Short Telegram with Big Ideas

With partisan conflict over the war on terror, a growing budget deficit, and continued vulnerability to domestic terrorist attacks, America seems to be reliving the ‘malaise’ years of the Carter administration. Editorials, articles, and books have proliferated, each declaring the twilight of American hegemony, and an ensuing decline in influence, power, and potential. In the face of such disheartening propaganda, it is easy to wonder whether Americans retain the will left to win an existential war against dedicated Islamic radicals.

Authors James Carafano and Paul Rosenzweig argue that America is facing the same enemies as it has in the past, such as Marxism or Fascism; terrorism springs from an ideology of “evil ideas” which will once again bring “hundreds of millions of people under [its] sway, leading. . .millions of victims to misery.” Because past is prologue, we can use these lessons to ensure an American victory in the long war ahead. Their 2005 book, Winning the Long War, ambitiously attempts to rekindle the seminal genius of historian and diplomat George F. Kennan’s long telegram on communist containment by writing a new, shorter telegram for the war on terror.

In a no-holds-barred manner, Carafano and Rosenzweig rip through common misconceptions of the war on terror. They defend the Patriot Act and preventive detentions, disparage Truman’s foreign policy leadership, and blame entitlements and earmarks for burdensome tax policies. They posit that America’s declining power results more from a lack of direction than imminent failure and compare our current situation to the indecisive years following World War II, before Eisenhower provided a “practical, coherent blueprint for fighting and winning a protracted war with the Soviets.”

The authors offer a truly unique perspective on the war on terror by eschewing false dichotomies such as liberty v. order and trade v. security. For Carafano and Rosenzweig, order is the means by which true liberty is preserved. The institutionalization of wiretapping, preventive detention, and interagency intelligence-sharing ensures continued civil liberties by creating the security necessary to preserve those liberties. For them, order does not preclude liberties—it enhances them. Legal checks and balances, such as those provided in Patriot Act, codify procedures which would otherwise be left to individual discretion, thereby preventing the abuse of new law enforcement powers.

The Long War is clearly predicated on the assumption that the coming war will be long and protracted, and that America must developmentally outpace the opposition. The authors argue that America’s route to success is clear: We must to continue to be ourselves, to proudly and zealously pursue liberty and prosperity as a means to promote freedom at home and worldwide. With a laundry list of suggestions at the end of each chapter, the authors discuss the ideological, economic, and institutional changes necessary for the United States to win the war.

• Containment can only be successful when implemented in conjunction with strong economic policies. Winning the long war requires domestic policies which promote growth and prosperity, not just preventive foreign policies designed to constrain the opposition.

• The authors grapple with the difficult reality that “Rules requiring the disclosure of evidence can conflict with national security needs.” It is no longer acceptable to assume that criminals must go free rather than risk jailing innocents; the costs to society of freeing terrorists now overwhelm the costs of judicial mistakes.

• Carafano and Rosenzweig argue that the Department of Homeland Security is bogged down by “oversight overload,” attending 126 hearings in the 2004 legislative session. While the DHS has made signficant strides since its inception, it must continue to adjust to new challenges and optimize its policies.

• Stripping jihadists of their “religious sanctity” will expose terrorists’ power-hungry motives, and undermine mainstream Islamic support for terrorist activities. “Radical Islam is not terrorism in the name of religion; it is terrorism hiding behind a mask of religion,” claim Carafano and Rosenzweig. They stress the important of providing moderate muslims with the means to counterbalance extremist ideology.

• “Western legal systems fail to see that for terrorists, first comes the jihad of the tongue, then that of the purse, and finally that of the sword, which is supreme. Thus, jihad represents a continuum of action, not a single criminal act. . .,” assert Carafano and Rosenzweig. Therefore, the United States needs to target terrorist funding, eliminating the “enemy’s ‘center of gravity,’” it’s “ways and means” for conducting terror operations.

• The current national debt stems not from egregious military spending but from an explosion in entitlement spending and earmarks. The authors argue that after 1994, cutting spending was equated with dead-end policies, because “‘Remember the 104th’ became checkmate against anyone foolish enough to suggest spending cuts.” Entitlement spending could reach 20% of GDP in the coming decades.

With incisive reasoning and extensive research, Carafano and Rosenzweig forcefully express their opinions about the American response to the war on terror. But don’t be fooled by the bellicose tone: they have the facts to back it up.

Bethany Stotts is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail mal.kline@academia.org

re: partisan conflict over the war on terror, a growing budget deficit, and continued vulnerability to domestic terrorist attacks

Huh? A “growing budget deficit”? I beg your pardon, but the deficit is much, much smaller than was forecast, and I think it’s been going down for several years now.

Maybe I missed something in the article that justified this statement, but I really could’t bring myself to read past that line.

Anyone else noticed how the MSM seems to feel empowered to report anything they want, regardless of its veracity?

I have to wonder if the lack of professionalism and the inability to stick to the truth will ever catch up with them.

I’m not sure but what the article might have suffered at the hands of a copy editor who had to make it smaller and took out some important information. Sorta looks to me like the first line might have been a recitation of some of the things that are being said about the economy and but they left out that these were things that would be refuted in the article.

Editors can do some pretty horrible things, frequently without even knowing what they’ve done!

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.