The controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s memo on the status of the War on Terrorism raises two interesting questions. First: are we winning this war? Yes we are. We have liberated fifty million people in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have captured and killed many of al-Qaeda’s leaders. But are we doing as well as we could be doing? No. Could we be doing better? Of course. That was the point that the Secretary raised- in this conflict we can never be idle, never satisfied with having made ‘enough’ progress. Rather, we must press forever onwards to a total victory.

Admitting that you are not doing as well as you’d like is far from an admission of failure: it’s an exhortation to hard work. I’d like to see the planet cleansed of all of the terrorists, their supporters, and their sympathizers in the blink of an eye. That we have yet to meet that standard doesn’t mean that we’re losing.

We are doing well, but there is still much more work that needs to be done. I’m going to offer a little advice for the battle ahead.

Create a Sense that the Nation is ‘At War’:
After 9-11 I thought, “we’re never going to forget this.’ But, we have. There needs to be an enhanced awareness of the specifics of the situation. This is a conflict with the scale of the Cold War or the Second World War- there needs to be a general awareness of that.

We have too quickly returned to the patterns of peace- to the petty political sniping, the silly news stories, and the general atmosphere of apathy towards foreign affairs. There is not a danger of the public becoming disengaged from the war because they are already disengaged.

This has been a flaw in the approach of the Administration right from the start. In his speech from the Oval Office on the night of September 11th, the President deliberately avoided obvious references to war. Nor has Bush and his inner circle (with a few occasional exceptions) seemed eager to play up scope and danger of this conflict.

Right there, in September 11th, the President should have gone on TV and said something like this:

“What we have witnessed today was not, as some have alleged, merely a ‘crime.’ It was an act of war perpetuated against our country by the enemies of all mankind. Nor does this mark the simple start of a ‘war’ as we have known in the past two decades, to be over and forgotten in a few months. My fellow Americans this day is the first day of the Third World War.�

Had the President done that then, the newspaper headlines the next day wouldn’t have screamed, “Tragedy in New York, Washington�, they would have screamed, “World War Three!� and the various factions which have been so troublesome during this war would have had a far more difficult time of it. You can march in opposition to a Kosovo, a Gulf War or a Vietnam- but against a World War? After all, the American memory of ‘world war’ is pretty much restricted to the Second World War which, in popular memory, no one opposed. Moreover, it would have helped to better explain the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. In a world war, there would have been little political debate on the question (though plenty of military debate) - few people, in 1943, marched demanding ‘Hands off Italy.’

It will be harder now to do this than it would have been in September of 2001. If the President had declared then that 9-11 was the start of World War Three all of the networks would, within a few hours, have been flashing fancy ‘WW3’ graphics. It would have shifted the terrain of the political debate. In those first few days anyone attempting to resist would have been steamrollered and, by the time that most politicians and lawmakers were able to have second thoughts, they’d have already voted some sort of declaration of war along with appropriations for said war.

The case can no longer be made with the same sort of urgency, for there is no longer the same general atmosphere of crisis and confusion. Rather, it will need to be made through gradual and incremental steps.

After 9-11 some people proposed selling ‘war bonds’ to finance the effort. It was dismissed at the time- but ought to be revisited now. Not only would such bonds be able to fund the growing deficit, but they could be launched with a splashy multi-million dollar advertising campaign which would help to raise public awareness of the war effort. People have a vague memory of ‘war bonds’ and understand their meaning. They aren’t sold to fund a casual effort- they’re sold only in times of serious danger. Whether or not they’re really of any financial utility doesn’t matter nearly as much as their visibility.

Another effective way to create a ‘war atmosphere’ in the country would be to greatly increase recruiting efforts on the part of the Armed Forces. The forces ought to forget the touchy-feely peacetime recruitment tactics that have, to date, been used for the All-Volunteer Force. The ‘Army of One’ slogan ought to be ditched in favor of something more appropriate to the times, perhaps, “The Nation Needs You.� It might even be worthwhile to consider making recruitment campaigns more violent in nature, seeking to emphasize the role of the military in making America’s enemies dead rather than in sending former soldiers to college.

