Interesting E-mail, page 1

This an e-mail I recieved that was recently given at the National War College, it might be long but it's a good read:

An address delivered at the National War College entitled "WORLD WAR IV"

Speech by James Woolsey
16 November 2002

> I was really quite honored when David asked me a few months ago to be with
> you this weekend. But, to tell you the truth, in the 34 years I've been in
> Washington until I went straight this last summer and joined Booz Allen
> Hamilton as a vice president, I spent the bulk of that time, 22 years, as:
> A. a lawyer; and B. in Washington D.C.; and, then, I C. spent some time
> out at the CIA in D. the Clinton Administration. So I'm actually pretty
> well honored to be invited into any polite company for any purposes
> whatsoever.
> I have adopted Eliot Cohen's formulation, distinguished professor at Johns
> Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World
> War IV, World War III having been the Cold War. And I think Eliot's
> formulation fits the circumstances really better than describing this as a
> war on terrorism.
> Let me say a few words about who our enemy is in this World War IV, why
> they're at war with us and (now) we with them, and how we have to think
> about fighting it both at home and abroad.
> First of all, who are they? Well, there are at least three, but I would
> say principally three movements, of a sort, all coming out of the Middle
> East. And the interesting thing is that they've been at war with us for
> years. The Islamist Shia, the ruling circles, the ruling Clerics, the
> Mullahs of Iran, minority -- definite minority of the Iranian Shiite
> Clerics, but those who constitute the ruling force in Iran and sponsor and
> back Hezbollah, have been at war with us for nearly a quarter of a
> century. They seized our hostages in 1979 in Tehran. They blew up our
> embassy and our Marine barracks in Beirut in
> 1983. They've conducted a wide range of terrorist acts against the United
> States for something now close to a quarter of a century.
> The second group is the fascists - and I don't use that as an expletive -
> the Baathist parties of Iraq and really Syria as well, are essentially
> fascist parties or modeled after the fascist parties of the '30s. They're
> totalitarian, they're anti-Semitic, they're fascist. The Baathists in Iraq
> have been at war with us for over a decade. For Saddam, the Gulf War never
> stopped. He says it never stopped. He behaves as if it never stopped. He
> tried to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait. He has
> various ties, not amounting to direction and control, but various
> associations with different terrorist groups over the years, including
> al-Qaeda. He shoots at our aircraft, again yesterday, over the no-fly
> zones. He's still at war. He signed a cease fire, which he's not
> observing, and so it's even clearer that he is at war. And he has been so
> for at least 11 years.
> The third group, and the one that caused us finally to notice, is the
> Islamist Sunni. And this is the most, in some ways, I think virulent and
> long-term portion of these three groupings that are at war with us, and
> will be at war, I think, for a long time. The Wahhabi movement, the
> religious movement in Saudi Arabia dating back to the 18th century and
> with roots even well before that, was joined in the '50s and '60s by
> immigration into Saudi Arabia by Islamists, or a more modern stripe of
> essentially the same ideology, many of them coming from Egypt. And the
> very fundamentalist -- Islamist I think is the best formulation -- groups
> of this sort, more or less focused on what they call the near enemy. Say
> the barbaric regime in Egypt, and to some extent, the Saudi royal family -
> the attacks in 1979 on the great mosques in Mecca. They were focusing on
> what they called the "near enemy" until sometime in the mid 1990's. Around
> 1994, they decided to turn and focus their concentration and effort on
> what they call the Crusaders and Jews, mainly us. And they have been at
> war with us since at least about 1994, give or take a year or so, in
> number of well-noted terrorists incidents, including the Cole and the cast
> African embassy bombings and, of course, September 11th.
> What is different after September 11th is not that these three groups came
> to be at war with us. They've been at war with us for some time. It's that
> we finally, finally may have noticed and have decided at least, in part,
> that we are at war with them. If these are the three groupings -- and by
> the way, I think of these more or less as analogous to three mafia
> families. They do hate each other and they do kill each other from time to
> time. But they hate us a great deal more and they're perfectly willing and
> perfectly capable to assist one another in one way or another, including
> Iraq and al-Qaeda.
