War and Peace - not only the title of Tolstoy's epic drama about Russia's struggle against Napoleon, but two words that appear to be definitional opposites that are inextricably linked throughout history. Yes, even today as our military is engaged in combat in Iraq, its primary purpose is peace. Perhaps one of the most dangerous mergers of the words War and Peace has been the so-called peacekeeping efforts under the auspices of the United Nations. Frederick Fleitz in his recent book Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990's concludes that asking military forces to undertake peacekeeping activities can be detrimental to national security and ineffective because it presupposes that peace has been achieved when such has not been the usual case.

If the use of warriors to keep the peace is an incompatible function for the United States and the U.N., how can we reconcile the promises of our President to the people of Iraq that we come in peace when his message is drowned out by exploding bombs? Such is the paradox of today's world where the benevolent dictators of the past have been replaced by tyrants who use their own people as human shields to defend their power. That is why it is all the more important that Americans support our President and our troops. For people who are accustomed to the rule of the rifle, it is difficult to accept the concept that peace can come from conflict.

Today our nation is writing the first paragraphs of a new book on the history of the 21st century. Gone are the days of balance of power and diplomacy. Gone also are the days of seeking U.N. approval, unless that organization can prove its relevance in post-war Iraq. Even the importance of NATO has been called into question by the actions of France, Germany and Turkey. I have a feeling that the rift with these traditional allies will go far beyond the momentary public boycott of French wine and German automobiles. Some have suggested that the reluctance of these countries to engage in the Iraq conflict is because they have benefited from trade with Iraq even in the face of U.N. embargoes since the first Gulf War. If that is the case, it signals several dangers. First of all, will nations violate U.N. rules simply because it is economically advantageous for them to do so? The irony of that position for France, Germany and Russia is that they appear to ignore the U.N. embargoes on trade with Iraq, and oppose U.N. action that would expose their violations. For them to insist on U.N. approval of military action in Iraq is the ultimate hypocrisy since the construction of that organization gives them the power to veto such approval.

Much of the history of global War and Peace has had a religious connection. Perhaps the most notable were the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. Today the actions of Al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists are based on a desire to have Islam prevail everywhere. While our nation has engaged in a systematic effort to separate church and state, our enemies are seeking to achieve exactly the opposite, so long as the church is a mosque. In our effort to protect freedom of religion, we have provided fertile grounds for our enemies to grow their following even in our midst. While there is ongoing debate about the nature of the Muslim religion, there is no doubt that elements of that faith do espouse the violent overthrow of governments in order to replace them with theocracies like that of the former Taliban of Afghanistan. In fact, prior to the U.S.
intervention in Afghanistan last year, that country and its government were the handiwork of Osama Bin Laden where would-be terrorists from all over the world came to be trained. As radical Islam has spread from the Middle East to Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Central and Eastern Europe, and South America, governments in all of those areas are facing overthrow by these forces.

The rise of Khomeini to power in Iran in 1979 marked the first time since 1258 - the year of the conquest of Baghdad by the Mongol ruler Khan, that the ruler of a Muslim state wielded both political and religious power. But, their goal is not just control of one country like Iran. Listen to words of Mohammad Mohaddessin in his book, Islamic Fundamentalism, The New Global Threat, "Lengthy detailed discussions among members of the Supreme National Security Council, led to a consensus that the 'Islamic Republic' could not survive without the spread of the Islamic revolution beyond Iran's borders. Advocates of this theory referred to the split between Trotsky and Stalin after the Russian revolution. They argued that the Soviet Union's disintegration confirmed the validity of Trotsky's theory of a 'permanent world revolution', which asserts that the proletarian revolution confined within the borders of a single country will suffocate. The clerics, borrowing Trotsky's thesis, claimed that the only way to preserve their Islamic revolution was to foment Islamic revolutions in other countries."

Ironically, the first target chosen by Iran's cleric led government was its neighbor Iraq. After eight years of bloody war in which over one million Iranians were killed and an equal number were maimed or injured, they lost to Saddam Hussein. And even as this state sponsored terrorism increases, it is overlaid with networks like Al-Qaida, which has attracted some of the upper class of Muslim society. Osama Bin Laden, a billionaire engineer, educated in the best schools of the East, abandoned his life of wealth to assume control of a radical Muslim jihad against the U.S. and its allies. His efforts have resulted in the deaths of thousands of our citizens and the loss of other innocent lives around the world.

When President Bush and the world were faced with the reality of that threat on September 11, 2001, the decision was made to abandon appeasement and treat the conflict as Bin Laden views it, as a war. Our success in Afghanistan has been remarkable. It has destroyed most if not all of the training camps and we have killed and captured thousands of the most dangerous of these terrorists. Now our focus is on Iraq, which has also vowed to kill all Americans. Even though Saddam Hussein is viewed as an atheist by the radical Muslims, they both have a common enemy, the U.S.

So here we are, our military forces have eliminated the Taliban in Afghanistan, and women can now go to school and begin to be an equal part of their society. The model of radical Islamist theocracy is gone.

We now have Baghdad surrounded and that regime will soon be destroyed. While not a part of radical Islam, it was certainly its ally and friend that shared a common goal, the destruction of our way of life.

In spite of these successes, some who would call us friend and some in our own country, even in Congress, want to question our motives. Is it oil? If so, we would own the oil resources of Kuwait instead of paying market price for their output, for after all - we fought to protect them with the lives of our soldiers, while the social elite of Kuwait continued to jet set to the disco clubs of Europe.

Is it our desire to colonize? If so, our flag would fly over France, Germany, North Africa, Japan, and hundreds of other corners of the world, for it is in all of these places that Americans have given their lives, their limbs, and their fortunes. Not to rule, but to repel dictators and to restore human dignity.

To me, those who attribute evil motives to our efforts are blind to the noble record of our history and by their words and actions cast stains on our heroes of the past and the present. They should be ashamed. I do not believe that decent Americans will allow their partisan sniping to become even a footnote in the history book of our nation's legacy.

Are those who question our present actions still committed to the failed policy of appeasement? If so, they should only look to North Korea. They signed the agreements, they took our food, they took our economic aid and they took our nuclear technology and used them to feed a million man army and build nuclear weapons, and then they laughed because they knew all along their goal was to take us. Never has there been a time since the days of our first revolution when the words were originally spoken for us to recall those famous words of Patrick Henry when he asked, "Is life so dear or peace to sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Make no mistake about it. The battles we are fighting today are just as vital as any engagements for liberty throughout our history, for the goals of our enemies are clear - the destruction of America. The battlefields may be on foreign soil, but they are also right outside these doors, the weapons may not be the muskets of old, but the threats to life and peace are even more intense. And the need for patriots is just as great as it was when the smoke cleared on the Lexington green.

Dean Rusk, in his memoirs, tells us of being sent by President Johnson to meet with General Charles De Gaulle. De Gaulle had issued a statement that U.S. troops would have to be removed from French soil. When asked the question, "Does that include those thousands of American soldiers who fought and died to protect your freedom and are buried on French soil?" Dean Rusk reports that General De Gaulle was stunned and had to turn away and his request was never repeated. I believe when some who have denounced us in recent days reflect on our sacrifice, they too will have to turn away, for courage in support of a noble cause will always prevail over pettiness and jealousy. And even though we tend to associate turning points in history with the great men who lead at those times, such as President Bush, Secretary Colin Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and Generals Meyers and Franks, listen to the words of Leo Tolstoy from that novel War and Peace, with which I began this speech, "In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels that have but the smallest connection with the event itself. Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will is in an historical sense involuntary, and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity."

Perhaps it is a sign of my Calvinist Primitive Baptist ancestors, but I too believe, as did our founding fathers, that God has had a direct hand in the establishment of our nation and in sustaining it for more than 200 years. I also believe that if we continue to promote human dignity and freedom, God will bless America in both War and Peace.