|
This November,
American voters
will vote in the
third federal
elections since
the 9/11
attacks. Once
again, as in
2002 and 2004,
we are having an
important
national
dialogue as to
how we will win
the war against
our enemies and
protect
Americans from
an increasingly
organized
anti-American
coalition of
terrorists and
dictators.
In this
dialogue, voters
should first
consider five
big facts.
First, the
threat to our
survival is
mortal, direct
and immediate.
In the age of
nuclear and
biological
weapons, even a
few determined
hateful people
can do more
damage than
Adolph Hitler
did in the
Second World
War. The loss of
two or three
American cities
to nuclear
weapons is a
real threat. The
loss from a
biological
attack would be
even more
devastating.
Second, the
threat is global
in nature and
involves
increasing
cooperation
among an
emerging
anti-American
coalition.
America is
unavoidably
engaged in an
emerging third
world war, and
any look at the
active players
and the centers
of violence
indicates just
how worldwide it
is. North Korea
with its missile
and nuclear
weapons program
are potential
assets for Iran,
which is allied
with Syria and
subsequently
Hezbollah in
Lebanon and
Hamas, which
operates not
only in the
Middle East but
also in South
America. Iran
also has ties
with Hugo Chavez
in Venezuela.
Simply marking
on a map every
place where
there are acts
of terrorism or
dictatorships
actively engaged
in strengthening
themselves for a
possible future
confrontation
with the United
States
unmistakably
reveals just how
worldwide this
threat is.
Third, our
enemies are
increasingly
confident. Their
statements of
their intention
to defeat us are
direct and
clear. Iranian
Dictator Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad has
said, “To those
who doubt, to
those who ask is
it possible, or
those who do not
believe, I say
accomplishment
of a world
without America
and Israel is
both possible
and feasible.”
The Iranian
Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei has
said: “The world
of Islam has
been mobilized
against America
for the past 25
years. The
peoples call,
‘death to
America.’ Who
used to say
‘death to
America?’ Who,
besides the
Islamic Republic
and the Iranian
people, used to
say this? Today,
everyone says
this.”
In our own
hemisphere,
Venezuelan
President Hugo
Chavez has
called on Iran
to “save the
human race,
let’s finish off
the U.S.
empire.”
Fourth, despite
these
unambiguous
statements from
our enemies,
there is still
great confusion
among our elites
and in the news
media. Changing
this by getting
agreement on the
scale of the
threat is vital
to the
successful
prosecution of
the war. The key
in this conflict
– in military
terms, the
center of
gravity – is the
American people
and,
secondarily, all
the free people
of the world.
Fifth, we have
to confront the
fact that while
much has been
accomplished in
the last five
years, much more
must be done if
we are to win.
Time is not on
our side. We
must confront
the reality that
we are neither
where we want to
be nor where we
need to be. We
have not
captured Bin
Laden. We have
not defeated the
Taliban in its
sanctuaries in
Northwest
Pakistan. We
have not stopped
the recruitment
of young
fanatics into
terrorism. We
have not stopped
either the
Iranian or the
North Korean
nuclear
programs. We do
not have a
stable,
democratic
Pakistan capable
of securing its
own nuclear
weapons. Neither
Afghanistan nor
Iraq is stable
and secure. The
United Nations
is unreformed,
and we have
failed to
convince the
people of
America and of
our fellow
democracies of
the correctness
and necessity of
what we are
doing. We have
vastly more to
do than we have
even begun to
imagine.
The evidence
from even before
9/11 through
today is that
our enemies are
vivid, direct,
and unequivocal
in their desire
to defeat us –
even if they
have to die to
do so. If they
were to acquire
a biological or
nuclear weapon,
they would not
hesitate to use
it in order to
kill us in
substantial
numbers and
shatter our
freedom. We
cannot afford to
be confused. Our
cities and our
own lives are at
risk.
As the November
election draws
near, there are
two factions of
American
politics that
predominate. The
appeasement wing
declares the war
too hard and the
world too
dangerous. These
defeatists try
to find some
explainable way
to avoid reality
while advocating
a return to
“normalcy” at
home and
promoting a
policy of
weakness and
withdrawal
abroad.
A second faction
argues our
national
security system
is doing the
best it can and
that we have to
“stay the
course” – no
matter how
unproductive.
With American
survival at
stake, Americans
must choose a
path to victory
that rejects as
unthinkable the
first group’s
strategy of
negotiated
surrender and
rejects as
insufficient the
second group’s
unwillingness to
do whatever it
takes to win.
The path to
victory requires
that we are
willing to
reorganize
everything as
needed in our
national
security system.
We are in a real
war in a lot of
places, and all
of our national
institutions
need to be in
that war. This
path will
require more
entrepreneurship
and more speed
as well as more
resources and
more
accountability.
A new war budget
should be
developed from
war time
requirements
rather than
peacetime
constraints.
Intelligence and
the land forces
(Army and
Marines) are all
underfunded.
Those who think
we currently
have a wartime
budget simply
have no notion
of the scale of
American war
efforts
historically.
We have a robust
peacetime budget
while trying to
fight three wars
and contain four
dictatorships.
That is a risky
formula and
makes victory
much more
difficult.
But to do what
is required,
pro-victory
leaders must
first understand
Margaret
Thatcher’s axiom
that “first you
win the
argument, and
then you win the
vote.” In the
end, it is only
with the support
of the American
people that
political
leaders can do
what it takes in
order to protect
us from these
mortal threats.
America knows
how to win; we
have been in
such a situation
before. In
November of
1980, voters had
had enough of
the domestic and
foreign policy
failures of the
Carter
administration.
They had just
experienced the
first year of
what Mark Bowden
in
Guests of the
Ayatollah
called, “the
first battle in
America’s war
with militant
Islam” – the
seizure of the
American embassy
in Iran in
November 1979.
In choosing to
replace
President Carter
with former
movie actor and
former
California
Governor Ronald
Reagan, the
American people
embraced a clear
vision of
victory.
Famously asked
by a reporter
during the
campaign about
his vision of
the Cold War,
Reagan answered
with these four
words: “We win -
they lose.”
Reagan’s
personification
of strength and
courage, coupled
with his ability
to connect with
the American
people through
his warmth and
his wit, stood
in stark
contrast to
Carter’s
humorless
acceptance of
weakness abroad
and lowering
economic
standards at
home. The voters
heard Reagan
loud and clear,
and so too did
our enemies. On
the day of
Reagan’s
inauguration in
January of 1981,
the 444-day
ordeal of the 52
American
hostages finally
ended.
President
Reagan, along
with his allies,
Margaret
Thatcher and
Pope John Paul
II, went on to
implement a
systematic plan
using economic
and political
might to defeat
the Soviet Union
without going to
war. A few short
years after
Reagan left
office, the
Berlin Wall
collapsed and
the Soviet Union
was no more.
Civilizations
rise and fall
because of the
decisions of
their political
leaders. In the
world’s
democratic
societies, these
leaders are
chosen by their
voters, and it
is ultimately
their choice
that matters.
In the 2006
midterm
election, the
stakes for this
choice couldn’t
be higher.
We are in an
emerging third
world war. We
must choose
leaders who will
insist upon
victory. We owe
it to our
children and
grandchildren
who deserve an
even safer,
freer and more
prosperous
American future.
RF
Newt Gingrich,
former speaker
of the U.S.
House of
Representatives,
is a senior
fellow at the
American
Enterprise
Institute and
the author of
“Winning the
Future: A 21st
Century Contract
with America”
(Regnery, 2005). |
