Newt Speaks
The former speaker’s thoughts on homeland defense.

By John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru
November 21, 2001 12:40 p.m.

he latest New Yorker has an article on Newt Gingrich titled "The Worrier." In it, Peter Boyer notes that Gingrich 1) has studied terrorism for quite a while — not least as a member of the Hart-Rudman commission on national security, which he joined after leaving Congress, 2) has influence in the administration, and 3) is pessimistic about the war on terrorism as it moves on from its Afghan phase.

Earlier this month, Gingrich gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation on "Securing the Home Front in the 21st Century." The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some outtakes.

On the duration of the conflict: "[A] state of war has in many ways existed since 1983. If you look at the list of the 22 Most Wanted, it includes somebody whose first activity killing Americans was the Marine barracks in Lebanon."

On widening the war: "[A]fter Pearl Harbor, we didn't just say, 'Let's go sink the Japanese fleet.' We said, 'We're now at war with the Axis.' We took on Japan, Italy, and Germany simultaneously, and we said, 'Our goal is to win a global war.'"

On the Office of Homeland Security: "[T]he President took the correct first step, but if it is the only step, it will be a failure. It is impossible for Tom Ridge's job in its current form to work beyond the immediate crisis. Impossible. It's also constitutionally wrong. A presidential appointee parallel to the National Security Adviser is not accountable to the legislative branch. On something as important as the survival of American cities, the legislative branch ought to insist on accountability."

On contemplated security measures: "[W]e are now engaged in a massive increase in the complexity of airline travel for no known consequence. . . . [T]he current questions are totally insane: 'Did you pack your bags personally?' 'Absolutely. I made sure the bomb was in there.' What is the point of this? . . . There's a big difference between being frantic and being effective. . . . The current plan to make the Capirol a fortress is one that, as Speaker, I blocked. . . . [T]he Secret Service's lifetime desire to block Pennsylvania [Avenue]. . . is nonsense. It would have had no impact on September 11. . . . The attitude of security forces when there's a brief period of panic is to grab as much space, hang tight, and hope that a bulldog-like determination will give them maximum space."

On what should be done: "Everybody who works at an airport on a regular basis should have a biometric check, probably retinal. . . . You automatically change the entire security system, and it's faster. . . . It requires a two-track system. . . . [Frequent flyers] walk through Lane A. We know who you are. We record you instantaneously. It's very efficient. Everybody who doesn't want to do that, which is your right as an American in peacetime, there's a line over there. It may take a while, but they'll get around to you, and you'll get through eventually."

On postwar settlements: "[W]e have to be generous. . . . [I]f we win in Afghanistan, which I believe we will, the following week, aid and reconstruction, new irrigation, new health care, new food. People around the Islamic world have to see vividly that being on the American side pays off."

On Iraq: "[I]f Saddam is still in power and there are no inspectors three years from now, then we will have lost this war, even if we do well in Afghanistan, because Iraq is a vastly greater threat to our cities than is Afghanistan."

Glasnost
The Hudson Institute plans to make a documentary on the fall of the Soviet Union. "With the CNN series, 'Cold War' now being shown in the schools, there is a need for a film that will show Americans what communism looked like from the inside," said Hudson head Herb London. The film, which should be finished late next year, will be based on David Satter's Age of Delirium. The directors and producers will be Bruce and Jennifer Young. Former CIA chief R. James Woolsey will serve as executive producer. "We consider this film to be one of the most important projects in the Institute's distinguished history," said London.

Worth Reading
Andrew Sullivan's Thanksgiving appreciation, first published five years ago.