A Newt Game Plan
I've been meaning to blog these remarks by Newt Gingrich, given at a Jewish National Fund meeting, but they seem particularly timely in light of Bhutto's murder. He calls his talk "Sleepwalking Into A Nightmare." Here's an excerpt, but go to the site and read the whole thing:
I think it is very stark. I don't think it is yet desperate, but it is very stark. And if I had a title for today's talk, it would be sleepwalking into a nightmare. 'Cause that's what I think we're doing.I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute Sept. 10 at which I gave an alternative history of the last six years, because the more I thought about how much we're failing, the more I concluded you couldn't just nitpick individual places and talk about individual changes because it didn't capture the scale of the disaster. And I had been particularly impressed by a new book that came out called Troublesome Young Men, which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain. It's a very revealing book and a very powerful book because we tend to look backwards and we tend to overstate Churchill's role in that period. And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn't craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the world, and he was very ruthless domestically. And they believed so deeply in avoiding war with Germany that as late as the spring of 1940, when they are six months or seven months into they war, they are dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the Rohr, and they are urging the British news media not to publish anti-German stories because they don't want to offend the German people. And you read this book, and it makes you want to weep because, interestingly, the younger Tories who were most opposed to appeasement were the combat veterans of World War I, who had lost all of their friends in the war but who understood that the failure of appeasement would result in a worse war and that the longer you lied about reality, the greater the disaster.
And they were severely punished and isolated by Chamberlain and the Conservative machine, and as I read that, I realized that that's really where we are today. Our current problem is tragic. You have an administration whose policy is inadequate being opposed by a political left whose policy is worse, and you have nobody prepared to talk about the policy we need. Because we are told if you are for a strong America, you should back the Bush policy even if it's inadequate, and so you end up making an argument in favor of something that can't work. So your choice is to defend something which isn't working or to oppose it by being for an even weaker policy. So this is a catastrophe for this country and a catastrophe for freedom around the world. Because we have refused to be honest about the scale of the problem.
Let me work back. I'm going to get to Iran since that's the topic, but I'm going to get to it eventually. Let me work back from Pakistan. The dictatorship in Pakistan has never had control over Wiziristan. Not for a day. So we've now spent six years since 9/11 with a sanctuary for Al-Qaida and a sanctuary for the Taliban, and every time we pick up people in Great Britain who are terrorists, they were trained in Pakistan.
And our answer is to praise Musharraf because at least he's not as bad as the others. But the truth is Musharraf has not gotten control of terrorism in Pakistan. Musharraf doesn't have full control over his own government. The odds are even money we're going to drift into a disastrous dictatorship at some point in Pakistan. And while we worry about the Iranians acquiring a nuclear weapon, the Pakistanis already have 'em, So why would you feel secure in a world where you could presently have an Islamist dictatorship in Pakistan with a hundred-plus nuclear weapons? What's our grand strategy for that?
Then you look at Afghanistan. Here's a country that's small, poor, isolated, and in six years we have not been able to build roads, create economic opportunity, wean people off of growing drugs. A third of the GDP is from drugs. We haven't been able to end the sanctuary for the Taliban in Pakistan. And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary. So the people who rely on the West are outbribed by the criminals, outgunned by the criminals, and faced with a militant force across the border which practiced earlier defeating the Soviet empire and which has a time horizon of three or four generations. NATO has a time horizon of each quarter or at best a year, facing an opponent whose time horizon is literally three or four generations. It's a total mismatch.
Then you come to the direct threat to the United States, which is Al-Qaida. Which, by the way, we just published polls. One of the sites I commend to you is AmericanSolutions.com. Last Wednesday we posted six national surveys, $428,000 worth of data. We gave it away. I found myself in the unique position of calling Howard Dean to tell him I was giving him $400,000 worth of polling. We have given it away to both Democrats and Republicans. It is fundamentally different from the national news media. When asked the question "Do we have an obligation to defend the United States and her allies?" the answer is 85 percent yes. When asked a further question "Should we defeat our enemies?" - it's very strong language - the answer is 75 percent yes, 75 to 16.
The complaint about Iraq is a performance complaint, not a values complaint.
When asked whether or not Al-Qaida is a threat, 89 percent of the country says yes. And they think you have to defeat it, you can't negotiate with it. So now let's look at Al-Qaida and the rise of Islamist terrorism.