> If that's whom we're at war with, why? Why did they decide to come after
> us? I think there are two basic reasons. The first, and the underlying one
> was best expressed to me last January by a D.C. cab driver. Now, I
> resolutely refuse - since I'm not ever in elective politics, I can afford
> to do this - I refuse to read any articles about public opinion polls. And
> with the time I save, I talk to D.C. cab drivers. It is both more
> enjoyable and I think in many ways a much better finger on the pulse of
> the nation. And I got into a cab last January, the day after former
> President Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University, in which he
> implied -- he didn't exactly say, but pretty well implied -- that the
> reason we were attacked on September 11th, was because America's conduct
> of slavery and the treatment of the American Indian historically. And as I
> got into the cab, I saw that the cab driver was one of my favorite
> varieties of D.C. cab drivers, an older, black American long-term resident
> of D.C., a guy about my age. And the Washington Times article was open in
> the front seat to that story of the President's speech. So as I got in, I
> said to the cab driver, "I see your paper in the front there. Did you read
> that piece about President Clinton's speech yesterday?"
> He said, "Oh, yeah."
> I said, "What did you think about it?" He said,
> "These people don't hate us for what we've done wrong. They hate us for
> what we do right."
> You can't do better than that. We're hated because of freedom of speech,
> because of freedom of religion, because of our economic freedom, because
> of our equal - or at least almost equal - treatment of women, because of
> all the good things that we do. This is like the war against Nazism. We
> are hated because of what of what we are. But even if hated, why attacked?
> Well, I would suggest that we have for much of the last quarter of the
> century -- not all, but much -- have been essentially hanging a "Kick Me"
> sign on our back in the Middle East. We have given some evidence of being
> what bin Laden has actually called a paper tiger.
> My friend, Tom Moore, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and maybe
> known to some of you here, was a young officer at the end of World War II
> and participated in the interrogations of Prince Konoe and several of the
> Japanese leaders of the handful who were eventually hanged. And the team
> he was with asked all of them, "Why did you do it. Why did you attack us
> at Pearl Harbor?" He said, they all said pretty much the same thing. They
> said, "We looked at what you were doing in the '20s and '30s. You were
> disarming. You wouldn't fortify Wake Island. You wouldn't fortify Guam.
> Your army had to drill with wooden rifles. We had no idea that this rich
> spoiled, feckless country would do what you did after December 7 of 1941.
> You stunned us."
> Flash forward three quarters of a century. I think we gave a lot of
> evidence to Saddam and to the Islamist Shia in Tehran and Hezbollah and to
> the Islamist Sunni that we were for a long time, essentially, a rich,
> spoiled feckless country that wouldn't fight. In 1979, they took our
> hostages and we tied yellow ribbons around trees and launched an
> ineffective effort, crashing helicopters in the desert to rescue them.In
> 1983, they blew up our embassy and our marine barracks in Beirut. What did
> we do? We left. Throughout much of the 1980's, various terrorist acts were
> committed against us. We would occasionally arrest a few small fry, with
> one honorable exception -- President Reagan's strike against Tripoli.But
> generally speaking, we litigated instead of doing much else with the
> terrorist acts of the '80s.
> In 1991, President Bush organized a magnificent coalition against the
> seizure of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. We fought the war superbly -- and
> then stopped it while the Republican guard was intact. And after having
> encouraged the Kurds and the Shiia to rebel against Saddam, we stood back,
> left the bridges intact, left their units intact, let them fly helicopters
> around carrying troops and missiles, and we watched the Kurds and Shiia
> who were winning in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces, to be massacred. And the
> world looked at us and said, well, we know what the Americans value. They
> save their oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and after that, they didn't
> care.
> And then in 1993, Saddam tries to assassinate former President Bush in
> Kuwait with a bomb, and President Clinton fires a couple of dozen cruise
> missiles into an empty building in the middle of the night in Baghdad,
> thereby retaliating quite effectively against Iraqi cleaning women and
> night watchmen, but not especially effectively against Saddam Hussein.
> In 1993, our helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu and as in Beirut in
> ten years earlier, we left.
> And throughout the rest of the '90s, we continued our practice of the
> '80s.Instead of sending military force, we usually sent prosecutors and
> litigators. We litigate well in the United States. And we would
> occasionally catch some small-fry terrorists in the United States or
> elsewhere, and prosecute them. And once in a while, lob a few bombs or
> cruise missiles from afar. And that was it until after September 11th. So
> I would suggest that our response after September 11th in Afghanistan,
> like our response against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, was something
> that was quite surprising to our enemies in the Middle East who attacked
> us. I think they were quite surprised at what we did in Afghanistan. But,
> you have to admit, like the Japanese at the beginning of the '40s, the
> Islamists, both Shia and Sunni and the fascist Baathists in the Middle
> East at the beginning of the 21st Century, had some rationale and some
> evidence for believing this rich, spoiled, feckless country would not
> fight.
