The War on Islamofascism -- Santorum Takes His Stand

Speaking at the Press Club yesterday Rick Santorum laid out a major theme of his campaign for re-election. He's all for fighting "Islamofascism" for the sake of our children. In this way he fuses his past theme of defense of the family with the new Republican project of fighting "World War III" and manages to simultaneously sound touchy-feely and tough.

"[T]oday the biggest issue facing our children’s future is a war. Not, as so many describe it, the War on Terror. Not the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the world war, which at its heart is just like the previous three global struggles."

Well, “just like” is probably too strong. Any competent historian can point out huge differences among the conflicts, but his key point is a legitimate one -- that this is a war we cannot evade or afford to lose.

I believe that the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from German Nazism and Soviet Communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose.

He takes on directly those opponents of the war who try to particularize the conflict. It is not just about Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is being waged on,

every continent except Antarctica. Ask the Indians, the Thais, the Egyptians or the Argentines. Ask the Australians, the Indonesians, the British or the Spaniards. All have seen Islamic fascists at work, and have mourned their innocent victims.

And now he sticks it to the Democrats:

And yet we [read: "the Democrats"] are foolishly reluctant to come to terms with this terrible reality. It's an old, sad story isn't it? Over and over again, our enemies announce their intention to attack us, and we refuse to believe them.

…..

If we have learned anything from the twentieth century, it should be this lesson: when leaders say they are prepared to kill millions of people to achieve their goals, we must take them at their word. Particularly in this case when the enemy sees dying for their cause as a desired objective as opposed to a tragic consequence.

Why, he asks, are the Democrats and their allies in the media so obtuse?

Well, partly because they are afraid to face the truth.

[Accepting that we engaged in such a war] forces us to recognize that we, the infidels, are being hunted. This is not just happening someplace thousands of miles away.

And such recognition would imply sacrifices that many Americans are unprepared to make.

Many political opponents of the administration have tried to exploit this fact. Here he brands the Democrats and their media allies not just cowards, but liars.

We have worked very hard to provide security without compromising liberty. Some leaders saw political advantage in disputing that fact. The result, for one thing a four-year misinformation campaign directed against the Patriot Act.
....
Even worse, there has been a war against the war: a joint campaign by some people inside the government and allies in the media to undermine critical national security programs. To their shame, the bureaucrats have broken the law by revealing classified information to some in the media. Again, to their shame, some members of the media have put American lives at greater risk by publishing these secrets.

Here, again, the charge is based to some extent in truth. Many Democrats have found the war to be politically inconvenient, and have therefore tried to minimalize it and to misrepresent necessary actions taken to provide security. That's politics! But there is also a legitimate argument to be considered. An emphasis on security requires some compromise of liberty. Democrats and other critics of the war are perfectly right to inform the public of that tension and to allow the citizenry to ultimately decide just where to strike the balance.

Santorum, though, is completely right to denounce the bureaucratic leakers and obstructers and their co-conspirators in the media. These people are at best irresponsible fools, at the worst they are possibly traitors. They place their institutional and ideological interests ahead of the national welfare. They actively impede and obstruct the war effort. They should be identified and, if in violation of the law, prosecuted to its full extent.

And then he takes on the PC police who would prevent serious and accurate descriptions of the situation.

There is a bigger problem: our fear of speaking clearly, publicly, and consistently about the enemy. It is unfashionable in some quarters to speak about the Islamo fascists, because of the misguided cultural reflex that condemns anyone who speaks critically about others' practices or beliefs. Therefore, we can’t say or do anything that might offend Muslims.

But that's backwards. The real offense to Muslims is to remain silent about an ideology that produces the systemic murder of innocents. Mostly, Muslim innocents. They are the first victims of Islamic fascism, and the enemy directly targets them, as we have heard once again in the most recent audiotape from Osama bin Laden. Those who refuse to criticize Islamic fascism undermine the cause of freedom of religion because if the Islamic fascists win this war, no other religion will be permitted to flourish.

Here I am in complete agreement and have no criticisms to make, but Rick does indulge in a bit of over-the-top hubris when he then compares himself [the "truth-telling" Senator] with Natan Sharansky, the heroic Soviet dissident. Come off it Rick. There's no need for that sort of stuff. The Democrats and media elites are not the Soviet Union.

Finally, Rick links his critique to the coming elections.

Individuals... make bad choices.

Journalists made bad choices when they decided to betray the secret of our terrorist surveillance programs, our programs for tracking terrorist finances, and the location of the prisons in which al Qaeda’s most senior leaders are held.

Democrats in Congress make bad choices when they urge the president to withdraw our forces from Iraq before the war there is won.

And as you all know, this fall the voters of our country have a choice to make. One vision sees the role of Congress as raising objections — finding reasons not to do things — and punishing those who take risks to defend our nation. I have a different vision. I want Congress to contribute to victory — not just complain about how long things are taking.

That last is a good line. As I said before there are legitimate questions to be raised, especially concerning the conflict between security and liberty, but he is right, exposing military secrets and constant sniping at those who are conducting the war are at the least irresponsible, and possibly treasonous.

Finally he ties the whole thing up by focusing on Iran as the center from which Islamofascism derives, our oldest enemy in the Islamic world, and one that must be confronted and defeated..., for the sake of "the children."

In 1979 Iran declared itself our enemy and for 27 years it has proven the truth of those words. A democratic Iran may not end the war against Islamic fascism, but without it this war will last to be our children’s war, not just ours. We owe it to them, it is our watch, it is our challenge.

Not bad, and strategically well conceived. Rick has taken a clear and important stand -- one that will appeal to conservatives in his Party. Now let's see how Casey responds to it.

There is a trap here for Casey -- he cannot allow himself to be identified with the anti-war wing of his Party, nor can he defend the irresponsible practices of Beltway bureaucrats and the New York Times. but if he remains silent, he looks weak and indecisive. He could denounce the left loons and have himself a Sister Soulja moment, but that would cost him vital support. Will he do it? Stay tuned....

Read the whole thing here.

I admire the Republicans and people like Senator Santorum for making the war itself the focus of the campaign. There are really important issues to be resolve here, and hard choices to make. The American public must be active participants in making those choices. The election is when they shall be heard.