At the same time, however, it would be worthwhile to consider a massive boost in benefits and pay to Armed Services personnel. Forget about a 5% or 10% raise- we ought to give each and every single solider, sailor, Marine, and airman a 100% raise. Double all of their pay- we can take the money from welfare queens, criminals, and civilian bureaucrats. This would make the military the highest-paid profession accessible to the average American. Under this system an eighteen year-old Private just out of high school could make something like $40,000 per year. This only seems fair, as we’re going to be asking him to potentially die in a foreign war.

Under the present conditions the President cannot simply up and declare ‘World War Three’ to be ongoing. Rather, he must work towards it by taking steps to create a war atmosphere.

Another excellent way to do this is by waging an aggressive attack on all forms of domestic spending which are unrelated to security. At the present time, the Federal Budget is more than $2 trillion, only $400 billion of which is devoted to defense with, at the most, another $200 billion going to other non-DOD security functions. The President should announce that, of the remaining $1.4 trillion in the budget, he wants to cut $400 billion in order to balance the budget and pay for the war. That means, yes, that there won’t be a prescription drug benefit. Tough. If he plays things right, within a few months anyone harping on about that would sound like an idiot or worse.

Now, of course, the left (and the limp-wristed wing of the GOP) will respond to any effort to cut domestic spending to pay for the war by arguing that taxes ought to be raised to make the rich pay for their ‘fair share’ of the war effort (or, as they’ll put it- they want to ‘repeal the Bush tax cuts’, after which they will move on in an effort to ‘repeal the Reagan, Kennedy, and Andrew Johnson tax cuts’ as well). The President needs to be front and centre arguing against this position. Economic security (meaning the health of the American economy) is as vital to the war effort as military security, raising taxes will choke off economic growth at a vital time. With a willingness to increase the harshness of their rhetoric and a sufficiently aggressive plan of attack, the Bush Administration ought to be able to paint any calls for raising taxes as treasonable, at best.

Moreover, the President should pick up his level of rhetoric against Iran, Syria, and North Korea- all strong candidates to be the next stop of the US Armed Forces’ World Tour. He should make it clear that, sooner or latter, he plans to go to war with all of them. As the atmosphere of political combat over the next war rises, he should find a time to insert the phrase ‘Third World War’ into a set of casual remarks. He could say something like, “this conflict, this Third World War, is a war of not months, but years and decades.� Such a remark would be rapidly picked up upon by the media. With the right sort of encouragement, the conservative media would rapidly pick it up and, from there, it would rapidly filter into the mainstream media.

Altogether the goal here must be that, when the average American wakes up, they will swiftly be reminded that the nation is at war.

Widen the War:
For the Third World War to really be seen as such, it must move forward. Right now we seem stalled. To a very large extent it feels as though the war is over and we are now left to deal with the problems of peace. That is because no new target has yet been picked in the war. After the destruction of the Taliban, pretty much everyone knew that the next stop was Baghdad. But where are we going to now? It cannot stop here.

Moving on quickly would also have the decided advantage of short-circuiting the pointless and unnecessary post-war debate over Iraq. Iraq’s war is over. The Coalition is victorious there. It’s still dangerous there: but active combat operations are over. We must move on.

From Iraq, the United States has an excellent base from which to apply military pressure against both Syria and Iran. Syria, I would argue, ought to be the next nation on the list. It continues to sponsor terrorism- not only against Israel but, seemingly, against US forces in Iraq as well. Moreover, the Syrian armed forces are no stronger than those of Iraq except that they’re probably stupid enough to attempt to fight a direct battle. They could be exterminated by US firepower in a matter of weeks.

Iran and North Korea are more difficult problems- for North Korea already has nuclear weapons and Iran soon will. Moreover, they are both large enough and well enough equipped militarily to make an invasion difficult (especially in the case of North Korea, where there is no place from which the US would be easily able to stage such an attack). Instead, both nations ought to be subjected to a massive aerial bombardment designed to destroy their weapons facilities and punish their governments for their actions. US Special Forces might be introduced into both nations to cause trouble. In the case of Iran, if the initial bombing could conceivably be followed up by a ground invasion if it seems practicable to do so.