> If that's why we're at war, how must we fight it at home and abroad? At
> home the war is going to be difficult in two ways. One is that the
> infrastructure which serves this wonderful country is the most
> technologically sophisticated infrastructure the world has ever seen. We
> are a society of dozens -- hundreds of networks. Food processing and
> delivery, the internet, financial transfers, oil and gas pipelines, on and
> on and on. None of these was put together with a single thought being
> given to being resilient against terrorism. All are open, relatively easy
> access. Their vulnerable and dangerous points are highlighted. Transformer
> here, hazardous chemicals here, cable crossing here because we need to do
> maintenance. We haven't had to worry about domestic violence against our
> civilian infrastructure, with the exception of Sherman burning some
> plantations on his march to the sea, since the British burned Washington
> in 1814.
> So virtually all of our infrastructure has been put together with this
> sense of openness and ease of access and resilience -- some resilience --
> against random failures. But random failures is not what we saw September
> 11th and a year ago, and I'm afraid not what we will see in the future.
> About seven years ago, one of our communication satellites' computer chip
> failed. The satellite lost its altitude control and immediately 90 percent
> of the pagers in the country went down. The next day, they were back up
> again because somebody had figured out how to reroute them to a different
> satellite. That's the kind of thing we do all the time. That's not what
> happened a year ago September 11th.
> In the preparations for September 11th that were taking place sometime in
> the late 1990's or 2000, a group of very sharp and very evil men sat down
> and said to themselves, something like this. Let's see. The foolish
> Americans when they do baggage searches at airports ignore short knives
> like box cutters. And short knives can slit throats just as easily as long
> knives. Second, if you can believe it, they conduct themselves with
> respect to airplane hijackings as if all hijackings are going to go to
> Cuba and they' re just going to have to sit on the ground for a few hours.
> So they tell their air crews and everyone to be very polite to hijackers.
> This is also good. And third, even though twice a year going back many
> years, there have been crazy people who get into the cockpits of their
> civilian airliners and people write in to the FAA and say, you ought to do
> something about this, they continue to have flimsy cockpit doors on their
> airliners. Let's see. Short knives, polite to hijackers, friendly cockpit
> doors. We can take over airliners, fly them into buildings, and kill
> thousands of them. That is not a random failure. That is a planned use of
> part of our infrastructure to kill Americans. It's going for the jugular,
> going for the weak point.
> Einstein used to say, "God may be sophisticated, but he's not plain mean."
> And what I think Einstein meant by that is, since for him nature and God
> were pretty much the same thing, if you're playing against nature and
> trying to say, discover a new principle of physics, it's a sophisticated
> problem. It's going to be very tough. But there's nobody over there trying
> to outwit you and make it harder. In war and terrorism, there is. There is
> someone who is trying to do that. And we have not given a single thought
> to how to manage our infrastructure for the possibility of an attack on
> our own soil, something we have not had to deal with for 200 years --
> since 1814 - when the British burned the White House. We have just-in-time
> delivery to hold down operational costs until somebody puts a dirty bomb
> in one of the 50,000 containers that crosses U.S. borders every day and
> people decide they have to start inspecting virtually all of the
> containers at ports and all that just-in-time manufacturing is stopped
> after four or five days. Full hospitals. Great idea. Keep hospital costs
> down. Health care costs down. Move people through hospitals rapidly. All
> hospitals 99 percent occupancy, et cetera. Wonderful idea, until there's a
> bioterrorist attack and then thousands or hundreds or thousands or
> millions of Americans need some sort of special healthcare.
> All of these networks have their weak points and many of them have
> incentives in them to -- not for this purpose of course -- but essentially
> to be vulnerable to terrorism. We are not only going to have to go through
> our infrastructure -- and this is what I'm spending a lot of my time
> working on now -- we are not only going to have to go through our
> infrastructure and find the functional equivalent of the flimsy cockpit
> doors and get them fixed. Then, we are also going to have to pull together
> and take a look at things like our electricity grids, our oil and gas
> pipelines, our container ports and the rest and figure out ways to change
> the incentives so that they build in resilience and do it in such a way
> that it's compatible with economic freedom in a market economy. We don't
> want some bureaucrat up there ordering people to do this and this and
> this. But, we have to get some resilience, some promotion of resilience
> into the incentives -- tax or otherwise -- for the way our
> infrastructure's managed. That's only one of the two hard jobs we've got.
