"But the president was concerned that we hadn't described Iraq to the American people for what it is - a struggle of ideologies that isn't going to end with one election, or one constitution, or even a string of elections."

For an administration that has recalibrated and re-explained its strategy in Iraq many times in the past 30 months, this latest turn may be a recognition of changed realities.

The battlefield is shifting, at least the perception of it.

In the aftermath of 9/11 I always believed that Bush intended to transform the ME. This was necessary to address the "root causes". The invasion of Iraq was just the first step along the way. After all, Iraq bordered on six Arab countries and was "secular". The Administration argued what was necessary before Congress, the Senate and the UN to get the necessary approvals. These arguments focused on narrower goals namely imminent danger, violation of UN resolutions or WMD.

What the Administration failed to foresee was the extent of the resistence that would ensue. And they should have. After all, the resistence to the Zionists enterprise had been going on since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the resistence to the American presence in the ME had been going on since the fall of the Shah of Iran (1979).

Since the invasion of Iraq, the nature and extent of the threat has become increasingly evident. Recently Bush identified our enemies with these words, ”Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism”, and he also desribed what they are about

Presented this “murderous ideology” of Islamic radicals “the great challenge of our new century.”

Drew parallels between radical Islam and communism (both are elitist, cold-blooded, totalitarian, disdainful of free peoples, and fatefully contradictory), then noted in how many ways the U.S. war on radical Islam “resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.”

Pointed out the three-step Islamist drive to power: ending Western influence in the Muslim world, gaining control of Muslim governments, and establishing “a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

Explained the “violent, political vision” of radical Islam as comprising an agenda “to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.”

Defined its ultimate goal: “to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.”

That Islamic agenda is not going to die with the birth of Democracy in Iraq. It goes even further then Bush says. Radical Islam wants to also take over Europe and to liberate the Islamic Republics of the Russian Federation and eventually install Sharia in America. To defeat this agenda will require the steadfast determination of not only the US but also the EU, Russia and India. This conflict could last for 100 years.

This NYT article fails to deal with this reality and limits itself to illustrating how the administration is beginning to change the mission. How petty.

Srdja Trifkovic the foreign-affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and director of The Rockford Institute's Center for International Affairs warns,

“Winning” is impossible unless 1.3 billion Muslims are either secularized or else converted to something other than Islam. To put it crudely, “winning” means either that Muslims have been “westernized”—that is to say, made as willing as Christians to see their religion first relativized, then mocked, and its commandments misrepresented or ignored—or else Christianized, which of course cannot happen unless there is a belated, massive, and unexpected recovery of Western spiritual and moral strength.

Not hopeful to say the least. So what is the answer? The NYT and the Left in general don't even see the problem. All they care about is an "exit strategy". Problem? What Problem?