COVID-19 update: Delivery times back to normal. Click for details.
Contact Us Need help? Contact us
Explore Departments
Departments

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror

David Frum and Richard Perle


PUBLISHED: 26th October 2004
ISBN: 9780345477170
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror
Product Unavailable
OTHER FORMATS:
PUBLISHED: 26th October 2004
ISBN: 9780345477170

Annotation

"An End to Evil charts the agenda for what's next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of "The Right Man, and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington. This world is an unsafe place for Americans—and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people. In "An End to Evil, David Frum and Richard Perle sound the alert about the dangers around us: the continuing threat from terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, the aggressive ambitions of China. Frum and Perle provide a detailed, candid account of America's vulnerabilities: a military whose leaders resist change, intelligence agencies mired in bureaucracy, diplomats who put friendly relations with their foreign colleagues ahead of the nation's interests. Perle and Frum lay out a bold program to defend America—and to win the war on terror. Among the topics this book addresses:

  • why the United States risks its security if it submits to the authority of the United Nations
  • why France and Saudi Arabia have to be treated as adversaries, not allies, in the war on terror
  • why the United States must take decisive action against Iran—now
  • what to do in North Korea if negotiations fail
  • why everything you read in the newspapers about the Israeli-Arab dispute is wrong
  • how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory—not just stalemate
  • where the next great terror threat is coming from—and what we can do to protect ourselves
"An End to Evil will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for anew generation—and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders' perspective on how our leaders are confronting—or not confronting—the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line. "From the Hardcover edition.

Publisher Description

"An End to Evil" charts the agenda for what's next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of "The Right Man, " and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington. This world is an unsafe place for Americans—and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people. In "An End to Evil, " David Frum and Richard Perle sound the alert about the dangers around us: the continuing threat from terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, the aggressive ambitions of China. Frum and Perle provide a detailed, candid account of America's vulnerabilities: a military whose leaders resist change, intelligence agencies mired in bureaucracy, diplomats who put friendly relations with their foreign colleagues ahead of the nation's interests. Perle and Frum lay out a bold program to defend America—and to win the war on terror. Among the topics this book addresses:

  • why the United States risks its security if it submits to the authority of the United Nations
  • why France and Saudi Arabia have to be treated as adversaries, not allies, in the war on terror
  • why the United States must take decisive action against Iran—now
  • what to do in North Korea if negotiations fail
  • why everything you read in the newspapers about the Israeli-Arab dispute is wrong
  • how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory—not just stalemate
  • where the next great terror threat is coming from—and what we can do to protect ourselves
"An End to Evil" will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for a new generation—and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders' perspective on how our leaders are confronting—or not confronting—the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line. "From the Hardcover edition."

Back Cover

From two of Washington's most influential insiders, An End to Evil charts the agenda for what's next in the war on terrorism. This world is an unsafe place for Americans-and a massive all-fronts effort is essential to protecting our people. Now David Frum and Richard Perle sound the alert about the dangers around us: the continuing threat from terrorism and Islamist extremism, the danger from North Korea, the daunting challenge of homeland security. Frum and Perle provide a detailed, candid account of America's vulnerabilities: a military whose leaders resist change, intelligence agencies mired in bureaucracy, diplomats who put friendly relations ahead of the nation's security interests. With keen insiders' perspective, Frum and Perle lay out a bold program to defend America-and to win the war on terror. They make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line.

Author Biography

David Frum, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor of" National Review."
Richard Perle served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and as chairman of the Defense Policy Board under President George W. Bush. He is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Review

"A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard--not Dick Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz--but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum." --Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker

"[Richard Perle is the] intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy. . . . [He] has profound influence over Bush policies and officials in the competition for the hearts of the president and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." --Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

Review Quote

"A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard-not Dick Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz-but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum." -Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker "[Richard Perle is the] intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy. . . . [He] has profound influence over Bush policies and officials in the competition for the hearts of the president and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." -Dana Milbank, The Washington Post From the Hardcover edition.