> The other one, in some ways may be even harder. We have to do two things
> simultaneously here -- nobody told us it was going to be easy. We have to
> fight successfully in the United States against terrorist cells and
> organizations that support terrorism and we have to deal with the
> extremely difficult fact that some of these are, at least, superficially
> religiously rooted in one aspect anyway of Islam. We have to understand
> that the vast majority of American Muslims are certainly not terrorists
> and are not sympathetic to them. But that there are institutions and
> individuals and there are institutions and individuals with a lot of money
> that are effectively part of the infrastructure that encourages and
> supports the hatred of the West of capitalism and of us that is manifested
> in terrorism. We also have to remember who we are. We are creatures of
> Madison's Constitution and his Bill of Rights and we have to step by step,
> intervention by intervention, remember both that we are Americans and
> under a Constitution, and that we are at war and some part of that war is
> here and now.
>
> *******************
> Those are very hard choices. One by one. My personal judgment is that none
> of the decisions so far made by the Administration goes beyond what is a
> reasonable line of taking strong action domestically against terrorism
> because the Supreme Court has historically been extremely tolerant of the
> Executive, but especially Executive and Congress moving together in times
> of crisis and war. In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus even.
> In World War II, of course, we had the Japanese-Americans even put in the
> relocation camps in the western part of the country. In World War I, there
> was some very draconian legislation also upheld by the Supreme Court. And
> nothing that has been done so far by the Administration, of course, even
> remotely approaches any of those. But we do have to be alert. We do not
> want in the mid-21st century people looking back on us having made some of
> the kinds of decisions that, for example, were made to incarcerate the
> Nisei, the Japanese-Americans in World War II and saying, how in the world
> could those people have done that? But this country can do some ugly
> things when it gets scared. And one thing to remember about the
> incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in World War II is that the three
> individuals most responsible were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the then
> Attorney General running for governor of the State of California, Earl
> Warren, and the man who wrote the Korematsu decision which upheld the
> constitutionality of the acts, Hugo Black. Roosevelt, Warren, and Black,
> of course, were not famous for setting up concentration camps. They were
> names from the liberal side of the American political spectrum. But even
> people who say they have those values can do some ugly things if they are
> scared and they believe the country is scared.
> What we have to do is manage this domestic war in such a way as to move
> decisively and effectively against terrorist cells and those who support
> them and at the same time, make sure that we don't slip into
> extraordinarily ugly, anti-constitutional steps. This is not easy. But
> nobody promised us a rose garden. And it will in some ways, I think, be
> one of the hardest aspects of the war.
> Let me conclude by saying a few words about how I think we have to fight
> this abroad.
> These three movements, I think, require somewhat different tactics. In
> some ways, the most interesting situation right now exists with the
> Islamist Shia, the ruling circles of Iran. Because the small minority of
> Iranian Shiite mullahs who constitute the ruling circles of Iran, are
> effectively in the same position that the inhabitants of the Kremlin were
> in 1988 or the inhabitants of Versailles in 1788, mainly the storm isn't
> quite overhead yet, but if they look at the horizon, they can see it
> gathering. They have lost the students. They have lost the women. They
> have lost the brave newspaper editors and professors who are in prison,
> some under sentence of death and being tortured. They are one by one
> losing the grand Ayatollahs. Ayatollah Montazeri, a very brave man,
> issuing fatwas against suicide killings has been under house arrest for
> five years. Early this past summer, Ayatollah Taheri, who was a very, very
> hard line supporter of the mullahs in the City of Esfahan, issued a blast
> against them saying that what they were doing, supporting tortures,
> supporting terrorism, was fundamentally at odds with the tenants of Islam,
> more student demonstrations and indeed, the Iranians are having enough
> trouble keeping the students down using Iranian muscle, using thugs, they
> are starting to have to begin to import Syrians, who don't speak Farsi, in
> order to be able to suppress their student demonstrations. Keep your eye
> on Tehran. I can't claim that it's going to change soon. The mullahs have
> a great deal of power. They have oil money and the military force and the
> rest. But, there are, I think, some tectonic shifts below the surface
> there. With respect to our own conduct, I think the President did exactly
> the right thing in the early part of the summer, when after the student
> demonstration surrounding Taheri's blast, he issued a statement basically
> saying that the United States was on the side of the students, not the
> mullahs. And it drove the mullahs absolutely crazy and I think that's
> evidence of the shrewdness of the President's move.
