UZBEKISTAN AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTS

Uzbekistan, country from which Anatolian Turks had their roots, had difficult problems when it stepped on the way towards independence in 1990. There is no doubt Uzbeks needed, before all else, to handle one leading problem, which is the fulfillment of the free market conditions, together with another, which was the transition from the Communist system into a more liberal and decentralized model, and therefore implement a great many institutional sine qua non of Western world.

When I visited Uzbekistan in 1993, it was most probable to see the concrete consequences of the system experiencing the problems characteristic to the beginning stages of her transformation process. However, it was also in those years that Uzbekistan was beginning to rapidly replace the artificially-democratic system that was limited by the Communist heritage, with essential and modern democratic institutions and work on the standardization in order to correspond to the modern world.
In that new modern era, Uzbekistan was obliged to compensate the socio-economic losses and distress of the population ? who were used to live below world standards and dependent on state support with little work as civil servant ? which would arise from the implementation of the new system. In order to reach that end, it was crucial to initiate democratic changes in the political arena, while on the other hand install new social institutions, in parallel with fulfilling the requirements of liberal economy. The year 1993 that I witnessed was experiencing the problems of this transition and opening process.
When I repaid a visit to Uzbekistan in 2006, I found myself in a country that proved to satisfy all standard requirements of a modern society. Plenty of modern hotels were built, thousands of factories and facilities operating in services sector were established and a modern finance sector together with its institutions was created. Furthermore, it was much more impressive to monitor those reforms and the initiatory steps that are introduced within the framework of fundamental legal principles on site.
However, considering this last development, I observed significant institutions that are to be taken seriously and did not exist even in Western countries, which from time to time had biased and unjust criticisms for Uzbekistan as well as Turkey. A genuine ?democracy?, which was solely based on popular participation and was like no other I experienced in the rest of the world was implemented. Besides, the new societal system is organized so as to prioritize democracy together with market economy in order to achieve a truly democratic society.
A Retrospective Democratic Approach
Scientists and historians found key elements of democracy in the historical political traditions of the Turkic societies that existed from the beginnings of history while searching for ways to improve democratization in Uzbekistan during the transition from the Communist regime to the new regime. Fundamentally, the democratic conception had always existed in the essence of those Turkic empires that spread throughout the world from Central Asia to the West, in the smallest administrative unit, which was called ?mahalla.? Throughout the history, strong Turkic states were built upon this conception. Provided that the small local units with comprehensive individual participation from below were strong, powerful Turkic states had emerged based upon the dynamism and passion stemming from such popular political participation.
Having considered this element, Uzbekistan president, far-sighted statesman Mr. Islam Kerimov gathered the prominent and respectful elders ?Aksakallar? (White-Beardeds) in order to consult them on the defects of Uzbek society. The resulting ideas made way to the establishment of ?Mahalle waqf? system and Uzbek government immediately began working on the system throughout Uzbekistan. The law on the establishment of ?Mahalle waqf? was enacted in 12/09/1992. In this way a truly democratic system lead by the ?Aksakallar? that was ordained to meet the all the basic needs of society was introduced. Such a system of cooperative institution did not exist under the Soviet era; because the ?Mahalla Waqf? system, which is built upon the traditions and customs of Uzbek people, while attaching importance to the conventional ethics, was perceived as a threat to the philosophy of the communist regime which opposed alternative cooperative social organizations. ?Mahalla? provided the proper conditions for the training and raise of youth for future, constituting the basis of social organization as it was based on traditional ?aile? (family) association. On the other hand communist system gave priority to dialectic materialist patterns for the training of the youth and the individual, rather than referring to their traditions. Ironically, Soviet Union prepared its own culmination by renouncing the individual mentality, motivation and the traditions and customs that empowered this mentality.
Mahalla Waqf and Aksakals
?Mahalla waqf? began operating for the moral, pedagogical and educational development of people, in the relatively small mahallas that were composed of approximately 5000-7000 individuals who closely know each other. Throughout with a new administrative approach, ?Mahalla Waqf? works out to solve the problems concerning education, social security, environment, health, employment etc. bearing in mind the basic presumption that ?mahalla is a big family.? Therefore, ?mahalle,? rather than the state, is positioned to watch out the individuals. Within the new waqf system, ?aksakal,? who is chosen via elections, serves for the sake of mahalla by appointing his secretary and advisors responsible from the religious, moral and traditional education.
