I present to you this well written editorial by Newt Gingrich, a man who sees the reality facing our nation very clearly.
{ 2006 09 11 }
a blog about absolutely nothing.
{ 2006 09 11 }
I present to you this well written editorial by Newt Gingrich, a man who sees the reality facing our nation very clearly.
KEV | 11-Sep-06 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
So my question is this: did this threat from the Middle East exist in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s? Yet we are still here. Why is Newt so alarmist now and not when he was in office? What are the special circumstances aside from the events of 9-11?
I know those reading this blog will be more than able to answer my questions. Fire away boys…
Bulldawgy | 11-Sep-06 at 2:03 pm | Permalink
In the 70’s and 80’s, those who had an interest in destroying America did not have the means.
In the 90’s, under the watch of our previous Presidential administration - nations such as North Korea and Iran did much to advance their development of nuclear weapons and advanced, long-range weapons systems.
Those items, combined with a world economy which is global in its nature and requires much international trade (and therefore transport) - makes the possibility and accordingly the liklihood of a devasting attack with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons a much greater threat.
As for the alarmist nature of his writing, it is most likely in response to the apathy exhibited by the American public and the present Congress and American President.
That’s my two pennies….
Hugh | 11-Sep-06 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
The other difference (really an extension of Mr. Dawgy’s comment) is that the nature of our large-scale threats changed dramatically when the Iron Curtain came down.
During the Cold War, “mutually assured destruction” worked because both sides wanted to survive. By contrast, our current adversaries (i.e., Islamists) don’t care if they die, so “assuring” their destruction is less useful as a deterrent. (Interesting worldview point: the atheistic Communist regimes had nothing but this world to live for; the Islamists most decidedly do not live for this world.)
During the Cold War, small-scale interests (e.g., second- and third-world governments or terrorist groups) were on the sidelines of a world in which two superpowers established an overpowering and uneasy tension. For them, international politics was more about taking sides with one of the “big boys,” not taking one of them on.
Moreover, in an uneasy and tense world, neither superpower tolerated small-scale instability because of the danger that would arise if it escalated. That is, the US and USSR were engaged in a strategic conflict; terrorism is a tactical concern. When tactical things go bad, the strategy has to change, and there was a lot riding on the Cold War strategy that kept the world from blowing up. Where the superpowers did take an interest in localized unrest, it was carefully selected so as to avoid interfering with their global strategy.
The means of defense are changing. Whereas the Cold War was all about strategy, fighting terrorism and localized conflict is profoundly tactical. You cannot have a single, global approach to the problem (such as mutually assured destruction); regional instability and terrorism must be dealt with in very context-sensitive ways. Getting a great big government bureaucracy to stop putting all its eggs in one basket and diversify effectively takes a disruptive force in a seat of power.
Bulldawgy | 11-Sep-06 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
The Hughminator has given an eloquent explanation to all of us why during the 70’s and 80’s Islamists did not have the means to destroy us.
Very nicely put, sir.
pdiddy | 11-Sep-06 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
It was a good article but it will never happen. Even if Newt were the man, he could’t get Congress to go along with half of that stuff. Part of Reagan’s success was the overarching nature of the strategic conflict with the “Commies.” That doesn’t exist now, so whoever the leader is has a huge job of just convincing those he leads who the enemy is and what the danger is. That is a tough mission.
BTW-What in the world is metrics based system of accountability? He used that phrase three or four times.
CACAMAN | 12-Sep-06 at 12:15 am | Permalink
Gotta keep them from getting nukes starting with Iran. That is one huge difference between then and now.
Hugh | 12-Sep-06 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Metrics-based = “measurable results-based.”
In other words, government agencies that fail will not be allowed to continue to fail.
The bureaucracy we have now basically says, “Awww, you failed. We probably didn’t give you enough money… oh, shucks, here’s some more. Now do better next time!”
Under a metrics-based system, this would change to “You failed. You are the weakest link. Goodbye. Next!”
I hate to say it, but it’s kind of George Steinbrenner-like.
Hugh | 12-Sep-06 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Also…
“It will never happen,” PDiddy? When somebody ultimately succeeds in nuking one of our cities (and let’s face it, it’s only a matter of time… as in, when, not if), I think Congress will start singing a different tune.
It happened in Britain under Churchill. It might well happen here, and I see a lot of similarities between the Speaker and Sir Winston.
Except Sir Winston had better one-liners.
pdiddy | 12-Sep-06 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Yeah, well when a nuke goes off, it all changes. But here is the problem. Even after that, our fortitude will wane (just like after 9/11). It may take three or four years, but the civilian casualties of our enemy, the costs to us-both in terms of lives lost and money spent, and the political hay that can be made from whichever side isn’t in power will eventually lead us, even after a nuke hits us, to quit! We are a nation of expediency and short-term will.
Bulldawgy | 12-Sep-06 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
Yowzers! PDIDDY is really being a downer today.
I figure, if after the eventual nuclear strike on our nation (I agree with Hugh, it’s not a matter of if, but when) our resolve wanes, then I say:
We deserve what we get.
Hugh | 12-Sep-06 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
When Pearl Harbor got bombed, a nation mired in a financial depression became known as a sleeping giant. The giant awoke, took care of business, and went back to sleep.
When the Soviets had us at the end of an ICBM (give or take several thousand), a nation that was losing its resolve turned to a washed-up actor for deliverance. The actor took the stage, told the Soviets what to do, and they did it. Then other actors rose up and told us that the first actor was bad, and we listened to them.
When planes took down the World Trade Center and wrought terror across the country, a nation sitting atop a bursting economic bubble looked to a man derided as an “amiable dunce” to reassert America’s interests throughout the world. More actors showed up and undermined his doctrine, so that even the author of the doctrine seems to have lost much of his resolve.
I see a pattern.
The nation goes downhill. Something bad happens. The nation gets its act together. Conditions improve. The nation slides back into its old ways. Something else bad happens.
Sounds as much like the divided kingdoms of Israel as it does the U. S. of A.
So yeah, if and when the nuke goes off, we’ll do better for a while. Then we’ll slide back. And so the pattern will continue, over and over, until the final Kingdom is established. Amen.
pdiddy | 13-Sep-06 at 6:26 am | Permalink
Sorry for being such a downer-but that’s my take on our nation. The one problem I see with your example, Hugh, is that we are a different nation now than we were either in the late 30’s or throughout the 50’s. Tom Brokaw even wrote a book about that generation, called the “Greatest Generation.” What we have now as our leading generation is in no way like those from the 30’s or the 50’s. That’s the main difference.
hughbiquitous : The Churchillian Newt Gingrich | 13-Sep-06 at 8:47 am | Permalink
[…] HT: John Lee […]
Bulldawgy | 13-Sep-06 at 10:34 am | Permalink
May our children not grow up to be over-feminized, politically correct tubs of societal goo. God forbid.
mexican drugs pharmacy | 27-Feb-08 at 6:05 am | Permalink
mexican modafinil pharmacy prescription pharmacy mexican