In today’s Friday interview, Carolina Journal’s Mitch Kokai discusses what we’re not doing in the War on Terror with Frank Gaffney, founder of the Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy and author of the recent War Footing. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio (click here to find the station near you).
Kokai: Why did you decide this was a story that needed to be told?
Gaffney: Much of what is in War Footing has been work that we’ve been doing at the Center for Security Policy for some time, based on an assessment that we are, in fact, in a war for the Free World, and that the steps that need to be taken to prevail in such a war are far more comprehensive and demand a level of involvement on the part of the American people than anything we’ve seen to date, and that they’ve been asked to do to this point. Having said that, the immediate impetus of all of this, I have to tell you, was the fatuous 24/7 coverage that Cindy Sheehan received during the month of August of last year for views that we thought were, frankly, so harebrained and so counterproductive — indeed dangerous — that it sort of impelled us to put the book together quickly and try to get the alternative views that it contains out there with maximum effect.
Kokai: You mentioned the American people. Do you think American people understand the nature of this conflict?
Gaffney: The American people are not necessarily as clear as they should be that we’re at war. And as a result neither they nor the country more generally has been mobilized, which is the term that we’re really using to — hoping to convey with this formulation — war footing. Putting the country on a war footing, given that it is at war, given that it is involved in a death struggle, we believe, with most immediately, another of these totalitarian ideologies that is bent on the destruction not only of this country but of the Free World more generally. This one we call “Islamo-fascism.” Unless you understand that that’s the complexion of the problem we face, unless you understand that the stakes are as high as is suggested by the term “war for the Free World” it’s unlikely that you’re going to see the American people engaged, let alone becoming as much a part of the solution to this war as I think they need to be.
Kokai: So what should we do?
Gaffney: We have identified ten steps that we think are really crucial, the first of which is, I think understandably — figuring out who the enemy is. As I mentioned, in our estimation the most immediate of these elements is this totalitarian ideology — is Islamo-fascism. What makes it so dangerous, however, is that it enjoys the sponsorship of several states that are themselves Islamo-fascist, notably Saudi Arabia, a country we are often told is an ally but is, in fact, very much a part of the problem. And of course, Iran, about which we hear a lot. Making matters worse is that those Islamo-fascist states are being abetted and helped in various ways by states that are not themselves Islamo-fascist but nonetheless find it expedient to work with those totalitarians to our detriment. And in that group I include Russia, Communist China, and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, for example. Beyond that we talk about specific steps that the country can take once you figure out who the enemy is, to try to do something about the problem, starting most obviously with military activities and the support for our forces, ensuring that they have the equipment that they need and the people, the training and so on. But most of the book, frankly, is about non-military steps that the public, as individuals, as members of organizations, as members of communities or constituencies, certainly can engage in that run the gamut from economic and financial tools to steps we need to take to secure our homeland, to what we call political warfare — the sort of use of very well-honed political skills to try to defeat our enemy without military force. And then, finally, ways in which we can make our diplomacy more effective. And you put all those together and we think there’s a blueprint for important improvements in the way we conduct this war and its prospects.
Kokai: So how good a job are we doing in addressing the ideas that you mention in the book?
Gaffney: I think most of these steps we have not done an adequate job of addressing to this point. There has been a lack of coherence and consistency about the nature of the enemy, for example. Our military is doing, I think, a splendid job where it’s being employed. But I’m not sure they’re getting the resources that they need to do it. Energy security — I think there’s a lot of talk about it but we’re falling short in concrete steps that we think could be taken that make a difference. Homeland Security is a very mixed bag. There’s, again, a lot of talk about immigration security, for example, but not much is being done to really make a tangible improvement in the security of our borders, for example. Political warfare — you know we wage it all the time against one another in this country but I think we are really falling short in doing so abroad. And I’m sorry to say that I think diplomacy is really still largely being used against us, rather than for us, as part of the war effort.
Kokai: How has the situation changed since the book’s publication?
Gaffney: Some trends that we identified in the book have advanced or, if you will, metastasized further. I don’t think the fundamentals of it are different at all. And in fact, most of what we wrote, I think, has been sadly reinforced by events that have come about in the months since its publication.
Kokai: And how has the information campaign been going?
Gaffney: I think that there’s still been far too little clear exposition to the public about the truly global character of the challenges that we’re facing and the fact that our enemies are very explicit and overt ones, and some that are less clearly identified as such, are working together, is a matter that has still not adequately been explained to the public. And therefore I think, on balance, I would say that we’ve not seen enough traction in moving this country in the direction I think it needs to go towards a war footing in the months since we published War Footing
.
Kokai: So is there one step the U.S. can take to ease some of your concerns?
Gaffney: It’s hard to define just one. But I think one that would make a very material difference is were we to take the sorts of steps we recommend in our “Set America Free” blueprint, to greatly reduce the amount of oil that we import from places that are trying to hurt us. This is perhaps the only time in history when one party in a conflict has been underwriting both sides. And part and parcel of that is the amount of wealth that we transfer to the Saudis and to others who wish us harm, in the form of oil purchases. So fixing that problem or at least beginning to give the American people alternatives to oil for the transportation sector of our economy where we use most of it is, I think, the single most important thing we could do at the moment.