Bush has shown innovation

The history of the American national security establishment is marked by a procession of changing paradigms. Time and again the U.S. has been shaken from a peaceful slumber and forced to confront new dangers, accept new responsibilities, reconsider old ways of thinking, and embrace new ideas about the way the world works. In most cases these revolutions in worldview have been affected by a dedicated policymaking avant garde who see the writing on the wall long before their peers.

These vanguards serve a vital purpose in forcing U.S. policymakers to discard obsolete paradigms in favor of newer, more accurate ones. Without them our policies toward the rest of the world would be stuck in the past. Our national interests would be vulnerable to misunderstood threats and realized dangers.

Today we are in the middle of a national security revolution. It is helmed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, who recognize that terrorism is different from any other threat we have faced. It is more than just another transnational nuisance like drug trafficking or the international sex trade; it is a poisonous philosophy that creeps into the minds of the disenfranchised in repressive dictatorships and failed states around the world. Left unchecked it will spread and threaten legitimate governments everywhere.

Unlike his opponent, the President knows that the traditional tools of international law enforcement are not enough to solve this problem. Using international institutions to build consensus and coordinate activity is necessary but not sufficient to confront the terrorist danger. He understands that beyond disrupting the terrorists' plans, beyond bringing their leaders to justice, the goal of the war on terror is to prove the bankruptcy of the terrorists' philosophy. The goal is to discredit terrorism as a means for achieving political ends, relegating it forever to "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

That's why George W. Bush makes no distinction between the terrorists and governments infected by their philosophy of indiscriminant violence. That's why, unlike his opponent, he refuses to go along with the international community's naïve underestimation of the threat posed by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. It's why he believes in the value of spreading democratic government as an antidote to the terrorists' notion that brutal violence is a form of political participation. These policies result directly from the President's belief that terrorism is an irreconcilable ideological enemy.

Sen. Kerry thinks about the war on terror very differently, because his background as a prosecutor conditions him to view terrorists as if they were ordinary criminals. He downplays the role of the U.S. military and complains about the infeasibility of inspecting all of the cargo entering our country. John Kerry is on the wrong side of the current national security revolution. He tries to be on both sides, but a record of underfunding domestic security and opposing intelligence measures is at odds with his current promises. John Kerry is stuck in the obsolete mindset of caution and defensiveness, while President Bush knows we have to act aggressively to stop the terrorists before they enter our neighborhoods.

President Bush has taken swift action to protect Americans from a growing threat. He worked with both parties in Congress to pass the Homeland Security Act — the most comprehensive restructuring of the national security establishment since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 — to ensure that the American people are protected by a set of institutions tailor-made to counter the terrorist threat. Bush is working to reform the intelligence community by centralizing authority, breaking down communication walls, and integrating information as it is collected. He is working quickly to restructure our military so it can meet the asymmetrical threat posed by terrorists and rogue governments. Bush's policies are the result of a national security paradigm that reflects the future threats to American lives, while John Kerry's are stuck in the past. We should give President Bush four more years to continue to make America safer. David Maass '08 writes on behalf of the College Republicans. He can be reached at maass@princeton.edu.