EUREKA! Giuliani Says NO to PLO State!

Tunnels from Gaza into Israel hat tip Jan

How much bloody proof do you need?

Two Years after Disengagement, Iran-Backed Terror
Group Converts Gaza into Hamastan

Click
for Timeline of Post-Disengagement Violence and Attacks against Israel
(July
2006-August 2007)

Gaza U.N. Pre-and Post-Disengagement Map

Click for enlarged PDF of
map

UPDATE: Official who worked with U.S. planned suicide attack

Palestinian lawmaker, intelligence official also served as terror group chief

Toward a Realistic Peace
By Rudolph
Giuliani

From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007

Summary: The next U.S. president will face
three key foreign policy challenges: setting a course for victory in the
terrorists’ war on global order, strengthening the international system the
terrorists seek to destroy, and extending the system’s benefits. With a stronger
defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and cultural
influence, the next president can start to build a lasting, realistic
peace.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City, is a candidate for
the Republican presidential nomination.

We are all members of the 9/11 generation.

The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first
century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist
terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted
with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between
nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had
come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.

America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have
responded forcefully to the Terrorists’ War on Us, abandoning a decadelong —
and counterproductive — strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous
offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that
promise a safer and better world for generations to come.

But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at
the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global
affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to
meet new challenges.

The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First
and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on
global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the
terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the
international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across
the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a
stronger defense, developing a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic
and cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build the
foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.

Achieving a realistic peace means balancing realism and idealism in our
foreign policy. America is a nation that loves peace and hates war. At the core
of all Americans is the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable
rights that proceed from God but must be protected by the state. Americans
believe that to the extent that nations recognize these rights within their own
laws and customs, peace with them is achievable. To the extent that they do not,
violence and disorder are much more likely. Preserving and extending American
ideals must remain the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic. But unless
we pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not be
achieved.

Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the
road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot
afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists’ War
on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response
to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through
strength.

A realistic peace is not a peace to be achieved by embracing the "realist"
school of foreign policy thought. That doctrine defines America’s interests too
narrowly and avoids attempts to reform the international system according to our
values. To rely solely on this type of realism would be to cede the advantage to
our enemies in the complex war of ideas and ideals. It would also place too
great a hope in the potential for diplomatic accommodation with hostile states.
And it would exaggerate America’s weaknesses and downplay America’s strengths.
Our economy is the strongest in the developed world. Our political system is far
more stable than those of the world’s rising economic giants. And the United
States is the world’s premier magnet for global talent and capital.

Still, the realist school offers some valuable insights, in particular its
insistence on seeing the world as it is and on tempering our expectations of
what American foreign policy can achieve. We cannot achieve peace by promising
too much or indulging false hopes. This next decade can be a positive era for
our country and the world so long as the next president realistically mobilizes
the 9/11 generation for the momentous tasks ahead.

WINNING THE EARLY BATTLES OF THE LONG WAR

The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our enemies.
They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of
religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing
international system. These enemies wear no uniform. They have no traditional
military assets. They rule no states but can hide and operate in virtually any
of them and are supported by some.

Above all, we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by signs of
weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993,
the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some instances, we responded
inadequately. In others, we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon
in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak.

We must learn from these experiences for the long war that lies ahead. It is
almost certain that U.S. troops will still be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan
when the next president takes office. The purpose of this fight must be to
defeat the terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow
these countries to become members of the international system in good standing.
We must be under no illusions that either Iraq or Afghanistan will quickly
attain the levels of peace and security enjoyed in the developed world today.
Our aim should be to help them build accountable, functioning governments that
can serve the needs of their populations, reduce violence within their borders,
and eliminate the export of terror. As violence decreases and security improves,
more responsibility can and should be turned over to local security forces. But
some U.S. forces will need to remain for some time in order to deter external
threats.

We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict the
consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for
terrorists, and Iraq would become another one — larger, richer, and more
strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of
our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even
more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today. The balance of
power in the Middle East would tip further toward terror, extremism, and
repression. America’s influence and prestige — not just in the Middle East but
around the world — would be dealt a shattering blow. Our allies would conclude
that we cannot back up our commitments with sustained action. Our enemies —
both terrorists and rogue states — would be emboldened. They would see further
opportunities to weaken the international state system that is the primary
defense of civilization. Much as our enemies in the 1990s concluded from our
inconsistent response to terrorism then, our enemies today would conclude that
America’s will is weak and the civilization we pledged to defend is tired.
Failure would be an invitation for more war, in even more difficult and
dangerous circumstances.

