Sep 8, 2006

Bush & Lincoln

En una columna magistral del Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich compara la situación de estos dos presidentes que han tenido que enfrentar situaciones de extrema gravedad para el futuro de la nación.

Gingrich identifica las fallas que han desacreditado a Bush:

"His strategies are not wrong, but they are failing. And they are failing for three reasons.
(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.


Estos desaciertos se manifiestan claramente en esta realidad:

"Osama bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still insecure. Iraq is still violent. North Korea and Iran are still building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still occurring in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and across the planet".

Y opina como cree que podemos salir de este embrollo en el que estamos:

"...the president should address a Joint Session of Congress to explain to the country the urgency of the threat of losing millions of people in one or more cities if our enemies find a way to deliver weapons of mass murder to American soil. He should further communicate the scale of the anti-American coalition, the clarity of their desire to destroy America, and the requirement that we defeat them. He should then make clear to the world that a determined American people whose very civilization is at stake will undertake the measures needed to prevail over our enemies. While desiring the widest possible support, we will not compromise our self-defense in order to please our critics.

...Beyond our shores, we must commit to defeating the enemies of freedom in Iraq, starting with doubling the size of the Iraqi military and police forces. We should put Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the U.S. In southern Lebanon, the U.S. should insist on disarming Hezbollah, emphasizing it as the first direct defeat of Syria and Iran -- thus restoring American prestige in the region while undermining the influence of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships.

...Further, we should make clear our goal of replacing the repressive dictatorships in North Korea, Iran and Syria, whose aim is to do great harm to the American people and our allies. Our first steps should be the kind of sustained aggressive strategy of replacement which Ronald Reagan directed brilliantly in Poland, and ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet empire."


A pesar de la advertencia de Jonah Goldberg respecto de hacer analogía en el campo histórico, este documento debería ser, desde mi punto de vista, la base de la política exterior americana en los próximos años.

3 comments:

  1. No creo que la solución sea cambiar estatismos a la antigua (Iran, Corea del Norte, etc.) por estatismos modernos.

    Una solución a la Newt Gingrich solo va a llevar a más violencia, más Estatismo y menos libertad para todos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Destructor:
    Creo que la discusión pasa por algo que viene antes que los principios político-filosóficos. Estamos en guerra contra unos grupos terroristas que quieren destruir todo vestigio de libertad.
    Esto de "reemplazar estatismo por estatismo", la verdad, no me quita el sueño. Lo único que me importa es que en medio oriente saquen a estos extremistas que están en una carrera contra el reloj para conseguir un arsenal nuclear. Por mi pueden poner dictadores, maradonas, chapulines colorados o lo que sea. Me tiene sin cuidado como ellos decidan organizar sus sociedades después.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.