The debate over how the war for freedom must be explained by its supporters is an old one; eighteen months ago bloggers Armed Liberal and Steven Den Beste discussed the balance between, respective to each man, candor and subtlety.
President Bush's second inauguration is the catalyst for this year's reprise, and two proponents of candor are Greg Djerejian and Austin Bay. Djerejian says the president "must more effectively communicate to the world audience the nature of his global war on terror" while Bay believes "we've soft-pedaled the ideological dimensions," both men worried that the larger goal is placed in jeopardy by unnecessary misunderstanding and opposition from those who, wielding the power of legislation or election, are simply confused.
On principle both are right, but I still side with Den Beste. The war effort simply relies on too many non-hostile ideological opponents — Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia — at this stage for the president to tell Near East dictators what time it is. If active opponents like Tehran's mullahs and Damascus' Assad were removed like Hussein, the United States could make a strategic gamble and — with Iran's, Iraq's and Syria's duly elected representatives — ask Hosni, Abdullah, Pervez, the Sauds et al to shape up or ship out, the American-led alliance ready to absorb the diplomatic or military consquences. Ideally, a sitting American president will reach a threshold where dictatorship can be called out for the cardinal outrage it is.
Every dictator in power is a threat to the free world and must fall. The blogosphere can say it. National Review and the Weekly Standard can say it. Even Rudy Giuliani, at the Republican National Convention, can say it — and he did. But if real blunt talk comes from the Oval Office, American power must be pulling up into every despot's front drive or what Bay and Djerejian and the rest of us want will be poorly served, since it'll just be words.
Beyond the unmistakable expression of policy, Bush's constant invocation of universal freedom is the most he can do. On that, he could certainly ramp it up for the Iranians. Yet since "forward strategy of freedom" is polite for "minus the one-party madman holding you down," and actions speak much louder than words, the president's message may be more effective than we realize.