America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Then, as now, we
fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And then, as now, we
corrected course and began to show real progress. Many historians today believe
that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in
defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to
political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the
communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only
in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a
newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The
consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse.

Our goal is to see in Iraq and Afghanistan the emergence of stable
governments and societies that can act as our allies against the terrorists and
not as breeding grounds for expanded terrorist activities. Succeeding in Iraq
and Afghanistan is necessary but not sufficient. Ultimately, these are only two
battlegrounds in a wider war. The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda
network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed
or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global terrorist
movement and its ideology are defeated.

Much of that fight will take place in the shadows. It will be the work of
intelligence operatives, paramilitary groups, and Special Operations forces. It
will also require close relationships with other governments and local forces.
The next U.S. president should direct our armed forces to emphasize such work,
in part because local forces are best able to operate in their home countries
and in part in order to reduce the strain on our own troops.

A STRONGER DEFENSE

For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been
to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly less. The
idea of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" was a serious mistake — the product of
wishful thinking and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this
dividend, our military is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder
the burden of any additional challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a
military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present
and future challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to face
aggressors, it invites conflict.

The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. It may need more,
but this is an appropriate baseline increase while we reevaluate our strategies
and resources. We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially
in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling
tankers. Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits
will outweigh the costs.

The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national
missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as
"mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable
regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes
that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with
ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their
support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our
allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make
blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs
and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our
capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the
arsenals of the world’s most dangerous states. President George W. Bush deserves
credit for changing America’s course on this issue. But progress needs to be
accelerated.

An even greater danger is the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil
with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. Every effort must
be made to improve our intelligence capabilities and technological capacities to
prevent this. Constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories
everywhere around the globe, day and night, above- and belowground, combined
with more robust human intelligence, must be part of America’s arsenal. The
laudable and effective Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort to
stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, should
be expanded and strengthened. In particular, we must work to deter the
development, transfer, or use of weapons of mass destruction. We must also
develop the capability to prevent an attack — including a clandestine attack —
by those who cannot be deterred. Rogue states must be prevented from handing
nuclear materials to terrorist groups. Our enemies must know that they cannot
murder our citizens with impunity and escape retaliation.

We must also develop detection systems to identify nuclear material that is
being imported into the United States or developed by operatives inside the
country. Heightened and more comprehensive security measures at our ports and
borders must be enacted as rapidly as possible. And our national security
agencies must work much more closely with our homeland security and law
enforcement agencies. We must preserve the gains made by the U.S.A. Patriot Act
and not unrealistically limit electronic surveillance or legal interrogation.
Preventing a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack on our
homeland must be the federal government’s top priority. We must construct a
technological and intelligence shield that is effective against all delivery
methods.

Military victories are essential, but they are not enough. A lasting,
realistic peace will be achieved when more effective diplomacy, combined with
greater economic and cultural integration, helps the people of the Middle East
understand that they have a stake in the success of the international
system.

DETERMINED DIPLOMACY

To achieve a realistic peace, some of what we need to do can and must be
accomplished through our own efforts. But much more requires international
cooperation, and cooperation requires diplomacy.

In recent years, diplomacy has received a bad name, because of two opposing
perspectives. One side denigrates diplomacy because it believes that negotiation
is inseparable from accommodation and almost indistinguishable from surrender.
The other seemingly believes that diplomacy can solve nearly all problems, even
those involving people dedicated to our destruction. When such efforts fail, as
they inevitably do, diplomacy itself is blamed, rather than the flawed approach
that led to their failure.

America has been most successful as a world leader when it has used strength
and diplomacy hand in hand. To achieve a realistic peace, U.S. diplomacy must be
tightly linked to our other strengths: military, economic, and moral. Whom we
choose to talk to is as important as what we say. Diplomacy should never be a
tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks
may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our
destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.

Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack
the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats
hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in
between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of
the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of
sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say
that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could — but only if we came to
the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.

