The speech would announce two new policies around which to re-direct the war on terror: (1) a ban on further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from “Shariah states” — i.e., those whose governing traditions derive wholly or in some important from from the edicts of Islam and (2) a re-deployment of American troops in Iraq from the major cities to bases in the north.
The first policy is based on the premise that if the influx of people from Shariah states continues “Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will.” Diana supports this claim by reference to what is happening in Europe. However, before supporting a blanket ban on immigration from particular states, I’d want to see better evidence that this country faces the prospect Diana describes.
The second policy is based on the view that the U.S. should not “uphold a partner that feels solidarity with terrorists,” as many Iraqis do when it comes to Hezbollah. But not all situations in which a population and its leaders feel solidarity with Hezbollah are equally bad. There are probably European countries in which, more or less, this unhappy situation exists. That doesn’t mean we would be indifferent to the collapse of such a European government and its replacement by a government dominated by Iran. Similarly, we should not be indifferent to that outcome in Iraq.
Whether or not we would initiate a military to defend the present government in Iraq, I think that, considering the alternatives and the fact that our prestige and credibility are on the line, we should try succesfully to complete the action we initiated.