No, Bush did not galvanize the free world against terrorism like Churchill did against the nazis. First off, the terrorist threat is much more nebulous than hitler’s ferociuos wehrmacht. Second, Bush has lost the moral high ground by lying to invade Iraq.

However, I do think the 9/11 attacks have brought America into a global war of ideals, similar in ways to the crusade that was WW II. If we can ask why the Germans were radicalized into following Hitler, we can also ask what motivates Islam to terrorism. I think I have an answer: the link can be found here.

http://thepopulist.typepad.com/essays/2004/03/responsible_ter.html

Re: Churchill v 43.

I voted “hard to say.”

A complete analysis will contrast the two governments and compare the realities of extant political environments, national and global. If our view is limited to mere personality and style we will ultimately devolve to arguments over campaign rhetoric, and to no satisfying effect.

It is reality that nations will always be more quickly and intensely galvanized against an enemy when directly attacked, invaded, or occupied, and less so where sovereignty seems less threatened. The decision always seems so pragmatic. The United States did not enter WWII because hundreds of thousands of Europeans had been killed or because Churchill so eloquently galvized our nation against nazism. We entered as a warfighting force only after we suffered a direct and devastating attack that very nearly destroyed the effectivness of our Navy.

Ultimately, it required no great diplomatic effort for Churchill to finally galvanize the free world against nazism. Hitler’s army, allied with Japan, significantly commanded the world’s attention. Those who attempted to appease the forces of tyranny did so a tremendous cost. Clearly, the death and destruction that plagued Itally in WWII was not a result of Churchill’s inability to effectively galvanize that nation against nazism. Similarly, the position of France and Germany (and others) with respect to the War on Terror has not resulted from Bush’s failure to galvanize Europe. If, God forbid, Europe suffers a massive system perturbation (Dr. Barnett’ phrase) similar to the 9/11 attack on the United States, their new best-friends will be George W. Bush and the United States Marine Corps.

Has Bush made mistakes? Did Churchill? Absolutely, on both accounts. Would any person in either position make mistakes of similar gravity, given the same set of circumstances? Of course. So the issue transcends Churchill vs Bush. If limited to these individuals, however, the only rational answer I can manage is “hard to say.”