Are Western democracies in their right mind dodging an enemy that is giving them no quarters?

US mass media has rediscovered some prophetic words pronounced by President George W. Bush at a Press Conference about the "Iraq Benchmark Report" on July 12, 2007.

Bush's popularity was at the time quite low after a long protracted terrorist and mostly urban guerrilla warfare in Iraq. His political adversaries exaggerated the importance of alleged errors made by President Bush when he led the country into a war to depose Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein arguing, among other things, that he possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction. When those weapons were not found, political innuendo abounded about his real oil interests being the paramount reason for invading Iraq.

Against practically all the mass media in the United States, against his many political foes and even against some political "friends", Bush pushed his decision to intensify the war effort in Iraq through a strategy named "the surge". Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama soon jumped into the presidential race as the most radical opposition against this strategy.

It is in this scenario that President Bush anticipated the consequences of a hasty -and even worse if announced- Iraq's withdrawal. He warned:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region."

Years later, President Obama agreed to his own feeble and short lived "surge" when he faced the stark reality of a very aggressive foe that was regaining ground in a war that was almost won a few months before, but he relapsed to the regrettable mistake of announcing a speedy deadline for the troops withdrawal. The enemy just had to wait until it was time to take advantage of the vacuum left behind.

In the meantime, chemical weapons had been discovered in Syria and in the midst of a terrible civil war the international community had to exert heavy pressure on the Syrian dictator to destroy them. Obviously, chemical weapons had existed in Iraq and had been transferred to Syria during the allied forces invasion. President Bush had not been totally mistaken after all!!! Even Ambassador Samantha Power has just revealed that the alleged "destruction" of the chemical weapons in Syria was fake. The "red line" drawn by President Obama has been ignored once and again with no consequences at all for the enemies of democracies. This is a very disturbing reality.

In the meantime, moderate insurgents were abandoned in Syria for two long years of combats despite their desperate pleas for help in their efforts of defeating their genocidal dictator. These forces were bled almost to oblivion while the Islamic enemies of Western democracies grew stronger and took control of the Syrian rebel areas. But the US and its allies did nothing to prevent this tragedy.

No matter all the President Bush's mistakes, he was right when he insisted at the 2007 Press Conference on the urgent need "to help Iraqis bring security to their people".

At that point, he went on to say:

"I'm going to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting our people and bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of our operations would be a disaster.

As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the Commander-in-Chief, and they do. And the enemy needs to know that America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our objectives."

No matter his many other mistakes, he was right on this most important issue. No one can win a war with half measures. No one can put a deadline to the goal of victory. Imagine if after the taking of Paris during the II World War, the allies had announced their troops withdrawal at the end of the year and given assurances of the war being limited to the territory of France. That is exactly the defeatist strategy followed by President Obama during the last six years and we are now facing the dire consequences.

The free world had the resolve to defeat Hitler in 1944/1945. We need that resolve back NOW if we are to survive in this cruel confrontation that might yet become a World war.

A war that our democracies are facing in two fronts: the other one is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Many people say that this is a quite different issue and argue that they are not interrelated at all. How can the Russians be allied to the Islamic forces in the world war against democraciesª? But the real questions are, were not the Russians allied with Hitler first and with the allies latter? Is by any chance not true that President Putin was a high echelon agent of the oppressive Soviet KGB? In addition, the Russian government has clearly sided with the Syrian dictator since the beginning of the civil war.

The dire fact is that President Putin has perceived the extremely weak resolve of Western democracies, first in the Syrian revolt and now in the extremely dangerous ISIS offensive. He has come to the conclusion that if the world democracies are not able to react in the Middle East, much less will they do so to confront Russia's territorial ambitions.

The pre II World War appeasement policy is being reenacted and the chances are speedily evaporating for democracies to stop their sworn enemies in time before it is too late and before they are too strong.

A show of force now might prevent a great war. It might be bloody but it will still not be a world-wide tragedy.