The next U.S. president should take inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s actions
during his summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavík in 1986: he
was open to the possibility of negotiations but ready to walk away if talking
went nowhere. The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept
a bad deal for the sake of making a deal. Those with whom we negotiate —
whether ally or adversary — must know that America has other options. The
theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as
the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the
Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military, and, should all else fail,
destroying its nuclear infrastructure.

For diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united. Adversaries
naturally exploit divisions. Members of Congress who talk directly to rogue
regimes at cross-purposes with the White House are not practicing diplomacy;
they are undermining it. The task of a president is not merely to set priorities
but to ensure that they are pursued across the government. It is only when they
are — and when Washington can negotiate from a position of strength — that
negotiations will yield results. As President John F. Kennedy said in his
inaugural address, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to
negotiate."

Another step in rebuilding a strong diplomacy will be to make changes in the
State Department and the Foreign Service. The time has come to refine the
diplomats’ mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the
rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing
its organizational chart — although simplification is needed — but of changing
the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors
must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on
the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because
they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our
representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger
advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.

Since leaving the New York City mayor’s office, I have traveled to 35
different countries. It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining
America’s message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our
ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest. To this
end, the Voice of America program must be significantly strengthened and
broadened. Its surrogate stations, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty,
which were so effective at inspiring grass-roots dissidents during the Cold War,
must be expanded as well. Our entire approach to public diplomacy and strategic
communications must be upgraded and extended, with a greater focus on new media
such as the Internet. We confront multifaceted challenges in the Middle East,
the Pacific region, Africa, and Latin America. In all these places, effective
communication can be a powerful way of advancing our interests. We will not shy
away from any debate. And armed with honest advocacy, America will win the war
of ideas.

STRENGTHENING THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

The next U.S. president will share the world stage with a new generation of
leaders, few of whom were in office when the attacks of 9/11 occurred but all of
whom have been influenced by their impact. This will be a rare opportunity for
American leadership to make the case that our common interest lies in defeating
the terrorists and strengthening the international system.

Defeating the terrorists must be our principal priority in the near future,
but we do not have the luxury of focusing on it to the exclusion of other goals.
World events unfold whether the United States is engaged or not, and when we are
not, they often unfold in ways that are against our interests. The art of
managing a large enterprise is to multitask, and so U.S. foreign policy must
always be multidimensional.

A primary goal for our diplomacy — whether directed toward great powers,
developing states, or international institutions — must be to strengthen the
international system, which most of the world has a direct interest in seeing
function well. After all, the system helps keep the peace and provide
prosperity. Some theorists say that it is outmoded and display either too much
faith in globalization or assume that the age of the sovereign state is coming
to a close. These views are naive. There is no realistic alternative to the
sovereign state system. Transnational terrorists and other rogue actors have
difficulty operating where the state system is strong, and they flourish where
it is weak. This is the reason they try to exploit its weaknesses.

We should therefore work to strengthen the international system through
America’s relations with other great powers, both long established and rising.
We should regard no great power as our inherent adversary. We should continue to
fully engage with Europe, both in its collective capacity as the European Union
and through our special relationship with the United Kingdom and our traditional
diplomatic relations with France, Germany, Italy, and other western European
nations. We highly value our ties with the states of central and eastern Europe
and the Baltic and Balkan nations. Their experience of oppression under
communism has made them steadfast allies and strong advocates of economic
freedom.

America is grateful to NATO for the vital functions it is performing in
Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet NATO’s role and character should be reexamined.
For almost 60 years, it has been a vital bond connecting the United States and
Europe. But its founding rationale dissolved with the end of the Cold War, and
the alliance should be transformed to meet the challenges of this new century.
NATO has already expanded to include former adversaries, taken on roles for
which it was not originally conceived, and acted beyond its original theater. We
should build on these successes and think more boldly and more globally. We
should open the organization’s membership to any state that meets basic
standards of good governance, military readiness, and global responsibility,
regardless of its location. The new NATO should dedicate itself to confronting
significant threats to the international system, from territorial aggression to
terrorism. I hope that NATO members will see the wisdom in such changes. NATO
must change with the times, and its members must always match their rhetorical
commitment with action and investment. In return, America can assure them that
we will be there for them in times of crisis. They stood by America after 9/11,
and America will never forget.