The ?aksakal? agency, which is the third elected agency in Uzbekistan after the president and parliamentarians, is an administrative regime motivated by the parole ?mahalla is a family? that existed since Emir Timur. The agency is the realization of the idea that ?aile?, and ?mahalla? as its product, constitute the nucleus of society and the state. The training programs and courses, which procure productive and inventive development of the youth and adults in line with the motto ?economic development begins from the mahalla,? constitute the most precious treasure for a society that hopes for a better future. Considering the basic premise of education and that the ?mahalla is the cradle for education?, the pupils in crèche, primary, secondary schools and university students are trained for the future by the teachers of the education commissions of mahalla waqf, bethinking the basic traditional and customary principles. Thus, schools, although being state institutions, are controlled in the ?mahalla.?
Social Function
?Mahalla Waqf?, which has important social functions, firmly institutionalized the ab aeterno social solidarity of the Turkic world by the establishment of the new system. ?Mahalla waqf? supports the aids for families, elders, needy and ailing people. Moreover, waqf may even help the entrepreneurs/businessmen to establish businesses when necessary.
Observing a system that resembles the Anatolian Turkish ?Ahi? organization still functioning in Uzbekistan may also help us understand the core of the Turkic social traditions and social life.
The financial resources provided by the state in order to help the needy people can also be used most efficiently and optimally, since mahalla would be well aware of those who require relief.
Another important eminence of social solidarity within the mahalla structure can be observed in the importance given to the women and their problems. Particularly, doctors, lawyers and other professional members of the ?Women?s Commission,? which works in order to help women participate in the social life, contacts girls and young women in order to guide them to adopt social life. Subsequently, their specific demands are noted and addressed to the Aksakal for their adequate fulfillment.
The election of ?Mahalla Waqf? (a truly democratic institutional approach of local organization) administration for 2.5 years is explicitly addressed in the Constitution of Uzbekistan. A particular number of delegates that are chosen among the streets of a mahalla substantiate the first chain of the realization of the common will through democracy by participating into a ?kurultay? (assembly) of the delegates. Mahalla waqf, counting 474 in Tashkent and 9941 throughout Uzbekistan, provides an exemplary basis for the appropriate coordination of information between the state, the government and the local divisions. In that respect, it presents a pilot model that should be followed by modern societies.
Other Civil Societal Institutions in Uzbekistan
In addition to mahalla waqf that represents the ideal type of participatory administrative approach, it is observable that Uzbekistan is beginning to accomplish an orderly and systematic social system in terms of establishing an essential civil society with firm bases.
Organizations, such as the ?Institute for Civil Society Studies,? which works in order to contribute for the development of civil societal organizations, increase the level of public participation to government and society for further democratization and liberalization, together with ?Kemalet Youth Movement? (Kemalet meaning maturity) that works for the endorsement of promising contribution of youth to society, appear to be noteworthy institutions pioneering the civil societal progress in Uzbekistan.
?Institute for Civil Society Studies? making striving efforts for the restructuring and enhancement of political parties by working hand in hand with the mahalla waqf, contributes to democratic development of Uzbekistan. Additionally, efforts concerning the development of independence of media institutions are issues worth mentioning in that respect.
?Kemalet Youth Movement,? which was founded in 2001, prepares youth aged 14-28 for future by affiliating them to the movement as members. The movement having 4.5 million members and bureaus in every province of Uzbekistan operates through agencies in schools, universities, colleges and military institutions.
This brilliant movement, aiming to unite youth, protect their interests, increase their competence in social life, solve their problems, inform them of their socio-political rights, guide them through entrepreneurship, facilitate their sports abilities and most importantly prepare them for life, has valuable efforts in addition to publication of 3 gazettes and 5 magazines, which is to be considered as an exemplary endeavor for those societies having problems concerning the future condition of their youth.
Uzbekistan, as one of the most stable societies of the world in terms of internal security, facilitates ideal urbanization projects. Also being free from foreign debt and in addition to her successful efforts for the institutionalization of democratization, it stands in an inspiring position even to arouse jealousy for the Western societies. This is a great achievement thanks to the successful efforts for the protection of independence of Uzbekistan through the implementation of democratization and secularization reforms by the respectful president of Uzbekistan Mr. Islam Kerimov. His Excellency, being well aware that foreign powers? attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of independent countries, implement imperialist policies in order to repress through ?weaken and control? principle, successfully established a commendable principle of independence that we, Anatolian Turks envy and yearn for, by keeping away those foreign powers away from Uzbekistan. Our wish is the initiation of new policies for cooperation between two powerful countries in order for unitary, solidarity and development, which would remind us of the old Turkish saying ?What does one hand do? But when two hands clap makes a sound.? Moreover, it is both crucial and advantageous that cooperation, economic and political solidarity, between Turkey and Uzbekistan, which the Western states always feared of, is enhanced and improved further. We have to draw lessons especially from the delinquency of the previous coalition governments in Turkey and push for serious reformation of the foreign policy agenda of the current government.