But other nations must be added to the target list as well. Libya, which has been relatively docile in recent years, is reportedly hard at work on a nuclear program. Any facilities associated with such a program should be attacked and destroyed. If the Libyan government attempt to retaliate or resist, I’m sure that Colonel Qadaffi has other children.

The nation must also be awakened to the danger of rising Red power in South America. Already Venezuela and Brazil have fallen under the grasp of ultra-left wing regimes and Columbia continues to be besieged by leftist FARC terrorists. Worse still, the Bolivian President has recently been deposed by radical communistic groups. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, is known to have supported both Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The renewed rise of the South American left is a real danger to the national security of the United States. The President should make the case for this and, perhaps, even begin to contemplate military action against Venezuela, which is easily the most pro-terrorist nation in this hemisphere. Efforts should also be made to encourage rightists to depose the other left-wing regimes on the continent.

This is not a limited war being waged for limited aims- to depose a dictator, to stop ethnic cleansing, to punish a territorial incursion. Rather this is a war of ideology: a clash of civilizations. It is not a war of East versus West or Moslem versus Christian and Jew. It is a war of the pro-American against anti-American. It is a war of good against evil. The President must remind the world of what he said on September 20th, 2001: either you are with America or you are with the terrorists.

This means that we’re also going to have to deal with our ‘friends’ such as the Saudis and Pakistanis, who seek American support but continue to provide indirect support to terrorists. A stark choice must be offered to those who would seek to sit on the fence in this war. Neutrality is pro-terrorist. Anyone who refuses to join in hunting down and killing the terrorists is complicit in their actions and shall share in their fate.

The war does not stop or slow. It is ongoing and it will go on until every last terrorist, every last terrorist supporter, and every last terrorist sympathizer has been butchered. There will be no compromise with evil, no compact with hell.

The Department of War:
In planning for this war, one must ask if the present Cold War-era structure of the various agencies and Departments of the Federal Government is suited to the present war. The Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI are all top-heavy and overly bureaucratic. There are too many paper-pushers and not enough warriors. Their command structure is too fragmented.

The solution is simple: take all of the security agencies within the Federal Government and create a single, integrated, super-agency. Some have suggested calling it the ‘Department of National Security�. I have, I think we ought to reach back into the past and revive a proud and old name: I think that we should call it the “Department of War.�

Under this plan the CIA, NSA, and DHS would cease to be civilian agencies and be integrated with the Armed Forces. So would the portion of the FBI that does work on non-criminal cases. Posse Comitatus would probably have to be repealed to make this viable, thereby upsetting the ACLU and again proving the virtue of this plan.

All of the artificial barriers which have been erected against information sharing would be torn down. Moreover, all of the various groups could, by such means, be allowed to work as a single unit. CIA information could be followed upon instantly by FBI agents on the ground. CIA operatives could fully operate domestically. More than that, the CIA and NSA would easily be able to call upon military assets and vice versa.

The War Department would, eventually, come to consume half of the entire Federal Budget. The Secretary of War would become the second most powerful man in the United States, behind only the President. Because the War Department would operate under military rules, it could therefore operate with military efficiency, cutting through the present tangles of bureaucracy.

This is especially true because the reorganization could be used as an opportunity to purge the Pentagon of a great number of bureaucratic obstructionists. Under the new scheme, Regional Commanders would effectively operate directly under the War Secretary. And the new Regional Commanders, of course, would be military officers chosen specifically for being intelligent and aggressive. They could all be given the power to, at will, launch limited attacks against any terrorist-related target, hopefully creating a situation where the bombing of a terrorist training camp in some remote part of the world becomes a near-daily occurrence.

