This perspective is a historical one. No surprise there. Gingrich has a vast knowledge of history. Part of that history is the disdain many conservatives had -- or still have -- for FDR's New Deal, with its many public-works programs designed less to accomplish public tasks than to put money in people's pockets. But Gingrich believes a similar plan in Iraq would be a critical adjunct to purely military efforts.

Gingrich became a critic of the handling of the war in 2003, when his basic message was that act one of the military venture, the invasion of Iraq, had gone swimmingly, but that act two had never been written, much less staged.

This Sunday, the former speaker will return to the same television venue where he voiced those concerns three years ago, NBC's "Meet The Press." He'll likely revisit those previous comments with host Tim Russert.

Nobody's saying Gingrich's ideas are flawless. Certainly not me, and not even him. Yet it's becoming abundantly clear that President Bush intends to stay in Iraq for a while. Further, he may authorize a significant number of additional troops to go there.

If so, the Gingrich Plan could become not only possible, but unavoidable. After all, the fiercest criticism of Bush among endless criticism has been the lack of "a plan." Gingrich offers one -- beyond just bombs and bullets.

If Bush's promised change of direction isolates Iraq as the only world danger, and if he offers only more of the same in fighting that conflict, then Gingrich believes America might as well pull out its troops and quit.

If it comes to that, he says, our nation's weakened "establishment" will have lost its resolve to address the bigger, uglier picture. That would be the one that could threaten our very existence in the years to come.