As important as America’s Western alliances are, we must recognize that
America will often be best served by turning also to its other friends, old and
new. Much of America’s future will be linked to the already established and
still rising powers of Asia. These states share with us a clear commitment to
economic growth, and they must be given at least as much attention as Europe.
Our alliance with Japan, which has been strengthened considerably under this
administration, is a rock of stability in Asia. South Korea has been a key to
security in Northeast Asia and an important contributor to international peace.
Australia, our distant but long-standing ally, continues to assume a greater
role in world affairs and acts as a steadfast defender of international
standards and security. U.S. cooperation with India on issues ranging from
intelligence to naval patrols and civil nuclear power will serve as a pillar of
security and prosperity in South Asia.

U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable
future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to
launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our
differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental
stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their
governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in
international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these
countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be
silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should
also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil
liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast
possibilities available in the world today.

Our relationships with other American nations remain of primary importance.
Canada and Mexico, our two closest neighbors, are our two largest trading
partners. With them, we share a continent, a free-trade agreement, and a
commitment to peace, prosperity, and freedom. Latin America faces a choice
between the failures of the past and the hopes of the future. Some look to the
governments of Bolivia and Venezuela, and their mentor in Cuba, and see an
inevitable path to greater statism. But elections in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru
show that the spirit of free-market reform is alive and well among our southern
neighbors. Cuba has long stood out in Latin America, first as one of the
region’s most successful economies, later as its only communist police state.
The death of Fidel Castro may begin a new chapter in Cuban history. But America
should take nothing for granted. It must stand ready to help the Cuban people
reclaim their liberty and resist any step that allows a decrepit, corrupt regime
from consolidating its power under Raúl Castro. Only a commitment to free people
and free markets will bring a prosperous future to Cuba and all of Latin
America.

More people in the United States need to understand how helping Africa today
will help increase peace and decency throughout the world tomorrow. The next
president should continue the Bush administration’s effort to help Africa
overcome AIDS and malaria. The international community must also learn from the
mistakes that allowed the genocide in Darfur to begin and have prevented the
relevant international organizations from ending it. The world’s commitment to
end genocide has been sidestepped again and again. Ultimately, the most
important thing we can do to help Africa is to increase trade with the
continent. U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform
perpetuates bad policies and poverty. It is better to give people a hand up than
a handout.

Finally, we need to look realistically at America’s relationship with the
United Nations. The organization can be useful for some humanitarian and
peacekeeping functions, but we should not expect much more of it. The UN has
proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50
years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has
not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has
been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt. The UN’s charter and the speeches
of its members’ leaders have meant little because its members’ deeds have
frequently fallen short. International law and institutions exist to serve
peoples and nations, but many leaders act as if the reverse were true — that
is, as if institutions, not the ends to be achieved, were the important
thing.

Despite the UN’s flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would
become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international
discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United
States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever
and must be prepared to look to other tools.

EXTENDING THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM’S BENEFITS

Most of the problems in the world today arise from places where the state
system is broken or has never functioned. Much of the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America remains mired in poverty, corruption, anarchy, and terror. But
there is nothing inevitable about this. For all these troubled cases, there are
many more success stories that deserve to be celebrated. The number of
functioning democracies in the world has tripled since the 1970s. The poverty
rate in the developing world has been cut by roughly one-third since the end of
the Cold War. Millions of people have been liberated from oppression and fear.
Progress is not only possible, it is real. And it must continue to be real.

America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance
throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the
right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or
sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural
foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and
security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine
democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders
sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that
democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can
do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about
how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting
progress.

The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a
case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and
unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first,
as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering
negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians — negotiations that
bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the
United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to
assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian
statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear
commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with
Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is a permanent feature of our
foreign policy.

The next president must champion human rights and speak out when they are
violated. America should continue to use its influence to bring attention to
individual abuses and use a full range of inducements and pressures to try to
end them. Securing the rights of men, women, and children everywhere should be a
core commitment of any country that counts itself as part of the civilized
world. Whether with friends, allies, or adversaries, democracy will always be an
issue in our relations and part of the conversation. And so the better a
country’s record on good governance, human rights, and democratic development,
the better its relations with the United States will be. Those countries that
want our help in moving toward these ideals will have it.