Perhaps the creation of the Department of War would even be combined with a gutting of the State Department, which has repeatedly proven itself ill-equipped to advance American interests. The State Department could be reduced to his Secretary and his closest advisors, overseeing a series of entirely ceremonial Ambassadors and embassies which concentrated entirely on consular functions. The actual work of diplomacy could be left to a smaller group of specially appointed roving Ambassadors-at-Large, who could be chosen for their belligerence and general disdain for America’s enemies. Most of all, any large-scale reorganization at State must focus on clearing out those Foreign Service Officers who work as a fifth column, deliberately undermining American foreign policy.

Create a Covert Agency for ‘Wet Work’ Overseas:
However, no matter how well the Federal Government is reorganized, there will still be a need for at least one additional covert agency. What is needed to fight this war is an organization which operates like the old CIA as it existed in the nightmares of the paranoid. This new group, perhaps a revived “Office of Strategic Services� would be charged with a single primary task: killing those enemies of America who, for one reason or another, it would be better to kill covertly and overtly.

It would be impractical to use a cruise missile to kill a college student in Hamburg who has a room full of al-Qaeda manuals and is preparing to become a terrorist. Moreover, it is unlikely that the German police would arrest such an individual. So, what do you do? Simple: you break into his apartment in the middle of the night and cut his throat. That might sound harsh- but it ought to be remembered that the 9-11 plot was hatched, planned, and carried out by just such men. The covert assassination of a handful of men now might save thousands of American lives in the future.

Nor should the targets of such agency be confined merely to members of al-Qaeda. Rather, it should be used to conduct car bombings to kill dangerous anti-American politicians, kidnap foreign journalists who support terrorists, burn down Islamist schools which teach terrorism, destroy stores which sell pro-terrorist goods, blow up radio and television stations which broadcast pro-terrorist material and generally to turn life for terrorists and their supporters into a fearful hell. It should be careful to never deliberately target anyone who is not involved with terrorism, but it should put a particular emphasis on killing those who are recent initiates into the terrorist world in order to create the impression that only the slightest involvement with terrorists can bring a swift and violent death.

Call for Volunteers:
Sometimes even the Democrats have a good idea. When they do, we ought to steal it. Wesley Clark’s proposal for the creation of a ‘Civilian Reserve’ is a very good idea, even if it requires a little bit of tweaking.

Basically, General Clark wants to create a system whereby American civilians can enter their civil skills into a database and make themselves available for call-up in the event of a national emergency. The organization he envisions would be explicitly non-military in nature.

What I propose is similar, but different. A new ‘Homeland Defense Corps’ would be created, with units in every state of the Union. The Corps would be a very lightly trained militia, perhaps meeting for only two nights a month, whose members would be available for immediate induction into the Armed Forces upon the order of the President. Its members would be paid a token but significant sum (perhaps $200 a month) and be organized into units by State, perhaps even reviving the proud names and histories of Civil War regiments. Its members would receive some training and, in theory, would also be available as civilian auxiliaries in the event of an emergency. Moreover, people as young as fifteen and as old as sixty would be allowed to join the Homeland Defense Corps.

Members would be given ranks and uniforms and gradually pushed towards a military style of discipline. Ranks (and additional pay) would be earned by volunteering for additional training. Strong efforts would be made to push the Corps in high schools (and, I suspect, the possibility of earning $200 a month for going to a few meetings would cause a lot of people to join). After all, how many high school boys would sign up if they were offered a chance to fire an M-16 and get paid for it? With sufficient promotion, I think, the HDC would become a mainstream activity in some high schools and, in some areas, a nearly universal activity. The primary purpose of the regular HDC meetings would be to indoctrinate members with pro-military and pro-American attitudes. At least every second month one meeting would be devoted to detailing the threats against the United States, its people, and its way of life.

Kill More People:
The real key to victory, the thread that runs through all of this, is simple: we have to kill more people. Specifically, more terrorists. As I have said before, we will win this war when we can bring ourselves to fully grasp the mathematics of the situation. In any society, there is only a limited body of people willing to engage in terrorism, especially suicide terrorism. We must take active measures to attrition that body.

We must not stop. We cannot stop. No victory is permanent. No defeat is forever. The only way that we shall win this was is if we continuously take the fight to the enemy, grind away at him, kill him everywhere we find him: that is how we shall win.