One of the most important speeches of the 20th century was Ronald Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg gate in Berlin. The speech is well known for Reagan's famous, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" challenge, but it is also extremely significant and relevant to our current global crisis in the war against radical Islam. In the speech, Reagan articulated a belief that seems to have been lost, that freedom and security go together. Equally important was that Reagan's speech reminded me of how he stood with resolve and principle in the face of protest and opposition. Finally, Reagan clearly defined the enemy, put the enemy on notice, spoke with strength and even gave the enemy a chance to improve relations and bring peace on our terms. Few would have predicted that the Soviet Union would have fallen so shortly after this speech, however it is a lesson from which we should learn.
As they were during Reagan's presidency, his beliefs are being challenged now in our new war, against a new enemy. In America, as well as in Iraq, we have ignored the tenet that freedom and security go together. In the United States, many have adopted the political philosophy that freedom is taken away in a direct proportion to security gained. This is a flawed political philosophy that describes the state of nature as absolute freedom and totalitarianism as absolute security. Humans are neither free without security, nor secure without freedom. In order to protect our freedom, we must be willing to give up some liberties in exchange for a much greater amount of security. The Patriot Act achieves that end and has protected us, yet civil libertarians ignore the enhanced security that protects our freedom and dwell on a few inconveniences that have no impact on their daily lives. The argument is that "If we give up anything then the terrorists win." My response is that it is better to grant our enemies a small victory in exchange for preventing a colossal defeat.
In Iraq, the question of freedom and security is in play as well. President Bush attempted to establish a democracy without the infrastructure in place to provide citizens with the security to have freedom. The fallacy that we had in our thinking on Iraq is that democracy is synonomous with freedom, when in fact economic freedom and capitalism are needed to bring about democratization, and economic freedom cannot exist without security. Without infrastructure and a strong occupation force in place to quell resistance, Iraqi citizens sought out security in the form of the local clans and strongmen, and insurgency followed. Recently we have changed policies to quell the rebellion, but the lesson is that freedom and security go together.
Perhaps the most relevant comparison from Reagan's speech to the current situation comes in the form of the domestic resistance, or the "peace" movement. Reagan stood firm in the face of protests throughout his administration and he directly addressed the protesters from a position of strength at Brandenberg, saying that American resolve and firmness forced the Soviets back to the negotiating table. Currently there is an increasing movement, particularly by Democrats for the US to pull out of Iraq. George W. Bush is being villified, yet he is standing firm, with resolve to stay in Iraq, as he understands that the enemy thinks that they can outlast American resolve. Reagan stood up to political pressure to force the Soviets back to the bargaining table by not backing down from his plan to install more missile sites, and by not succumbing to protesters and the Soviets belief that a weak democracy would back down. In Iraq, we can either learn from Reagan, or we can take the other route and leave with our tail between our legs because it is politically expedient to do so. In 2008 we will elect a new president, will it be a president who stands toe to toe with our enemies, or will it be one who governs not by principles, but by polls and political expediency? It is clear where I stand.
Comments