> The fascists, the Baathists in Iraq are, of course, at the front of
> everybody's concern. I think that it is good that we were able to get a
> unanimous resolution through the Security Council. But the fact that it
> was unanimous, should tell us, that even the Syrians could vote for it
> should tell us that it was watered down in some important ways from the
> initial submission. One can argue now that the resolution requires the
> United States to go through Hans Blix in order to find a violation of the
> Security Council resolution, whether it's in the declaration, which Saddam
> owes on December 8, or a resistance by the Iraqis of inspections. Hans
> Blix, to put it as gently as I can, does not have a stellar background of
> inquisitiveness or decisiveness. When in early 2000, the current U.N.
> inspection regime was being set up, the first head of the inspection
> regime was actually proposed, who would have been fine. The French and
> Russians and Chinese carrying Iraq's water objected to him and Kofi Annan
> found the one U.N. bureaucrat who would be acceptable to Saddam Hussein,
> namely Hans Blix. People can change. We can hope that Hans Blix does not
> continue as the Inspector Clouzoof international investigations. I hope he
> does not. Let's see. But, if he does, the President under this resolution
> will have some tough choices to make and perhaps, as soon as December 8,
> as to whether the United States will on its own, declare what will
> certainly be a lie: Saddam's declaration that he has no weapons of mass
> destruction programs. Whether the United States will decide that that is a
> violation of the U.N. resolution and we will then take action. I must
> admit, I hope that happens because I don't believe there is any way to
> solve this problem of Iraq without removing Saddam forcefully. I wish it
> were otherwise, but I see no way around it.
> As time goes on, if this winter passes -- and winter is when you want to
> fight in this region because our troops will have to wear heavy protective
> gear against chemical weapons -- if this winter passes it will be another
> year before we can move again and he will then be even closer to having
> nuclear weapons and will have even more sophisticated delivery means for
> the chemical and bacteriological weapons than he already has. It is a
> shame. It is unfortunate. But, it is the dilemma that is presented to us
> and particularly, to the President, here beginning around December 8. And
> I believe that he deserves, whatever he decides, all the support any of us
> can give him.
> The third group, the Islamist Sunni, are al-Qaeda, are in many ways, going
> to be the hardest to deal with because they are fueled by oil money from
> the Gulf, Saudi Arabia principally. They are wealthy in and of themselves.
> They're present in some 60 countries and they are fanatically like the
> Wahhabis, who are their first cousins. They are fanatically anti-Western,
> anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish. If you want to get a feel for
> the infrastructure, the intellectual infrastructure -- if you can call it
> that -- of their thinking, there are websites where one can go to pull in
> what the sermons are on any given Friday throughout Saudi Arabia. I looked
> at one such set of sermons two or three weeks ago before some discussions
> we were having the defense policy board. And the three main themes that
> week were that all Jews are pigs and monkeys. The second major theme was
> that all Christians and Jews are the enemy and it is our obligation to
> hate them and destroy them. And the third was that women in the United
> States routinely commit incest with their fathers and brothers and it is a
> common and accepted thing in the United States.
> This is not extraordinary. This is the routine Wahhabi view. One Wahhabi
> cleric was interviewed by a Washington Post reporter a few weeks ago in
> Saudi Arabia. The Post reporter asked him, "Tell me. I'm a Christian. Do
> you hate me?" And the Wahhabi Cleric said, "Well, of course, if you're a
> Christian, I hate you. But, I'm not going to kill you." This is the
> moderate view. And we need to realize that just as angry German
> nationalism of the 1920's and 1930's was the soil in which Nazism grew,
> not all German nationalists became Nazis, but that was the soil in which
> it grew. So the angry form of Islamism and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia today
> is the soil in which anti-Western and anti-American terrorism grows.
> This is going to be a long war, very long indeed. I hope not as long as
> the Cold War, 40 plus years, but certainly longer than either World War I
> or World War II. I rather imagine it's going to be measured, I'm afraid,
> in decades.
