The existence of the United States as a free, pluralistic, and democratic nation is anathema to Islamists. The leaders of this movement have said repeatedly that they intend to kill Americans any time and any place that they can; Osama bin Laden has said that his goal is the “bleeding [of] America to the point of bankruptcy” in order to utterly destroy our way of life. We were reminded of the wicked intentions of our enemies when we learned earlier this month of a plot, on the part of al Qaeda in Iraq, to use student visas to sneak at least 12 terrorists into the country to launch an attack. The lesson: The threat is real—and it keeps on coming. Indeed, Newt Gingrich deems the threat so serious that he calls it “World War III,” and when one considers that Islamic radicals have attacked targets ranging from skyscrapers in New York, subways in Madrid and London, and nightclubs in Bali, that terminology sounds pitch perfect. Mind you, we are not in a war against Islam, as some would like to define it (including al-Qaeda). We are in a pitched battle against the extremists inside the Muslim community who want to unite all of the “faithful” against the U.S. and the allies of Western Civilization.
The threat must be countered. In September 2006, Gingrich also said that the proper way to educate the public about the threat of “World War III” is to “communicate the scale of the anti-American coalition, the clarity of their desire to destroy America, and the requirement that we defeat them.” The third point—the requirement that we defeat our enemies—is the most important.
Winning the war against Islamic radicalism isn’t simply a matter of American pride, but of American survival. It comes down to preserving our safety, freedoms, values, and prosperity. The alternative, summed up well by Tony Blair in a 2003 speech to Congress, is “economic collapse, the backlash, the hatred, the division, the elimination of tolerance, until societies cease to reconcile their differences and become defined by them.” The best way to defend our society against the horrors described by Blair is through military strength, skillful diplomacy, the spreading of freedom, and clear delineations, in policy and speech, between those who would defend freedom and those who seek to destroy it. To do this we must regain our moral confidence, a deep belief that our country, though not perfect, is the world’s best hope for freedom and that our way of life is worth defending.
The threat can be countered. Despite our very real struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are learning this lesson in both countries. And we are learning it elsewhere in the world.
Consider recent developments in Somalia. There the radical Islamist regime that seized power in June 2005—the Union of Islamic Courts—folded faster than a deck of cards when confronted by the Ethiopian army. It seems the Ethiopians did not fancy the idea of having a neighboring country fall under the control of Islamic radicals, so they entered Somalia and drove the Islamists out of Mogadishu, the country’s capital. Since then, American forces have launched two air strikes intended to cut down fleeing Islamist operatives. To be sure, Somalia remains an unstable country with a still nascent government. But this is a significant, if temporary, victory for the people of Somalia, the United States, and for all those who value freedom over despotism.
These localized tests of strength go a long way in determining the outcome of the broader war we find ourselves in. In this case, the force shown by Ethiopian and American forces has created a situation where the Islamists have been defeated, a condition that allows all parties to consider reconciliation talks. And so we have a case study for the broader war. First, Ethiopian and U.S. forces recognized the Islamists as a threat to freedom; second, they committed themselves to countering that threat. Finally, they displayed the force, moral confidence, and determination to beat back the Islamists. Who knows, we might even call this a “freedom” tactic. Think Keith Olbermann would object?