logo

Newt Gingrich says U.S. must defeat terrorism in a decade

image
Created: 19 May, 2010
Updated: 13 October, 2022
3 min read

Likely 2012 Republican Presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, claims that Islamic terrorism is a mortal threat to America and must be decisively defeated over the next ten years or so.  While Gingrich supports a pre-emptive, offensive-based war policy, America's $13 trillion debt and psychologically strained military should cause critical thinkers to put such a prospect to the test.

In a Politico interview, Gingrich stated, "We have to have a decade of really profound, deep, change, and it has to be in the right direction to...defeat terrorism."  In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Gingrich declared terrorism to be a mortal threat, and even appeared to imply that the U.S. could defeat terrorism and replace it with a better system, just as President Reagan "proved you could defeat an evil empire and replace the Soviet Union."

The former Speaker of the House has also stated that the U.S. does not spend enough money on national security, despite Obama's record breaking military budgets.

Now, while this tough talk from the likely 2012 presidential candidate rightly identifies terrorism as a legitimate national security threat and excites the GOP base, its lack of specificity raises a number of pivotal questions that challenge the very premise of his plan.

For example:

As the U.S. has set up camp in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for the last 9 years, would Gingrich support extended occupations in other nations around the world?  After all, there are terrorist hotbeds and active cells in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Europe, Somalia, and the Philippines, just to name a few.

How much will a decade of intense, offensive operations cost the United States?  We've spent well over a trillion dollars since 9/11 on overseas wars, new, federal departments and security agencies, all while running record budget deficits, piling on more debt, and devaluing our Dollar.  And by 2020, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the U.S. to be in about $20 trillion of debt.

How many men and women will it be acceptable to lose during this period?  We've already lost over 5,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq, and over 30,000 have been maimed for life.  Would 5,000 more be acceptable? 10,000? 50,000 maimed for life? 100,000+ maimed for life?

IVP Existence Banner

Would a President Gingrich institute a draft to achieve total victory?  As I've written, the military is suffering from a PTSD epidemic and record suicide rates due to repeated deployments.  Repeated deployments arise, plain and simple, due to inadequate troop quantities.  Or, like Bush and Obama, would Gingrich utilize hundreds of thousands of additional, private war contractors to conduct security operations and nation building efforts in order to stave off a draft?

As a so-called deficit hawk, would Gingrich drastically cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and every other area of the federal budget to accomodate increased military spending?  This is an especially pivotal question, since Gingrich advocates deep tax cuts across the board, and as we learned with Reagan and Bush, tax cuts without commensurate spending cuts lead only to massive debt.

Finally, how would we specifically define victory?  Would it be vague like Obama special envoy Richard Holbrooke's infamous "We'll know it when we see it" line, when asked how we define success in the Afghanistan war?  Will victory equate to eradicating every single terrorist around the globe?  How will we objectively quantify and measure "victory"?  And will we establish precise, specific, and unequivocal benchmarks before embarking on the 10 year mission?

These are just some of the questions critical thinkers should be asking about Gingrich's ten-year plan.  Republicans should put this proposal to the test since it appears quite similar to the George W. Bush war policy, and Democrats should put this proposal to the test since President Obama and a Democratic-led Congress have continued virtually all of Bush's war policy measures.

Latest articles

votes
Wyoming Purges Nearly 30% of Its Voters from Registration Rolls
It is not uncommon for a state to clean out its voter rolls every couple of years -- especially to r...
27 March, 2024
-
1 min read
ballot box
The Next Big Win in Better Election Reform Could Come Where Voters Least Expect
Idaho isn't a state that gets much attention when people talk about politics in the US. However, this could change in 2024 if Idahoans for Open Primaries and their allies are successful with their proposed initiative....
21 March, 2024
-
3 min read
Courts
Why Do We Accept Partisanship in Judicial Elections?
The AP headline reads, "Ohio primary: Open seat on state supreme court could flip partisan control." This immediately should raise a red flag for voters, and not because of who may benefit but over a question too often ignored....
19 March, 2024
-
9 min read
Nick Troiano
Virtual Discussion: The Primary Solution with Unite America's Nick Troiano
In the latest virtual discussion from Open Primaries, the group's president, John Opdycke, sat down ...
19 March, 2024
-
1 min read
Sinema
Sinema's Exit Could Be Bad News for Democrats -- Here's Why
To many, the 2024 presidential primary has been like the movie Titanic - overly long and ending in a disaster we all saw coming from the start. After months of campaigning and five televised primary debates, Americans are now faced with a rematch between two candidates polling shows a majority of them didn’t want....
19 March, 2024
-
7 min read