Winning the War

by Robert J. Romano

September 5th, 2004

Watching the Sunday talk shows today just demonstrates how partisan the media can be. The talking points used by Democrats were nearly identical to media accounts of a so-called flip-flop by the President: "President Bush said Tuesday 'we will win' the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible... In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Mr. Bush said, 'We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, yet one that we will win...' That statement differed from Mr. Bush's earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that 'I don't think you can win' the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize him for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory... 'What if President Reagan had said that it may be difficult to win the war against communism? What if other presidents had said it'd be difficult to win the war — the Cold War?' Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said on ABC's 'Nightline' program. 'The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable.'" Of course, what is being said about what the President said is not at all accurate, and is in fact completely out of context.

        In reply to Matt Lauer's question to President Bush, "You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?" the President stated, "I have never said we can win it in four years." To which, Mr. Lauer countered, "So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?" the President replied, "I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness and must continue to lead. To find Al-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring ’em to justice — we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaeda as we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, ‘You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work..."

        The key phrase being taken out of context is the President saying, "I don't think you can win it." However, it is obvious that the President is repeating what he had said after the prior question, "I have never said we can win it in four years." Meaning, the proper context, and perhaps the President should have been more clear to prevent any misunderstanding, was: "I don't think you can win it [in four years]." The President then went on to lay out his two-pronged strategy of what may be accomplished over the next four years, and inevitably, how the ideologies of hate will be discredited and defeated. It is clear to many that we are in a long war, and it is clear to me that success over the next five years will not necessarily ensure victory and peace for the next thirty. We must remain ever-vigilant. The terror enemy we confront is not necessarily connected to the fall of a nation-state, as in conventional warfare. This is an unconventional war. Even when state sponsors of terrorism are removed from power, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, the terror enemy still remains. What must be accomplished over the course of the next many years, indeed, over the next generation, is having regime change for state sponsors of terrorism. This can happen in one of two ways: either these states join the coalition of civilization against terrorism, or they concede that they are with the terrorists and are dealt with by different means. Diplomatic, economic, and even military actions must all remain on the table in order for America to project its message from a position of power, or in our country's case, superpower. As the President has stated, different threats require different strategies. We will know we are certainly on the right track when there are no longer any state sponsors of terrorism in fact. The terror enemy cannot be persuaded, nor coerced, only eliminated. State sponsors of terrorism though must consider their own national interests, and I argue, the common good, and international peace and security when making decisions. I believe it is possible to persuade state sponsors of terror to change their ways. The ones that refuse will only seal their own fates. There will in all probability, as we march towards victory, be regime change, one way or the other.

        We must consider and accept that this is a long conflict. President Bush is correct to state that we will not be able to win over the course of the next four years, although I believe we may make significant progress as a nation in his second term. I also believe that President Bush is the right man for the job. Spreading freedom and democracy to a region where tyranny has spawned terrorism is the right strategy. Transforming the once terror states of Afghanistan and Iraq will prove, over the course of history, to be one of the first steps to defeating terrorism. Freedom will catch on, and liberties will be extended throughout the region over the course of the next generation, and representative institutions will become more commonplace until, one day, terrorism no longer exists. Free societies do not produce terrorism as a matter of policy. Tyrannies have. While there have been domestic acts of terrorism in America and in other free societies, these have been met with responses not favorable to the terrorists.

        This is not a war which will necessarily conclude with a peace treaty being signed, as has been stated. Even after all state sponsors of terrorism have been changed or removed, terrorism will still exist. However, changing these tyrannical governments, one way or the other, is the first step in the right direction. In addition to our present military, intelligence, and homeland security measures, our political and diplomatic powers must be used to spread our moral values of freedom globally. Our economic powers may be used to place pressure on regimes which sponsor terrorism. When freedom is on the march, we become safer. Although we are not yet safe, we are on the right path to victory. Terrorism can be defeated, and will be defeated, because of our staying power. The terrorists' only hope for victory is for the United States to withdraw to an isolationist footing once more. This must never happen.

        Edmund Burke, the great conservative philosopher, once stated, "Evil happens when good men do nothing." Just as true today as it was when he stated it some 200+ years ago. We must act for the sake of our national interests, international peace and security, and out of a sense of moral obligation. The path of inaction is the wrong way. We cannot win this war with a laissez-faire policy. There is no invisible hand which can defend freedom and defeat fear. It is free men and women, acting in concert and holding true to the values and principles of freedom and democracy that will win this war. We must all spread the institutions of truth and justice globally. We must spread the message that all humans are equal in the eyes of their Creator. Free and independent nations, not under the boot of tyranny and arbitrary coercion, that believe in the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of government, will win this war. The principles of constitutionalism, limited government, and the rule of law are the just (i.e. right and practical) vehicle for establishing institutions of security which protects life, politics which protect equal liberty, and capital economy which protects private property and the pursuit of happiness. As a good people, we have the obligation to do something. I believe the best we may do is to help spread freedom and democracy to peoples which have not had the proper chance to pursue their potential. This is the path to victory. And we have an obligation, as human beings who believe in civilization, to win this war.