USING ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL INFLUENCE

Economic development and engagement are proven, if not fail-safe, engines for
successfully moving countries into the international system. America’s robust
domestic economy is one of its greatest strengths. Other nations have found that
following the U.S. model — with low taxes, sensible regulations, protections
for private property, and free trade — brings not only national wealth but also
national strength. These principles are not ascendant everywhere, but never has
it been clearer that they work.

Ever more open trade throughout the world is essential. Bilateral and
regional free-trade agreements are often positive for all involved, but we must
not allow them to become special arrangements that undermine a truly global
trading system. Foreign aid can help overcome specific problems, but it does not
lead to lasting prosperity because it cannot replace trade. Private direct
investment is the best way to promote economic development. The next U.S.
president should thus revitalize and streamline all U.S. foreign-aid activities
to support — not substitute for — private investment in other countries.

Our cultural and commercial influence can also have a positive impact. They
did during the Cold War. The steadfast leadership of President Reagan, working
alongside British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, helped
the Soviet Union understand that it could not bully the West into submission.
Although such leadership was essential, alone it might not have toppled the
Soviet Union in the time that it did. But it was effective because it came with
Western economic investment and cultural influence that inspired people in the
Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. Companies such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola,
McDonald’s, and Levi’s helped win the Cold War by entering the Soviet market.
Cultural events, such as Van Cliburn’s concerts in the Soviet Union and Mstislav
Rostropovich’s in the United States, also hastened change.

Today, we need a similar type of exchange with the Muslim countries that we
hope to plug into the global economy. Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates are pointing the way by starting to interpret Islam in ways that
respect the distinctiveness of their local cultures but are consistent with the
global marketplace. Some of these states have coeducational schools, allow women
to serve in government, and count shopping malls that sell Western and Arab
goods side by side. Their leaders recognize that modernization is their ticket
to the global marketplace. And the global marketplace can build bridges between
the West and the Islamic world in a way that promotes mutual respect and mutual
benefit.

Economic investment and cultural influence work best where civil society
already exists. But sometimes America will be compelled to act in those parts of
the world where few institutions function properly — those zones that lack not
only good governance but any governance — and in states teetering on the edge
of conflict or recovering from it. Faced with a choice between leaving a
troubled zone to anarchy or helping build functioning civil societies with
accountable governments that can serve as bulwarks against barbarism, the
American people will choose the latter.

To assist these missions, the next U.S. president should restructure and
coordinate all the agencies involved in that process. A hybrid military-civilian
organization — a Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps staffed by specially
trained military and civilian reservists — must be developed. The agency would
undertake tasks such as building roads, sewers, and schools; advising on legal
reform; and restoring local currencies. The United States did similar work, and
with great success, in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II. But even
with the rich civic traditions in these nations, the process took a number of
years. We must learn from our past if we want to win the peace as well as the
war.

PRINCIPLED STRENGTH

Civilization must stand up and combat the current collapse of governance, the
rise of violence, and the spread of chaos and fear in many parts of the world.
To turn back this tide of terror and defeat the violent forces of disorder
wherever they appear, America must play an even more active role to strengthen
the international state system.

In this decade, for the first time in human history, half of the world’s
population will live in cities. I know from personal experience that when
security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life
rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start
playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community
returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world’s bad
neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior.
But concerted action to uphold international standards will help peoples,
economies, and states to thrive. Civil society can triumph over chaos if it is
backed by determined action.

After the attacks of 9/11, President Bush put America on the offensive
against terrorists, orchestrating the most fundamental change in U.S. strategy
since President Harry Truman reoriented American foreign and defense policy at
the outset of the Cold War. But times and challenges change, and our nation must
be flexible. President Dwight Eisenhower and his successors accepted Truman’s
framework, but they corrected course to fit the specific challenges of their own
times. America’s next president must also craft polices to fit the needs of the
decade ahead, even as the nation stays on the offensive against the terrorist
threat.

The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century
that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our
trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard
against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil
must be confronted — not appeased — because only principled strength can lead
to a realistic peace.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here