More on the “Three Pillars”

As I posted here, the theme of President Bush’s great Whitehall Palace Speech is that “the peace and security of free nations" now rest on "three pillars": their encouragement of strong and effective "international institutions," their willingness in the last resort "to restrain aggression and evil by force," and their "commitment to the global expansion of democracy."

In a thought provoking editorial, John Zvesper says President Bush’s "three pillars" speech should cause us to reflect upon questions such as these:

Do Americans have "a naive faith that liberty can change the world"?

Are Americans (especially, it could be added, Americans who support him) too moralistic, too inclined to "speak in terms of right and wrong"?

Does political freedom depend on people’s moral and religious convictions?

Our answers to these questions are important and must impact the strategy for the war against terrorism. Do the answers support our pursuit of a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East, designed to address root causes of the Islamofacists’ terror, wise. Is there any better approach?

As America and Britain "seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings," additional questions should be addressed:

What does it mean, to "stand for" others’ rights?

What does it mean to say "our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found"?

If "the United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world"—"the advance of freedom"—it is nature rather than history that justifies this mission?

Zvesper’s editorial and President Bush’s speech deserve your time and attention.