us. Those who say we don’t owe the Iraqis any more are ignoring what we owe our own children and grandchildr