And let's be honest: What's the primary source of money for Al-Qaida? It's you, recirculated through Saudi Arabia. Because we have no national energy strategy, when clearly if you really cared about liberating the United States from the Middle East and if you really cared about the survival of Israel, one of your highest goals would be to move to a hydrogen economy and to eliminate petroleum as a primary source of energy.
Now that's what a serious national strategy would look like, but that would require real change.
So then you look at Saudi Arabia. The fact that we tolerate a country saying no Christian and no Jew can go to Mecca, and we start with the presumption that that's true while they attack Israel for being a religious state is a sign of our timidity, our confusion, our cowardice that is stunning.
It's not complicated. We're inviting Saudi Arabia to come to Annapolis to talk about rights for Palestinians when nobody is saying, "Let's talk about rights for Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. Let's talk about rights for women in Saudi Arabia."
So we accept this totally one-sided definition of the world in which our enemies can cheerfully lie on television every day, and we don't even have the nerve to insist on the truth. We pretend their lies are reasonable. This is a very fundamental problem. And if you look at who some of the largest owners of some of our largest banks are today, they're Saudis.
The piece continues at the link.
Thanks for the fine link, Amy.
I appreciate your linking thoughtful posts.
Curtis at December 28, 2007 1:50 AM
Thanks for the link and kudos to Newt! I hadn't realized that he was so thoughtful, and wonder why he had been made out to be such a bogeyman when he was in Congress.
I haven't read the entire essay yet, but I find at least one problem in the excerpt that you have provided. Newt talks about Pakistan heading towards dictatorship, when it already is a military dictatorship. Holding elections in Muslim majority countries has often led to extremists gaining power, usually in response to real or perceived corruption by "moderates". Maybe I have misread him, but I hope that he not suggesting that democracy is the answer to Islamism or even to the backwardness in Arab culture, which seems more attracted to the tribal strong man model than a nation of free men in the American/Enlightenment model.
I'm very interested in reponses to this piece!
liz at December 28, 2007 2:25 AM
Wow. Scary. Newt is, for the first time, making sense to me. I'm always screaming middle road, people, because I'm so fed up with everyone only seeing one extreme or the other. We do need to take some action and that action needs to be more sensible.
Donna at December 28, 2007 4:58 AM
Scattered thoughts: I have gathered the impression from well-traveled friends that in some countries, the electorate is so primitive that they believe they do not have to obey any laws set by the fellow they didn't vote for.
Benazir is dead because some guy thought dying was better than living his life around evil women clouding his thoughts; the real defeat of Islam will happen by showing them women are treasured allies, not delicate invalids. I think we could do this by throwing a consumer economy at them (Safeway, Publix, LL Bean, Burger King, KFC, McDonald's, Walmart. They already have enough targets, ha, ha, boo.).
Newt's "This I Believe", delivered for NPR, is at npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4717148 . You don't know how thoughtful he is because that's not what sells newspapers.
I would like to know what this "hydrogen economy" really is, because the term means several unrealistic things, and it encourages people to think they can drive their 381-HP Tundra everywhere at a whim, free. (Nope.)
Radwaste at December 28, 2007 5:08 AM
Newt is the one candidate I want to vote for for president. And I love his idea of the nine, 90 minute, unscripted debates for candidates.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/gingrich_seeks_nine_90minute_d.html
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2007 5:14 AM
"What's the primary source of money for Al-Qaida? It's you"
Yikes. So true, yet so freaking upsetting to really sit and ponder. We ALL need to participate in changing how "things are" but we also need thoughtful leadership that will stop catering to crazy interest groups and do what's right for our country. I hate that I sound so idealistic, b/c to me it seems *so* obvious and straightforward, yet this is somehow a novel concept to so many!
Gretchen at December 28, 2007 7:30 AM
Gretchen pulled the quote I wholeheartedly agree with:
And let's be honest: What's the primary source of money for Al-Qaida? It's you, recirculated through Saudi Arabia. Because we have no national energy strategy, when clearly if you really cared about liberating the United States from the Middle East and if you really cared about the survival of Israel, one of your highest goals would be to move to a hydrogen economy and to eliminate petroleum as a primary source of energy.
Reading that, I found myself in complete agreement with Newt for perhaps the first time in my life. Wonders never cease. But then I clicked on the link. He lost me again when he started the usual conservative "boo hoo, big bad Hollywood hates us" routine. Someone who believes in the free market should know better. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Whatever sells will be filmed. There's no shortage of flicks where the American government and the CIA are the good guys; just look at the success of the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan franchise.
