Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich: We cannot afford to shrink from this war
The Times (U.K.) ^ | 10/15/2001 | NEWT GINGRICH

Posted on 10/14/2001 5:48:18 PM PDT by Pokey78

There is no place for the Taleban or Saddam in a civilised world

In a free society, during peacetime, it is very hard to convince people to commit the time and resources to prepare for threats to national security. It is natural to postpone tackling disagreeable, unpleasant, and difficult realities. The United States has therefore given those around the world who would do harm every possible benefit of the doubt.

Today there can be no doubt. The world is dangerous and now the people of the United States are keenly aware of that truth. Security threats come in three distinct forms. The first is terrorism; the second is adventurous or outlaw states; and the third is potentially competitive great powers. Each threat represents a specific challenge and requires a particular defence strategy.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration is focused on a campaign to defeat terrorism around the globe. Acts of terrorism takes three basic shapes. Random acts by people who will occasionally act out their particular derangement in a violent way. Those are criminal actions to be handed by law enforcement. In a free society, there is always the potential that some of these acts are carried out successfully without detection. The second category is private groups engaged in terrorism. There are relatively few of them, they are very hard to sustain, and can almost always be tracked down.

The third are organised, systematic extensions of terror supported by nation states — powers engaging in guerrilla warfare, but masking it as terrorism. The Taleban is an example of state-sponsored terrorism because they allowed Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network to organise, plan and train in Afghanistan.

We failed to draw the proper conclusion after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre. After the 1996 attack on Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 of our military personnel were murdered, we failed to apply the necessary pressure to force the Saudi Government to deal with terrorists based on their soil. Then in, 1998, we misdiagnosed the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Finally, in October last year we failed to properly analyse the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

We were at war, but we insisted on reacting as if these were problems for the criminal justice system. Terrorism of this kind is not a law enforcement problem. It is a diplomatic, military, and intelligence agency problem. Diplomacy should always look for the best opportunities in dealing with foreign governments. Our Government should use language that is clear and coherent. We must be consistent so that our allies and our enemies know what to expect. Military thinking must be ruthlessly engaged in looking at capabilities, not guessing at intentions.

Finally, we should concentrate on increasing the capabilities of our intelligence agencies. We need to recognise the need for deep, long-term human intelligence. The Bekaa Valley and the mountains of Afghanistan cannot be penetrated effectively with satellites alone. We must be prepared to use methods such as bribery and other unpleasant means for securing such information. We can have no hope of stopping a weapon of mass destruction from being used in our cities unless we first penetrate the groups who would plan such an attack.

If we are to defeat organised, state-sponsored terrorism there are key initial steps we must take. First, we must demonstrate that we are serious. This must be understood by nations who have not yet fully committed themselves. The Taleban have failed to comply with the coalition demand that they destroy the terrorists’ cells within Afghanistan. We must therefore execute a plan for decisive victory, so that the Taleban are no longer in power, so they do not have the ability to take revenge, so they can no longer be a threat.

Second, after removing the Taleban and the terrorist cells in Afghanistan, we should recommit to the defeat of Sadam Hussein in Iraq. Defeating the Taleban without defeating Saddam is like defeating Imperial Japan and leaving the Nazis alone. As in Afghanistan, there are large numbers of Iraqi people who will help us crush Saddam. When Saddam falls, it should be made clear to the leaderships of the countries who harbour terrorists that they face a stark choice: eliminate the terrorists operating in your country or the United States and the coalition forces will assist your own people in removing you.

It is vital that we communicate the right vision. Destroying bin Laden is not enough. Our only legitimate goal must be to destroy all systems of terrorism around the globe. Every citizen of civilised nations around the world needs to understand that their very way of life is threatened. A world in which the German Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, and the Italian Fascists had won would have been a stunningly different world. Failing to eliminate organised terrorism while it is still using conventional weapons will inevitably result in a world where terrorists use weapons of mass destruction. September 11 was terrible and heartbreaking, but a providential warning.

Tony Blair has given a splendid example of leadership. The British Government, Parliament, and people have provided a strong example for other nations to follow. American soldiers have always felt confident knowing that British soldiers are on their flank.

America and its allies must pursue a strategic plan to defeat terrorism using all available technology and human resources. We are at war. We have to defeat terrorism or terrorism will end safety, freedom, and civilisation, as we know it. We have no alternative. Civilisation must win.

The author is former Speaker of the House of Representatives


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2001 5:48:18 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
American soldiers have always felt confident knowing that British soldiers are on their flank.