Latest GPS Bird Ready For Launch From Cape Canaveral

Latest GPS Bird Ready For Launch From Cape Canaveral

Artist's conception of Lockheed Martin's GPS Block IIR satellite.
by Staff Writers
Cape Canaveral Fl (SPX) Sep 22, 2006

The second modernized Global Positioning System (GPS) Block IIR satellite built by Lockheed Martin for the U.S. Air Force is set for launch aboard a Delta II rocket on Sept. 25, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
Known as GPS IIR-M, the modernized spacecraft are the most technologically advanced GPS satellites ever developed and are designed to provide significantly improved navigation performance for U.S. military and civilian users worldwide.

Lockheed Martin Navigation Systems is under contract to modernize eight IIR satellites for its customer, the Global Positioning Systems Wing, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif.

Designated GPS IIR-15(M), this satellite will join the first modernized IIR spacecraft declared operational last year and 12 other operational Block IIR satellites currently on-orbit within the overall 29-spacecraft constellation. The Air Force is dedicating the mission to honor American POW/MIAs past and present.

The GPS IIR-M series offers a variety of enhanced features for GPS users, such as a modernized antenna panel that provides increased signal power to receivers on the ground, two new military signals for improved accuracy, enhanced encryption and anti-jamming capabilities for the military, and a second civil signal that will provide users with an open access signal on a different frequency.

The Global Positioning System enables properly equipped users to determine precise time and velocity and worldwide latitude, longitude and altitude to within a few meters. Air Force Space Command's 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2SOPS), based at Schriever Air Force Base, Colo., manages and operates the GPS constellation for both civil and military users.

GPS IIR-M production takes place at Lockheed Martin facilities in Valley Forge, Pa. The modernized navigation payload is provided by ITT Industries in Clifton, N.J.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 135,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2005 sales of $37.2 billion.

Japanese Fret That Quality Is in Decline

TOKYO, Sept. 20 ? Perhaps only in Japan could a television series like ?Project X? have become one of the most popular TV shows. No, it isn?t a science fiction thriller. It?s about product quality.

More specifically, it?s about a bunch of corporate engineers who invented the hand-held calculators and ink-jet printers that helped turn this nation into an industrial powerhouse.

So it is little wonder that a recent surge in recalls of defective products has set off national hand-wringing and soul-searching here, in radio talk shows, on the front pages of newspapers and in the hushed corridors of government ministries.

Even in local noodle shops, the conversation turns to the bruised pride and fears that Japan may be losing its edge at a time when South Korea and China are breathing down its neck.

?Craftsmanship was the best face that Japan had to show the world,? said Hideo Ishino, a 44-year-old lathe operator at an auto parts factory in Kawasaki, an industrial city next to Tokyo. ?Aren?t the Koreans making fun of us now??

?It took us years to build up this reputation,? Kazumasa Mitani, 32, a co-worker, chimed in. ?Now we see how fast we can lose it.?

This, after all, is a country that has been obsessed with perfection. Tokyo?s sprawling subway and train networks run like clockwork, accurate to the minute. Television factories assign workers with rags to wipe down every new set, lest a Japanese consumer find a single fingerprint and return it. In supermarkets, many apples and melons are individually wrapped in protective plastic foam.

In the last two months, the national angst increased after large-scale recalls of defective products made by Toyota and Sony, the country?s two proudest corporate names. In the United States, product recalls occur so frequently that most are barely noticed. But here, they have created something of a crisis in a country where manufacturing quality is part of the national identity.

The fingers have no main culprit to point to. Some say young Japanese are too lazy. Others say American-style management is to blame.

The spate of bad news has not stopped. Just this week, Sony suffered another blow when Toshiba announced that it was recalling 340,000 Sony-made laptop batteries, after last month?s recalls of 5.9 million batteries. And Toyota, which has experienced a soaring number of recalls in recent years, said Wednesday that it would hire 8,000 more engineers to strengthen quality.

Some here admit that Americans may find the fuss perplexing. But Japan is the country that elevated the American quality guru W. Edwards Deming to virtual sainthood and conquered global markets with its eminently reliable cars, cameras and computers. For a time, American and European executives even flocked here to learn Japanese quality-control concepts like ?kaizen,? meaning ?improvement.?

World-leading craftsmanship became so central to the nation?s self-image that many Japanese seem to have trouble imagining their country without it. The recalls are discussed here in the same breath as Japan?s rising rates of crime and juvenile delinquency and other signs that the country?s tightly woven social fabric may be starting to fray.

In the news media, Sony?s and Toyota?s quality problems have frequently topped coverage of wars in Iraq and Lebanon. And Nihon Keizai Shimbun, the leading economic daily, began a front-page investigative series this month called ?Can Japan Protect Quality??

?Toyota and Sony have been a wake-up call that something is amiss in Japan,? said Takamitsu Sawa, an economics professor at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. ?Japan seems to have lost something important on the way to becoming a developed country, and many Japanese want to get that back.?

One of those is Toshihiro Nikai, Japan?s trade minister, who twice last month took unusually blunt steps in this nation that normally recoils from confrontation. He sent letters to executives from Sony ordering them to report on quality-control improvements after back-to-back recalls by Apple and Dell of faulty Sony-made laptop batteries. Sony promised to comply and diligently sent employees to receive the letters by hand. It was the first time such orders had ever been issued to Sony.

?This is very rare,? said Atsuo Hirai, assistant chief at the trade ministry?s information product safety section. Rarer still was the fact that a few weeks earlier, the transport ministry issued similar orders to Toyota.

Hiroshi Okuda, the retired chairman of Toyota and elder statesman of Japan?s business world, called on his countrymen to do more about what he saw as the declining competitiveness of Japanese manufacturing.

?Japan lacks a sufficient sense of crisis,? he warned last month.

The sense of crisis has moved even into the classroom.

New York Times

If Italy thinks the unthinkable about the eurozone

What if a government decided to leave the European Monetary Union and abandon the Euro? A realistic question, and yet nobody dares to ask.

The agreements that established the euro contain no provisions to allow exit. However, if some government - let us suppose the Italian one - decided to leave, there is nothing Europe could or would do to stop it. But what exactly would a government set on such a course - or forced into it - do?

The objective would be to establish a currency - the new lira - which would substitute for the euro in domestic transactions but sell at a discount to the euro in international transactions. A bus fare of one euro would become a bus fare of one new lira but the external value of the new lira might fall to 75 euro cents in financial markets.

There are no precedents in advanced economies for such a policy. Currency unions have broken up before, but they have usually been de facto rather than legal currency unions - as between Britain and Ireland. Or the motives for the break-up have been political rather than economic. When Czechoslovakia split apart the aim was to preserve, rather than to alter, the terms of exchange between the two new states.