Regardless, go Team Newt. "You" is the perfect answer to the question "Who funds terrorism?"
Rebecca at December 28, 2007 8:42 AM
There were a couple things I found ridiculous and hyperbolic, too, but by and large, his take on this is wise. I disagree with him on abortion, and I'm uncomfortable with him being yet another religious nutter -- but he's certainly an improvement over the clown of a religious nutter we've had in office over the past eight years -- who I didn't vote for. And I would've voted for Newt over Kerry in a hot second.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2007 8:50 AM
I agree with most of what he's saying, but I'm with Radwaste. He needs to knock it off with the ridiculous "hydrogen economy" nonsense. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than we receive from burning it so the only way to get hydrogen to burn is to use a real fuel to produce it. Hydrogen's also one of the most difficult substances in the world to store and transport without significant loss to leaks. One nice thing about fossil fuels is, unlike hydrogen or electricity, you can store it and distribute it with almost no energy loss.
Last year we used 388.6 million gallons of gasoline a day or 141.839 billion gallons for the year. The energy from a gallon of gas is equivalent to 33.53 KWh of electricity, so the gasoline we burned in 2006 provided us with the energy equivalent of 4.7 trillion KWh of electricity. That's 17% more energy than total US electricity production last year.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but including diesel, propane, butane, home heating oil, etc. oil probably accounts for 2/3rds of the total energy we consume in this country. If Newt thinks there's a realistic, short-term way to provide the bulk of that energy without fossil fuels I'd like to talk to him about a lovely bridge I'm selling. The only way it's likely to happen is an incredible increase in nuclear plants or some super-nifty breakthrough in bioenergy or solar power, which I think is most likely. Some smartypants will probably engineer kudzu that secretes ethanol and biodiesel in a decade or two and we'll all wonder what the hell we were so worried about.
SeanH at December 28, 2007 9:12 AM
Thanks for sharing this Amy. Newt's points on how our energy expenses fund our enemies are right on (as are Rad's about the limitations of hydrogen). I also liked this bit:
justin case at December 28, 2007 9:57 AM
"Newt talks about Pakistan heading towards dictatorship, when it already is a military dictatorship."
Newt talks about Pakistan heading toward a "disasterous dictatorship."
Musharaff is a military dictator who wants to be thought of as the man who preserved and saved democracy in Pakistan. To do that, he's going to need to have an election and be a moderate political figure. Under diplomatic pressure from Washington, he stepped down as military leader and is trying to maintain a military separate from politics. Washington (and the world) can still deal with him if he continues to follow that course.
What I believe Newt's worried about is a Khomeni-style fundamentalist dictatorship taking over. One that does not bow to international pressure and has no interest in maintaining even the facade of democracy. That would be disasterous - mostly for the Pakistanis, but also for the world since Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Conan the Grammarian at December 28, 2007 10:48 AM
Newts a lot smarter than most people give him credit for. He generally appeals to us dinosaurs a lot. But he does get off track a little here and there. He made some dumb mistakes while he was in congress, but I have seen speak many times on CSPAN. He has a knack for making you look a little deeper at the problem than most of the bloviating asshats we like to call our politicians. Our major candidates need to start thinking more like this. I don't think he's talking about trying to turn the middle east into American, he's just saying we need to realize what they are doing and take steps to disable them. The whole energy thing is killing us, literally. And we won't change it due to subborness.
DocJim on another site said, "Are we really to the point where we are going to elect one idiot just to keep a bigger idiot from getting into office?"
First you laugh, then you cry.
Bikerken at December 28, 2007 11:22 AM
Yes, Saudi Arabia is creepy, Pakistan is creepy, Iran is creepy, Iraq is creepy...so what do we do? Most of Africa is creepy, much of Asia....
Do the libertarians have a solution for this?
Newt seems to be calling for massive US intervention...is that a solution? A libertarian solution?
So what is Amy Alkon really calling for?
Benjamin Cole at December 28, 2007 4:38 PM
I dont know why were insisting on hydrogen to get off oil, I know a guy who built his generator to run on alcohol
His only problem is making sure his customers dont walk off with the crap he make for his genny as opposed to the moonshine
lujlp at December 28, 2007 7:43 PM
I would be most curious to know Mr Gingrich's thoughts on these matters ten years ago when he was in a position to influence events.
