On November 6, 2003, President Bush stated that the advance of freedom is the “calling of our time; the calling of our country.” He proclaimed that liberty is the design of nature and the “direction of history.” The freedom that Americans prize, Bush said, is not for us alone; it is the “right and capacity of all mankind.”

I witnessed a CNN television interview with Condoleezza Rice during Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon. While the interview was being conducted, video footage in the background showed collapsed buildings and dead bodies, refugees wandering in the desert, etc. The interviewer asked Rice—in light of the devastation that we viewers were seeing—”What has happened to United States foreign policy in the Middle East?”

Rice responded: “I believe that the current US policy in the Middle East is the best that we have ever had.” I was taken aback by Rice’s words and moved closer to the television screen to observe her facial expressions. My first reaction was, yes, she is uttering these words with complete sincerity. My second thought was: “What could she possibly be thinking?”

What was the basis of Rice’s belief that—in spite of the carnage in Iraq and Lebanon—United States policy in the Middle East was the best ever? A speech presented by Rice at a Southern Baptist convention on June 14, 2006, reveals the logic underlying her support of warfare.

Rice stated that “we in the United States are blessed with lives of tremendous liberty.” America “embodies but does not own these liberties.” The United States of America, Rice proclaimed, “stands for ideals that are greater than ourselves.” We go into the world, “not to plunder but to protect, not to subjugate but to liberate, not as masters of others but as servants of freedom.”

Rice addressed her audience:

So here, ladies and gentlemen, is the choice before our country, before us as Americans. Will we lead in the world or will we withdraw? Will we rise to the challenges of our time, or shrink from them? The United States is a nation of great compassion and conscience and democratic principle. We must ask ourselves: “If not for America, who would rally other nations to the international defense of liberty?”

What grandiose ideals support Rice’s advocacy of warfare!

How may we understand Rice’s endorsement and support of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon? The United States was engaged in a world-wide war against terrorists who, according to the Bush administration, were people whose fundamental objective was to destroy freedom and democracy. George Bush continually asserted that terrorists were motivated by their “hatred of freedom.”

The Bush administration’s ideology claimed that destroying terrorism and promoting freedom and democracy go hand-in-hand. The purpose of bombing was to remove a terrorist group, Hezbollah, from within Lebanon, thereby “clearing the ground:” removing evil in order to make space for goodness. According to this logic, once terrorists were removed from Lebanon’s territory, the seeds of freedom and democracy (which had already been planted there) would have an opportunity to grow.

Condoleezza Rice concluded her speech by asserting that if America does not “serve great purposes”—does not rally other nations to “fight intolerance, defend freedom and give hope to those who suffer oppression”—then our world will “drift toward tragedy.” We have no reason to believe that Rice was not sincere as she uttered these words—that evoke a sense of goodness, kindness and charity.

According to the ideology of Rice, warfare is the flip side of the coin of promoting freedom and democracy. In order to clear out a geographic space—to destroy the enemies of freedom and democracy—killing is necessary; people will have to die. In defending and supporting war, Rice does not believe she is supporting a bad thing. On the contrary, Rice embraces war—slaughter—in the name of a good thing.

Bin Laden and other Middle Eastern radicals often made statements along the lines of, “We love death the way you Americans love life.” Statements like this convey the idea that Muslim culture is superior to American culture because their people possess sacred values for which they are willing to sacrifice their lives, whereas Americans—bogged down in the corrupt, material world—do not.

September 11 provided Americans with the opportunity to prove Bin Laden wrong. George Bush declared in late 2001 that since September 11 an entire generation of young Americans had gained new understanding of the value of freedom and its “cost and duty and its sacrifice.” Out of evil, good would come as youngsters suddenly “understood the definition of sacrifice.”

On Nov. 6, 2003, President Bush stated that the success of freedom rested upon the courage of free peoples and their “willingness to sacrifice.” Americans had on many occasions amply displayed their willingness to “sacrifice for liberty.” The sacrifices of Americans, Bush said, had not always been recognized or appreciated, yet have been “worthwhile.” Acknowledging that the struggle in Iraq was a massive, difficult undertaking, he insisted that the war is “worth our sacrifice” because freedom is “worth fighting for and dying for.”

The intensity and scope of the American government’s reaction to September 11—its determination to wage war ferociously and to persist in fighting—represented a response to the gauntlet thrown down by Bin Laden. “Do not think that you Muslims are the only people who have sacred ideals.