The laws that brought the euro into being said that contracts made in lire were to be interpreted as contracts made in euros at a prescribed conversion rate. But you cannot simply pass a law that contracts made in euros can in future be discharged in new lire. The plan would have to distinguish Italian contracts from others. But how? The Italian state would pay employees and pensioners in new lira. It might impose a temporary freeze on domestic prices and wages, whose lira amount could not exceed their old euro values. This is the familiar apparatus of crisis devaluation. But what of financial and commercial contracts made in euros before A-day but not yet completed?

The simple answer is that an agreement in euros stays in euros. But this is not politically feasible. Italians would not accept that their mortgages and credit-card debts, denominated in euros, would cost them one-third more to repay: and it would be absurd if the bank deposits of Italian residents were revalued by a similar amount.

The relevant principle of international law seems to be that debts are denominated in the currency of the place where they are to be paid. But in the modern world, that question often has no clear answer. The residence of parties to the contract also matters. This seems to give generally sensible answers when both are Italian, but in many cases one party is Italian and the other is not. What of multinational companies? Then there is an issue of legal jurisdiction. For example, many financial contracts are made under English law even if the transaction has nothing to do with England. An English court would want to uphold a valid Italian law, but it cannot be assumed it could or would, especially if that law seemed to favour Italians at the expense of other nationalities.

Businesses with activities in both Italy and other countries would find that some assets and liabilities had been converted to new lira while others remained in euros, and there would be large mismatches between the two. The likely losers would be multinational companies with Italian assets and dollar balance sheets: the likely gainers might be Italian retail financial institutions, which collect deposits in Italy and place them in other countries. The outcome would be a period of chaos in markets and a decade of work for lawyers.

Some people will conclude that these problems make a break-up of the euro impossible. This would be a profound error. History - not least the establishment of European monetary union itself - shows that, given political determination, practical problems will be overcome. Civil servants, lawyers and bankers are there to ensure that a client's wishes are met even if misconceived and if the Bank of Italy does not have a plan in its safe, its officers have been failing in their plain duty.

Any international bank or business should contemplate these issues. But the consequences of such contemplation are grave: in financial markets, actions to protect against a contingency make that contingency more likely. That is why a debate on the fragmentation of the eurozone is a debate that no one dares have.

New Thinking Is Needed on the Home Front and Abroad

Despite Some Notable Achievements, New Thinking Is Needed on the Home Front and Abroad

By John Lehman
Thursday, August 31, 2006

Are we winning the war? The first question to ask is, what war? The Bush administration continues to muddle a national understanding of the conflict we are in by calling it the "war on terror." This political correctness presumably seeks to avoid hurting the feelings of the Saudis and other Muslims, but it comes at high cost. This not a war against terror any more than World War II was a war against kamikazes.

We are at war with jihadists motivated by a violent ideology based on an extremist interpretation of the Islamic faith. This enemy is decentralized and geographically dispersed around the world. Its organizations range from a fully functioning state such as Iran to small groups of individuals in American cities.

We are fighting this war on three distinct fronts: the home front, the operational front and the strategic-political front. Let us look first at the home front. The Bush administration deserves much credit for the fact that, despite determined efforts to carry them out, there have been no successful Islamist attacks within the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. This is a significant achievement, but there are growing dangers and continuing vulnerabilities.

One of the most deep-seated of these problems is the U.S. government's tendency to treat this war as a law enforcement issue. Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, Congress sought to remedy this problem by creating a national security service within the FBI to focus on preventive intelligence rather than forensic evidence. This has proved to be a complete failure. As late as June of this year, Mark Mershon of the FBI testified that the bureau will not monitor or surveil any Islamist unless there is a "criminal predicate." Thus the large Islamist support infrastructure that the commission identified here in the United States is free to operate until its members actually commit a crime.

Our attempt to reform the FBI has failed. What is needed now is a separate domestic intelligence service without police powers, like the British MI-5.

The Sept. 11 commission catalogued in detail how our intelligence establishment simply does not function. We made priority recommendations to rebuild the 15 bloated and failed intelligence bureaucracies by creating a strong national intelligence director to smash bureaucratic layers, to tear down the walls preventing intelligence-sharing among agencies, and to rewrite personnel policy with the goal of bringing in new blood not just from the career bureaucracy but from the private sector as well. This approach was completely rejected by the Bush administration, which decided instead to leave this sprawling mess untouched and to create yet another bureaucracy of more than 1,000 people in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It was the exact opposite of what we had recommended.

The greatest terrorist threat on the home front is, of course, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Islamists. Here the president has moved to establish a national counter-proliferation center to share and act on intelligence, and he has recently initiated a cooperation agreement with Russia and our allies to work together in preventing nuclear materials from getting into the hands of the Islamists and to undertake joint crisis management if such an attack takes place. These are real accomplishments.

Turning to the operational front, our objectives are to destroy the capability of Islamist organizations to attack us and to deny them geographic sanctuaries in which they can recruit, train and operate.

The post-Sept. 11 threat demanded preemptive attack against Islamist bases, and this was done without delay in the invasion of Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government, its ally and supporter. It was a brilliantly executed operation in which all our armed forces and CIA operatives combined in a ruthlessly efficient victory. In the succeeding years, however, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been able to regroup, rebuild and re-attack because they enjoy a secure sanctuary largely free from attack within the border areas of Pakistan.

The next military operation of the war was, of course, the invasion of Iraq. Here again the combined military operations of the United States and Britain were brilliantly successful in defeating Iraqi forces and removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. But in the aftermath of that victory, grave blunders were made. There was a total misunderstanding of the requirements for successful occupation.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was proved right in his keeping the initial invasion force small and agile, but desperately wrong in disbanding all Iraqi security forces and civil service with no plan to fill the resulting vacuum. Certainly it is hard now to understand the logic of that decision.

The military occupation in Iraq is consuming practically the entire defense budget and stretching the Army to its operational limits. This is understood quite clearly by both our friends and our enemies, and as a result, our ability to deter enemies around the world is disintegrating.

This brings us to the third front, the strategic-political. The jihadist regime in Iran feels no reservation about flaunting its policy to go nuclear, and it unleashed Hezbollah, its client terrorist organization, to attack Israel. In Somalia a jihadist group has seized control of the government. In Pakistan, Islamists are becoming more powerful, and attacks within India are increasing. Governments in Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Algeria and Jordan are under increasing Islamist pressure. In the Pacific, North Korea now feels free to rattle its missile sabers, firing seven on America's Independence Day. China is rapidly building its 600-ship navy to fill the military vacuum that we are creating in the Pacific as our fleet shrinks well below critical mass. Not one of these states believes that we can undertake any credible additional military operations while we are bogged down in Iraq.

The indoctrination and recruiting of jihadists from Indonesia, South Asia and the Middle East are carried out through religious establishments that are supported overwhelmingly by the Saudi and Iranian governments. Even in the United States, some 80 percent of Islamic mosques and schools are closely aligned with the Wahhabist sect and heavily dependent on Saudi funding. Five years after Sept. 11, nothing has been done to materially affect this root source of jihadism. The movement continues to grow, fueled by an ever-increasing flow of petrodollars from the Persian Gulf.

There is no evidence that the administration has ever raised this matter with the Saudi government as a high-level issue, and -- just as damaging -- it has never acknowledged it as an issue to the American people. Thus Rumsfeld's question -- are we killing, capturing or deterring jihadists faster than they are being produced? -- must be answered with an emphatic no.

In reviewing progress on the three fronts of this war, even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude that we are winning or that we can win without some significant changes of policy.

The writer was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and later served as a member of the Sept. 11 commission. This is a condensed version of an article that appears in the September issue of the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings magazine.

Washington Post

Bush Says Iraq War Is Part of a Larger Fight

President Bush began a new drive today to rally the American people behind him on the Iraq war and national security, declaring that the United States must stay the course in Iraq because it is a battleground in an epic struggle between democracy and tyranny.

Mr. Bush told the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City that the terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, have much in common with the suicide bombers of Baghdad and the Hezbollah militants who rain rockets on Israel.