> Is there any answer? Is there any potential end to this? Now, what I'm
> about to say is going to sound rather idealistic, but I think it's the
> only thing that we can do. If you look at the world 85 years ago in the
> spring of 1917, when this country entered World War I, there were about 10
> or 12 democracies in the world. The United States, Canada, Australia, New
> Zealand, Britain, France, Switzerland, a couple of countries in Northern
> Europe. It was a world of empires, of kingdoms, of colonies, and of
> various types of authoritarian regimes through the world. Today, Freedom
> House, which I think does the best work on this sort of thing, says that
> there are 120 out of 192 countries in the world that are democracies. The
> world is about evenly divided between what Freedom House calls free, such
> as the United States; and what it calls partly free, such as Russia. But
> there are still 120 countries with some parliamentary contested elections
> and some beginnings, at least, of the rule of law. That is an amazing
> change in the lifetime of many individuals now living -- from a 10 or 12
> to 120 democracies in the world. Nothing like that has ever happened in
> world history. Needless to say, we have had something to do with this,
> both in winning World War I -- helping win World War I -- in prevailing,
> along with Britain, in World War II; and eventually, in prevailing in the
> Cold War. And along the way, a lot of people said very cynically at
> different times -- fill in the blanks -- The Germans will never be able to
> run a democracy; the Japanese will never be able to run a democracy; the
> Russians will never be able to run a democracy; nobody with a Chinese
> Confucian background is going to be able to run a democracy. It took some
> help, but the Germans and the Japanese and now, even the Russians, and
> Taiwanese seem to have figured it out. In spite of vast cultural
> differences, very different from the Anglo-Saxon world of parliament that
> Westminster and the early United States a lot of people seemed to have
> figured it out.
> In the Muslim world, outside the 22 Arab states, which have no
> democracies, some reasonably well-governed states that are moderating and
> changing, such as Bahrein extent and others. Of the 24 Muslim-predominant
> non-Arab states, about half are democracies. They include some of the
> poorest countries in the world. Bangladesh, Mali - Mali is almost an ideal
> democracy. Nearly 200 million Muslims live in a democracy in India.
> Outside one province, they are generally at peace with their Hindu
> neighbors. There is a special problem in the Middle East for historical
> and cultural reasons. Outside of Israel and Turkey, the Middle East
> essentially consists of no democracies. It has, rather, two types of
> governments -- pathological predators and vulnerable autocrats. This is
> not a good mix. Five of those states: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Libya
> sponsor and assist terrorism in one way or another; all five of those are
> working on weapons of mass destruction of one type or another.
> The Mideast presents a serious and massive problem of pathological
> predators next to vulnerable autocracies. I don't believe this terror war
> is ever really going to go away until we change the face of the Middle
> East. Now, that is a tall order. But, it's not as tall an order as what we
> have already done. In 1917, Europe was largely monarchies, empires, and
> autocracies. Today, outside Belarus and Ukraine, it is largely democratic,
> even including Russia. These changes that have taken place over the course
> of the last 85 years are a remarkable achievement. The ones that still
> have to be undertaken in a part of the world that has historically not had
> democracy, which has reacted angrily against intrusions from the outside,
> particularly the Arab Middle East, presents a huge challenge. But I would
> say this, both to the terrorists and to the pathological predators such as
> Saddam Hussein and to the autocrats as well, the barbarics, the Saudi
> royal family. They have to realize that now for the fourth time in 100
> years, we've been awakened and this country is on the march. We didn't
> choose this fight, but we're in it. And being on the march, there's only
> one way we're going to be able to win it. It's the way we won World War I
> fighting for Wilson's 14 points. The way we won World War II fighting for
> Churchill's and Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter and the way we won World War
> III fighting for the noble ideas I think best expressed by President
> Reagan, but also very importantly at the beginning by President Truman,
> that this was not a war of us against them. It was not a war of countries.
> It was a war of freedom against tyranny. We have to convince the people of
> the Middle East that we are on their side, as we convinced Lech Walesa and
> Vaclav Havel and Andrei Sakharov that we were on their side. This will
> take time. It will be difficult. But I think we need to say to both the
> terrorists and the dictators and also to the autocrats who from time to
> time are friendly with us, that we know, we understand we are going to
> make you nervous. We want you to be nervous. We want you to realize now
> for the fourth time in 100 years, this country is on the march and we are
> on the side of those whom you most fear - your own people.