His consolidation of power in the House during the mid-90s led to the rubber-stamping of White House policies before the 2006 elections, damage that will linger for some time.
A quote comes to mind -- For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong. -- H.L. Menken
alkkemist at December 28, 2007 10:47 PM
Newt seems to be calling for massive US intervention...is that a solution? A libertarian solution? So what is Amy Alkon really calling for?
Oh, so you think I'm one of those people that picks a team and just stays on no matter what? That's not thinking, that's follow the leader. I think we are in great danger from Islamists and must do something immediate to protect ourselves from them. Something effective. Furthermore, I think we need to stop funding these primitives -- well, needed to, starting back in the 70s. If oil is worthless, they go back to being the sand dwelling, women-as-dogs, science-abhoring, superstitious desert wanderers they have been for centuries.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2007 10:52 PM
If you want to be a prostitute or smoke a bowl of pot, I don't have a problem in the world with that. And if you have kids, you pay for them to go to school, unless you're dirt poor, in which case the rest of us will pay. Children shouldn't be punished for being born to assholes. Hit 18, you're on your own.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2007 10:55 PM
Yes, we do vote for the lesser idiot. Remember when we had a choice between the rich white guy from Yale and... the rich white guy from Yale?
lujlp, you can forget alcohol. 50% worse mileage than gasoline. Huge agricultural cost. It'll get used when we have nothing else, but it's a crock now. All will please Search for the term, "fueltable.pdf" and study the result.
Radwaste at December 28, 2007 11:41 PM
Anyone who uses the term "hydrogen economy" needs to have the taste slapped out of their mouth. That is, quite literally, the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard -- yes, even stupider than young-earth creationism. For every BTU you can extract from the combustion of hydrogen gas, you expend 2 BTU to get it, whether from electrolysis of water, or the deconstruction of methane. Hydrogen only becomes an economical energy storage method (and that's all it is, it is NOT fuel) if we have 80-90% of our electrical power coming from nuclear. And we're going to have to trek that from the coasts as well, because extracting it from fresh water will be a major problem.
Ethanol is another untenable fuel. I didn't believe it until this year. It turns out that transporting ethanol is one royal bitch. The shit REALLY likes water, and will grab it from anywhere. And once it does that, it's pretty much useless as motor fuel. So it's more expensive to transport, and can't use a good bit of the existing infrastructure (pipelines). Not to mention that creating ethanol in usable quantities ends up starving people in Central America, where corn is the staple grain. If we make it more valuable as fuel, the companies would rather sell it here, and screw the people who can't eat. I'm not comfortable with that either.
Oh, and I've never actually voted for a President in my life. I've always voted against the bigger loser. I wonder if that will ever change.
brian at December 29, 2007 6:46 AM
Radwaste, the alchol used for engines doesnt have to be eddible to humans.
Make it from kudzu, the crap grows everywhere these days
lujlp at December 29, 2007 7:19 AM
if we have 80-90% of our electrical power coming from nuclear.
This is what we should be seeking to do right now. It's the only power source we have that we know can produce enough electricity to meet our needs without releasing scads of pollution into the atmosphere.
Make it from kudzu, the crap grows everywhere these days
I think the ethanol process we use today requires a lot of sugar in the plants. Hence corn and sugar cane are the primary sources.
justin case at December 29, 2007 10:27 AM
lujlp, ethanol or any member of the alcohol family requires enormous resources to convert from plant matter. Do you think there is anything such as a "free lunch"? There isn't. I have neither the time nor space to summarize its production today, other than to say things your should know already: 1) soil wears out, and 2) we cannot consume, consume and consume the way we are to the end of time. End message!
Radwaste at December 29, 2007 12:17 PM
Rad I am aware of the needless consumption, and the resonable alteritives for energy production
My only point was we can get off oil fairly quickly if we really wanted to and then transiton from that point to a more ecologically sound enery policy
lujlp at December 29, 2007 1:07 PM
Goddess wrote:
...but he's certainly an improvement over the clown of a religious nutter we've had in office over the past eight years
- - - - - - - - - - -
Yet when he was a political player, he was also portrayed as a "clown of a religious nutter".
So when did he wise up?
And despite your animosity towards W - he's managed to parse reality correctly, even if his policy options are limited.
... and what is limiting W's policy options? Social static generated by the same liberal media that convinced you Newt was a "nutter".
Maybe the media is the problem.
Ben-David at December 31, 2007 11:18 PM
Leave a comment