Whatever their ethnic or religious differences, Mr. Bush said, they are united in their wish ?to turn back the advance of freedom, and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world.?

Mr. Bush scoffed at his critics? charges that the American-led campaign in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle against Al Qaeda terrorists. ?That would come as news to Osama bin Laden,? he said, asserting that terrorists from other countries in the Middle East are making their way to Iraq to try to smother the emerging democracy.

?And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam,? Mr. Bush said.

The president?s 40-minute address, coming on the heels of similarly aggressive speeches on Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to the legionnaires and Vice President Dick Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, underscored the White House?s determination to make the Iraq war a fundamental issue in the November elections as Republicans try to keep control of Congress and Democrats try to capitalize on growing impatience with the war.

?In the coming days, I?ll deliver a series of speeches describing the nature of our enemy in the war on terror, the insights we?ve gained about their aims and ambitions, the successes and setbacks we?ve experienced, and our strategy to prevail in this long war,? Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush also chided Iran and Syria for their support of Hezbollah, and he said that Iran must not be allowed to fulfill its nuclear ambitions. He pledged that the United States would continue to seek a diplomatic solution to bridge the deep differences with Iran, ?but there must be consequences for Iran?s defiance.?

Yet Mr. Bush acknowledged that the United States must assume some blame for the smoldering resentments in the region. ?For a half-century, America?s primary goal in the Middle East was stability,? he said, recalling the cold war era. ?This was understandable at the time.? But Washington?s support of anti-communist dictators was accompanied by growing despair and radicalism, he said, alluding to the seizure of Americans at the United States Embassy in Iran after the pro-American but dictatorial Shah of Iran was overthrown.

Doubtless familiar with polls showing increasing numbers of Americans drawing a distinction between the Iraq war and a larger battle against terrorism, Mr. Bush invoked the approaching anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to rebut that view.

That September morning brought to the United States ?a war we didn?t ask for, but a war we must wage, and a war we will win,? Mr. Bush said. And if the United States tires of fighting in the streets of Baghdad, he said, ?we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.?

?So the United States will not leave until victory is achieved,? Mr. Bush said, warning that more sacrifice lies ahead and that the struggle will be a long one.

Seeking to disarm critics who say that the administration has bungled the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush said he and his commanders are united in their resolve for victory yet flexible enough to adapt tactics to changing conditions. But he said the war, in Iraq and against terrorism generally, will not be won by military might alone.

?Every element of national power? is being marshaled in ?the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century,? Mr. Bush said.

Democrats were quick to denounce the president?s speech. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said the president?s ?failed policies? have made the United States less safe in the past five years. ?Democrats will lead the American people with tough and smart policies that will make us safer by beginning the redeployment of troops from Iraq, refocusing our efforts on the war on terror, and protecting Americans from terrorism here at home,? Mr. Reid said.

And Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts called the speech ?a cynical attempt to help his Republican enablers survive the November elections at a time when he should be spending all of his time working to chart a new course in Iraq.?

Mr. Bush, unlike Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, did not use the word ?appease? today. As for those who doubt the wisdom of the war in Iraq, he said, ?Many of these folks are sincere and patriotic. They cannot be more wrong.?

Mr. Bush did not use the term ?Islamic fascists? today, as he had recently. But he did employ similar language. ?As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before,? he said. ?They?re successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century, and history shows what the outcome will be.?

Ultimately, he said, the outcome will be ?victory for the cause of freedom and liberty.?

The president again described America?s purpose in Iraq as at once idealistic and deeply pragmatic. Victory there will guarantee the Iraqi people freedom, and the country will be a beacon for other freedom-loving peoples in the Middle East, Mr. Bush said. And a free country does not become ?an incubator for terrorist movements,? he went on.

Mr. Bush was applauded frequently. He had not only a friendly audience but a friendly setting: he carried Utah over Senator John Kerry by 71 to 29 percent in 2004, for his biggest margin of victory in any state.

The battles in Iraq will one day rank alongside those at Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal as mileposts on the path to liberty, Mr. Bush said. ?We know that the direction of history leads toward freedom.?