The 4Ds of Defense

After September 11, the topic of national defense resumed the prominence in public debate it enjoyed during the Cold War. With the death of Ronald Reagan has come comparisons of his presidency George W. Bush's -- comparisons based on newfound analyses between yesterday's struggles with communism and today's war on terrorism. An obvious difference in the debate is that today, some groups who were allied against communist totalitarianism are at odds over how best to deal with Islamic terrorists. This often pits so-called neoconservatives against a new alliance made up of isolationists, realists, and the anti-American left.

I say so-called neoconservatives because the name has been bandied about so carelessly, and not infrequently maliciously, that it has been evacuated of most of its meaning. Nevertheless, Michael Brandon McClellan's essay at Tech Central Station, titled "Why Neoconservatism Best Defends America," makes a compelling case for what Charles Krauthammer has dubbed "democratic realism."

Key paragraph: "More commonly known as the '4D' strategy, the plan [the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism] sets forth four essential elements for attaining victory in the War on Terror. The US must: 1) defeat existing terrorist organizations, 2) deny terrorists the support of nation states, 3) diminish the underlying factors that lead people to embrace rather than shun terrorists like Bin Laden, and 4) defend the US homeland and its interests abroad. While the defeat and defend elements of the strategy address the immediate short term goals of crushing al Qaeda and bolstering homeland security, the deny and diminish elements address the long-term necessities of making Islamic terrorism less deadly, and permanently eroding its base of support."

McClellan's piece today is the first in a three-part series that will appear over the next two weeks.