Well, not always. In our first two wars, it would have scared the **** out of them.

2 posted on 10/14/2001 6:01:00 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
After the 98 attacks , who was it the critisized Clinton for trying to kill Bin Laden ? The republicans you say ? No it couldn't be. They wouldn't put partisan politics ahead of national security would they ? It's a good thing that the democrates aren't doing that now.
3 posted on 10/14/2001 6:01:42 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Clinton never tried to kill Bin Laden. He just shot off a few missiles to distract attention from his Lewinsky problem. His own advisers have admitted that it was a "million-to-one" shot. Several times when he did have a chance to get Bin Ladin, he did nothing.
4 posted on 10/14/2001 6:39:58 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Republicans did not disagree with the attacks on Bin Laden, it was Clinton's blatant disregard for the American people. Clinton Launched missiles at Bin Laden only to distract us from the bj's and consequent problems they caused him. Republicans new why he launched $2,000,000.00 missiles at Bin Laden and only hit a camel in the ass. He never wanted to get Bin Laden, and I would not be surprised if he took campaign money from Bin Laden in exchange for a heads up on when and where the missiles would be targeted.
5 posted on 10/14/2001 6:40:10 PM PDT by OneVike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Republicans did not disagree with the attacks on Bin Laden, it was Clinton's blatant disregard for the American people. Clinton Launched missiles at Bin Laden only to distract us from the bj's and consequent problems they caused him. Republicans new why he launched $2,000,000.00 missiles at Bin Laden and only hit a camel in the ass. He never wanted to get Bin Laden, and I would not be surprised if he took campaign money from Bin Laden in exchange for a heads up on when and where the missiles would be targeted.
6 posted on 10/14/2001 6:40:28 PM PDT by OneVike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The republican establishment was clearely more interested in Lewinski than national security at the time. They wanted to devert attention away from national security because that always makes a president more popular. They were frustrated that the American people didn't care who was polishing Clintons knob.

Their hated of Clinton won out over killing Bin Laden even though we knew that he had bombed the embasies and was going to keep doing it.

7 posted on 10/14/2001 6:53:46 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
read my previous post
8 posted on 10/14/2001 6:54:51 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
acording to your lagic Bush isn't trying to kill Bin Laden either.
9 posted on 10/14/2001 6:56:35 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Newt has been right on the mark from Sept 11th on.
10 posted on 10/14/2001 6:59:58 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Clinton is probably laughing right now, knowing that He could never get legislation passed, to eliminate the Fourth Amendment, now where Clinton failed, Our new and improved Government has eliminated that pesky little nagging right, that stood in the way of going after whomever gets the label of 'domestic terrorist.'
11 posted on 10/14/2001 7:04:17 PM PDT by KeepTheEdge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Clinton wasn't trying to kill Bin-Laden. He just wanted to shoot off some cruise missiles and destroy some aspirin factories to divert attention away from his domestic scandals. Furthermore, had Bush gone after Bin-Laden before 9/11, Democrats would have been screaming bloody murder and you know it.
12 posted on 10/14/2001 7:04:44 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KeepTheEdge
agreed
13 posted on 10/22/2001 9:30:56 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
yes the dems and republicans would have been screaming bloody murder if he had.

the republicans were using Lewinski to divert attention away from national securit, Their hatred of Clinton was more important to them.

14 posted on 10/22/2001 9:33:26 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
the republicans were using Lewinski to divert attention away from national securit, Their hatred of Clinton was more important to them.

Actually, they were trying to remove a man who was not qualified to be President.

15 posted on 10/22/2001 9:49:19 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
yes ; but at the expence of national security. They may not have seen it that way at the time.
16 posted on 10/22/2001 9:56:45 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Actually, they were trying to generate poll numbers that would allow them to go full bore after the bastard (they don't know how to be that devious), but the criminal enterprise controlled the polls and held the pubbies by their tiny balls ... so we take the hits later for the cowering Lott of them. Clinton should be hung and the pubbies should be castrated ... you don't want to know what I do with the Harkins, Daschles and Schumers.
17 posted on 10/22/2001 9:58:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
That should read "... what I would do with the Harkins, Daschles and Schumers."
18 posted on 10/22/2001 9:59:51 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
There are a lot of isolationists ( and ideological purists ) in the party that place partisan politics ahead of national security.
19 posted on 10/22/2001 10:00:08 PM PDT by CHQmacer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CHQmacer
Could you explain in more detail how "going after Clinton" was done at the expense of national security?
20 posted on 10/22/2001 10:06:17 PM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson