Trump isn't telling them what to do, but he is telling them what to do.

Here 's the full transcript of Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia, which I listened to live. I want to pick out a few things: I stand be...

Here's the full transcript of Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia, which I listened to live. I want to pick out a few things:

I stand before you as a representative of the American People, to deliver a message of friendship and hope....

Trump selects a theme of hope — not, say, carnage, which some people think was the theme of his inaugural address. He doesn't think that, of course. In fact, he brings up his inaugural, as if its theme was also hope:

In my inaugural address to the American People, I pledged to strengthen America's oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of peace. I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the spirit of cooperation and trust.... Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God.

3 things there that will recur throughout the speech: 1. He's not going to tell them what to do, 2. We all have children and our children are the future, and 3. He knows something of what God thinks.

Idea #1 repeats:

We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship.

Here's some more of Idea #2:

Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples....

The potential of this region has never been greater. 65 percent of its population is under the age of 30. Like all young men and women, they seek great futures to build, great national projects to join, and a place for their families to call home. But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it....

He's not going to tell them what to do, but that last line — "There can be no tolerating [terrorism], no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it" — is more or less telling them what they must do.

Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith. Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.

That's Idea #3. He takes the position of a religious authority. He makes a straightforward pronouncement that the terrorists' religion is not real religion. It's fake, he's telling his audience. He doesn't leave it to them to follow their own understanding of what religion is.

If we do not act against this organized terror, then we know what will happen. Terrorism's devastation of life will continue to spread. Peaceful societies will become engulfed by violence. And the futures of many generations will be sadly squandered.

That's Idea #2.

If we do not stand in uniform condemnation of this killing—then not only will we be judged by our people, not only will we be judged by history, but we will be judged by God.

And there's the implicit refutation of Idea #1. He is telling them what to do. And — Idea #3 — he knows what God thinks about it. Now, he's quick to merge his knowledge of God with the acceptance of all the Abrahamic religions. They stand as equals (but the terrorists are not included as authentic believers):

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it. This is a battle between Good and Evil. When we see the scenes of destruction in the wake of terror, we see no signs that those murdered were Jewish or Christian, Shia or Sunni. When we look upon the streams of innocent blood soaked into the ancient ground, we cannot see the faith or sect or tribe of the victims -- we see only that they were Children of God whose deaths are an insult to all that is holy.

That last part —  "an insult to all that is holy" — is Idea #3.

But we can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong -- and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden....

That seems like another implicit refutation of Idea #1, but it's followed by this very strong statement of Idea #1:

America is prepared to stand with you -- in pursuit of shared interests and common security. But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children. It is a choice between two futures -- and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

That sets up the strongest part of the speech, which sounds as though he's yelling what to do at them:

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and
DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.

"Drive them out" is an imperative, repeated, with brutal Trumpian emphasis, 5 times. And yet, it's technically a choice: There's that "if": "A better future is only possible if..."

Trump gives a name to his approach: "Principled Realism":

Our partnerships will advance security through stability, not through radical disruption. We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes -- not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms -- not sudden intervention. We must seek partners, not perfection....

So he's not telling them what to do, but inviting them to see the shared interest. It's rather mellow and forgiving, even as the 5-times-repeated DRIVE THEM OUT still echoes in the room.

He speaks next of some of the progress the various countries represented in the room have already made. But more must be done, and here he is telling them what to do (except for that "if"):

Muslim nations must be willing to take on the burden, if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion. The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil.

If there is an "absolute duty," he's telling them what to do.

Of course, there is still much work to do.That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires...

He makes a subtle change from "Islamic" to "Islamist," which seems to matter.* I think the key difference is in whether you think the terrorists have an ideology that comes from Islam or whether they falsely invoke Islam and are getting it wrong. If Trump is purporting to know that they're getting it wrong, then that's another example of Idea #3.

And here is a very clear example of Ideas ##1 and 3:

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory -- piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.

I was stunned by the direct statement of knowledge of who will go to hell. (Is it even consistent with Christianity? I thought murderers can be forgiven.)

Trump ends very clearly on Idea #1: It's up to them to make a decision:

We in this room are the leaders of our peoples. They look to us for answers, and for action. And when we look back at their faces, behind every pair of eyes is a soul that yearns for justice. Today, billions of faces are now looking at us, waiting for us to act on the great question of our time. Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil? Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology? Will we let its venom spread through our societies? Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth? If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the future will bring—more suffering and despair. But if we act—if we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world—then there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have. The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring....

He said he'd come "to deliver a message of friendship and hope," and he did. He said he wasn't going to tell them what to do, and he never said what he's so often said to us Americans: "We have to do it, we have no choice." But he laid out the case for them, so they'd think it on their own: We have to do it, we have no choice.

________________________

* From the NYT report on the speech:

While he has criticized President Barack Obama and others for not using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” his staff sought to ensure that he not use it in the speech here to this Muslim audience. The advance excerpts sent out by the White House had him instead embracing a subtle but significant switch, using the term “Islamist extremism.” Some experts say the word Islamist reflects extremists without tarring the entire religion.

But when that moment in the speech came, Mr. Trump went off script and used both words, Islamic and Islamist. “That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds,” Mr. Trump said. It was unclear whether he stumbled over the different word or consciously rejected the change suggested by the text.