- The Washington Times - Thursday, June 3, 2004

I was nearly finished writing a different column from the one that appears on this page today when news of President Bush’s address at the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony flashed on the Drudge Report. “Bush drops ‘crusade’ from Eisenhower’s D-Day message,” read the headline.

What? He couldn’t; he didn’t … did he? Thanks to instantly accessible archives on the Internet, I quickly found Gen. Eisenhower’s Order of the Day given to the men of the Allied Expeditionary Force as they prepared to begin the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944.

It went like this: “Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade,toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed people of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.” And so, stirringly, on.

Sixty years later, facing another global threat from another totalitarian ideology, Mr. Bush saw fit, wisely and importantly, to link essential aspects of our past and present struggles. These include the totalitarian nature of both Nazi fascism and Islamofascism, and the fact that freeing Europe then and the expanding freedom in the Middle East now are crucial to American security. In so doing, Mr. Bush invoked the opening lines of Ike’s order, but with one shameful, history-defiling cut. “Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force,” Mr. Bush said, quoting Gen. Eisenhower. “The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.”

Missing, of course, is Eisenhower’s loin-girding line about those tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen being about to embark on “the Great Crusade” — the reason “the eyes of the world” are upon them in the first place. This cut may not strike everyone as a reason to tear up Page One. But to me the omission hits at the heart of what is lacking in the so-called war on terror — the courage of clarity.

It’s possible Mr. Bush didn’t drop Eisenhower’s language himself. Indeed, his speechwriters might not have given him the choice. They well know the “crusade” officially was outlawed long ago. And by “crusade,” I don’t mean Christendom’s medieval battles to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim rule. But, of course, neither did Eisenhower (not in his D-Day remarks and not in his popular account of the war, “Crusade in Europe”). Neither did Mr. Bush, for that matter, when, in the week following September 11, he said that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” Speaking in terms of a cause may have steadied most Americans at home, but it drove Muslims, Europeans and political correctniks everywhere crazy. A headline in the Christian Science Monitor on Sept. 19, 2001, said it best: “Europe cringes at Bush ‘crusade’ against terrorists.”

It didn’t have to cringe long. Rather than inviting citizens of the world to join the new “crusade” against Islamist terror networks — the successor to earlier, victorious crusades against Nazism and Communism — Ari Fleischer, then the president’s spokesman, immediately expressed “regret” over unspecified “connotations” the word “crusade” might have had “for anybody, Muslim or otherwise.” In other words, America was officially sorry if anyone out there — and I mean “out there” — believed, five days after the fiery collapse of the World Trade Center, the president of the United States was going send an army of barons to take Jerusalem for the pope.

Of course, what this was really all about were the terms of engagement — literally. We could not embark on a “crusade” against Islamist jihad because that term carries echoes of centuries of struggle between the Christian West and the Muslim East. (Never mind that the echoes still have plenty to tell us.) And we may not fight a war against “Islamic jihad,” even as Muslims, from “militants” (terrorists) to “spiritual advisers” (terrorist kingpins), claim bloody inspiration from the jihad verses of the Koran. Nope, this is a fight against what the president amorphously describes as “the terrorist ideology,” and the religiously based doctrines of fighting and subjugating non-Muslims under Islamic law may not be acknowledged, let alone discussed. Which is preposterous. But it is our lot: a life-or-death struggle to save Judeo-Christian civilization from a masked enemy, a camouflaged ideology and our own willful naivete. Our crusade may be quixotic, but a crusade it is, if ever there was one.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide