Opinion
Wednesday August 30, 2006
Editorial: Rumsfeld is right about fascism
THERE can be legitimate disagreement over the tactics used to fight the war on terrorism. Critics certainly are free to second-guess Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, over the military plan, particularly in Iraq.
But there should be no debate over what the goal is. America must stand tall against fascism now, or risk a world war later.
Those who want to enslave the United States -- who want to dominate the world -- who want to destroy civilization -- must be stopped now, rather than later.
In a speech in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said some critics of the administration suffer from "moral or intellectual confusion" over the challenge the nation and Europe face.
He recalled the sad history of the 1930s, when Western Europe failed to confront Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany head-on. Instead of peace, this appeasement led to the bloodiest war in world history.
"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.
Blaming America first, as he put it, is wrong. American involvement in Iraq did not cause 9/11. American involvement in Iraq did not cause the bombings in Bali. Trying to appease the terrorists would be as foolish as Lord Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" agreement with Hitler in Munich.
That lasted six months, until Germany seized Czechoslovokia.
Rumsfeld said, "But some seem not to have learned history's lessons."
The defense secretary also said terrorists use the news media. Terrorism is after all part of a public relations campaign, meant to frighten but also to turn people against their institutions.
"Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked. "Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country."
The Bush administration has made mistakes. For example, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But it has erred on the side of protecting the nation first.
No one should be confused about that.
dailymail.com |
