Gingrich's '24' scenario: US, Israel face potential 'second Holocaust' which could lead to 'greater dictatorial societies'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Gi...face_0124.html
Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday January 24, 2007
Echoing the plotline of a popular television show, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008, warned attendants at a conference that Israel and the United States could face a potential "second Holocaust" in the future, and that if two or three cities were destroyed the two democracies may devolve into "greater dictatorial societies."
"Israel is facing the greatest danger for its survival since the 1967 victory," Gingrich said, via satellite at the Herzliya Conference sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Israel. "Israel maintained its dominance since 1967 even after the 1973 failure."
Gingrich continued, "In 1984 I wrote that WMD and terrorism would pose a threat for US national security. If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel’s democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies."
Fox Television's 24 features Kiefer Sutherland as a sort of "superheroish" counter-terrorism agent who sometimes uses torture to gain information, and this season's plot concerns the race to stop nuclear bombs exploding across the United States. The fourth episode ended with a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles, which prompted some characters on the show to argue for mass arrests and deportations of Muslims in America.
Although many critics slam the show as being slanted to the right or anti-Muslim, the current storyline also touches on the importance of civil liberties to democracies, and even the scenes regarding torture aren't so clear-cut. Sutherland's character, Jack Bauer, is often portrayed as wracked with guilt when forced to resort to brutality in order to get people to talk, and sometimes the show suggests that he went too far.
Full transcript of Gingrich speech:
#
Israel is facing the greatest danger for its survival since the 1967 victory. Israel maintained its dominance since 1967 even after the 1973 failure. In 1984 I wrote that WMD and terrorism would pose a threat for US national security. If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel’s democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies.
Three nuclear weapons constitute a second Holocaust. Enemies are explicit in their desire to destroy us. We are sleepwalking through this as if diplomatic engagement will create a fiesta where we will all love one another. The terrorist threats are larger and more formidable than the political system in Israel or the US can cope with. We need a grand strategy similar to the Kenan telegram which formed US policy for the duration of the Cold War, and the 68 plan developed by Nitze in 1950.
We lack the language and goals to address the new environment along with the speed and intensity to counter the contemporary threats. If we have no strategy we will need to be intellectually honest to consider the next step once two cities have been destroyed. My grandchildren are in greater danger than I was throughout the Cold War. What stages are you in Israel going to take if tomorrow morning Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv would be destroyed? Similarly the US needs to consider what policies it would advance if in twenty four hours, Atlanta, Boston and San Francisco were destroyed. These threats will become even more imminent in two or five years time.
Science is spreading rapidly and thus enemies have greater capabilities to break out. China’s satellites are indicative of this.
The US should have as an explicit goal, regime change in Iran, as its constitution makes them a revolutionary regime. In 2006 even the Department of State which seeks to deny the nature of reality, noted that Iran is a leading sponsor of terror. What I need is something that will be similar to Reagan’s Replacement strategy in Iran. The current unrest in Iran will facilitate this.
The US, Israel and the West have not developed technologies to command urban spaces similar to the sophisticated technologies applied to air and sea-power. Urban technologies have not developed extensively since the 1940’s, unlike that of air and sea. Similarly intelligence capabilities must be advanced and sufficiently integrated to contribute to bettering our urban capabilities.
It is important for Israel to discriminate between those who are willing to live with us and those that are not. Those who are not willing to live with one another will either die or live in prison. We should take our enemies at their word. Ahmadinajed is most explicit regarding his intentions as is Hamas when speaking to the New York Times. To those who are willing to live with us, we need to arouse, organize, defend and enrich them.
A Palestinian state with Hamas at its helm will seek to destroy Israel. In conflict one side wins and another loses. If I have to choose between surviving and being killed, I will choose to kill the enemy and to survive. Peace comes as a result for victory and not as a substitute for victory. The number one requirement for long-term peace is the growth of organizations for peace. This would include a Lebanese government willing to take over Southern Lebanon from Hezbollah, an Iraqi government that would be willing to take over factions. The US and Israel have both underestimated this challenge intellectually, as it will take a long period of time with tremendous investment of resources to achieve this desirable end.
The Department of Homeland Security should conduct two nuclear exercises and one biological exercise in major cities such as Philadelphia or Dallas to determine how many causalities would occur and whether hospitals could accommodate the casualties. Last year in Long Beach, California an exercise was conducted to measure the potential effects of the ramifications of a nuclear weapon being set off.
From 1947-1950, while there was an under funding of defense, there was a simultaneous coming to terms intellectually with the threat of Communism. To those that advance a withdraw of troops in Iraq; the onus is on them to explicate the consequences of defeat. In 1979 the US looked weak in the Middle East with the hostage crises and embassies coming under attack. I have been told that there are not enough marine detachments to protect embassies for when they potentially will be under the threat of attack. It is not the Bush doctrine that is at stake, but our very lives. Thus national security should be advanced rather than mere utopianism.
Q & A with Newt Gingrich
Q: There has been a lot of discussion about the Palestinians and Iran, do you think there can be progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without first dealing with Iran?
A: Yes. The United States and its allies should work together to change the regime in Iran. We have zero reason to believe that the current Iranian regime will change its behavior; they have been lying for eighteen years to the International Atomic Agency. Even the United States State Department has had to admit that Iran is the leading supporter of terror in the world. We should learn from the way Ronald Regan strategically changed the regime in Poland, and apply it to Iran.
On the Palestinian front, the United States and Israel have not made the necessary investments in dominating and controlling urban spaces. If we look at the technology that was used to control urban spaces in the 1940’s and we look at the technology for controlling the seas and the skies in the 1940’s and compare then to today it is clear that there has been much less investment into the ability to control urban areas. The United States and Israel need to develop intelligence to gain both military and economic dominance so that we can discriminate against those who want to live with us and those who don’t. Those who don’t want to live with us will either have to die or go to prison. If they say not a single Jew will live, then we should take them seriously. If they say its either us or them, I choose us. If we are going to live with the Palestinians then we need to gain control of their urban spaces and we need to arouse those who support us from within their community. We can’t live next to a Palestinian state that wants to destroy Israel. In the end one side wins and the other loses, peace will come after victory and cannot be a substitute for it.
Q: What are the threats around us?
A: Long term peace will require a growth of organizations willing to fight for peace. The growth of a Lebanese government that is willing to take control of the south and fight against Hezbollah, and the growth of an Iraqi government that is willing to fight for peace and up hold law and order is what we need. Both the United States and Israel have underestimated how big of an investment and how difficult of a task this will be. The era of defeating states ended in 1973 and was replaced with and era of working with allies that want to help you, and we haven’t confronted that yet.
Q: Ronald Lauder As we hear democrats saying that we want to pull out of Iraq, and talking about the Patriot Act; are we talking about WWII prior to the appeasement? What is going to happen in standing up to the challenge?
A: First the ( US ) Department of Homeland Security needs to hold two exercises of what would happened if a nuclear weapon is deployed against us, and one exercise with a biological weapon, to be used on an American city like, Dallas or Pittsburg. These would look into what the effect would be on the city, for example how many casualties there will be, and how many hospitals will be lost. They did one such test in Long Beach, California. This is not paranoia by the Bush administration, but their legitimate worries about how dangerous the world has become, and most Americans believe this.
In 1930 we thought we could accommodate Hitler, this was not the case. Today it’s impossible to engage Syria and Iran as partners for peace. Just look at how Chaves and Ahmedinajad behave, and this should show us that we need to change our national security polices. The Bush program is inadequate, but the American people need to realize that there lives are at stake, not the legacy of the Bush administration.
Anyone who proposes that we pull out of Iraq needs to understand the price of defeat. The last time the United States was seen as weak and defeated, 1979 and 1980, we had a 444 day long hostage crisis in Iran, and an ambassador killed in Afghanistan. Those who advocate for defeat must be aware that they will bear the burden of our allies losing faith in us as well as China beginning think that it may be able to seize Taiwan.
Reply With Quote