Excerpt from Book

Chapter 1 WHAT NOW? These are the times that try men''s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. -THOMAS PAINE, The American Crisis, 1780 We too live in trying times-and thus far our fellow Americans have passed every test. They have shown themselves, as President Bush said in his speech in the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001, "generous and kind, resourceful and brave." They have fought and won two campaigns on the opposite side of the globe, saving millions of Afghans from famine and the nation of Iraq from tyranny. They have hunted down terrorists and killers, while respecting the rights of the innocent. And they have uncomplainingly accepted inconvenience and danger through tiresome years of lineups at airports, searches at public buildings, and exposure to further acts of terror. Now comes the hardest test of all. The war on terror is not over. In many ways, it has barely begun. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas still plot murder, and money still flows from donors worldwide to finance them. Mullahs preach jihad from the pulpits of mosques from Bengal to Brooklyn. Iran and North Korea are working frantically to develop nuclear weapons. While our enemies plot, our allies dither and carp, and much of our own government remains ominously unready for the fight. We have much to do and scant time in which to do it. Yet at this dangerous moment many in the American political and media elite are losing their nerve for the fight. Perhaps it is the political cycle: For some Democrats, winning the war has become a less urgent priority than winning the next election. Perhaps it is the media, rediscovering its bias in favor of bad news and infecting the whole country with its own ingrown pessimism. Perhaps it is Congress, resenting the war''s cost and coveting the money for its own domestic spending agendas. Or perhaps it is just fatigue. President Bush warned Americans from the start that the war on terror would be long and difficult and expensive. But in 2001 those warnings were just words. Today they are realities. And while the American people have shouldered those realities magnificently, America''s leaders too often seem to flinch from them. Every difficulty, every casualty, every reverse seems to throw Washington, D.C., into a panic-as if there had ever been a war without difficulties, without casualties, without reverses. In the war on terror, the United States has as yet suffered no defeats, except of course for 9/11 itself. But defeats may well occur, for they too are part of war, and we shudder to think how some of our leaders in their current mood will respond. We can feel the will to win ebbing in Washington; we sense the reversion to the bad old habits of complacency and denial. Throughout the 1990s, thousands of terrorists received training in the al-Qaeda camps of Afghanistan-and our government passively monitored the situation. Terrorists attacked and murdered Americans in East Africa, in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia-and America responded to these acts of war as if they were ordinary crimes. Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of its 1991 armistice-and our government from time to time fired a cruise missile into Baghdad but otherwise did little. Iran defied the Monroe Doctrine and sponsored murder in our own hemisphere, killing eighty-six people and wounding some three hundred at a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires-and our government did worse than nothing: It opened negotiations with the murderers. Mullahs and imams incited violence and slaughter against Christians and Jews-and our government failed to acknowledge that anything important was occurring. September 11 is supposed to have changed all that. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, terrorism has become the first priority of our government. Or so it is said-but is it true? The forces and the people who lulled the United States into complacency in the 1990s remain potent today, and in the wake of the victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are exerting themselves ever more boldly. With a few stalwart exceptions, such as Senator Joe Lieberman, the administration''s Democratic opponents seem ready to give up the fight altogether. They want to give up on Iraq. They denounce the Patriot Act. They condemn President Bush''s policies (in the words of Richard Gephardt) as a "miserable failure." Traveling to France in October 2003 to criticize her country, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright declared, "Bush and the people under him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world." But as to what to do instead, they say nothing, leaving the impression that they wish to do nothing. Nor is it only the president''s political opponents who seem bereft of ideas. At the State Department, there is constant pressure to return to business as usual, beginning by placating offended allies and returning to the exaggerated multilateral conceit of the Clinton administration. Generals, diplomats, and lawmakers who retired and now work for the Saudi government or Saudi companies huff and puff at the damage the war on terror is doing to the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Members of Congress complain about the cost of fighting terror. On television, respected commentators intone about quagmires and overstretch. Leading journalists deplore Muslim and European anti-Americanism in a way that implies we are its cause. If you ask them, many of these respectable characters will insist that they remain keen to wage war on terrorism. But press them a little, and it quickly becomes clear that they define "terror" very narrowly. They are eager to arrest the misfits and thugs who plant bombs and carry guns. But as for the larger networks that recruit the misfits and thugs, as for the wealthy donors who pay the terrorists'' bills, as for the governments that give terrorists aid and sanctuary, as for the larger culture of incitement and hatred that justifies and supports terror: All of that they wish to leave alone. As the inevitable disappointments and difficulties of war accumulate, as weariness with war''s costs and rigors spreads, as memories of 9/11 fade, the advocates of a weaker line against terror have pressed their timid case. Like rust and mildew, they make the most progress when they receive the least attention, for their desired policy coincides with the natural predilections of government. President Bush''s war on terror jerked our national security bureaucracy out of its comfortable routines. He demanded that the military fight new wars in new ways. He demanded that our intelligence services second-guess their familiar assumptions. He demanded that the State Department speak firmly and forcefully to those who claim to be our friends. He demanded that our public diplomacy make the case for America without apology. He demanded fresh thought and strong measures and clear language-none of which comes naturally to any part of the vast bureaucracy that Americans employ to protect the nation. All of this departure from the ordinary has generated resentment and resistance. The resisters are supported by the heavy weight of inertia, by every governmental instinct toward regularity and predictability and caution, by the bureaucracy''s profound aversion to innovation, controversy, and confrontation. And let us not forget that, for all the bravery of our soldiers, our military is a bureaucracy, too: It didn''t like being told that cavalry had to make way for the tank, and the battleship for the aircraft carrier; it doesn''t like it any better when contemporary modernizers tell it that artillery must give way to the smart missile or that conventional tactics must be reinvented for a new era. Really, it''s no wonder that those few policy makers who have urged a strong policy against terror have been called a "cabal." To the enormous majority in any government who wish to continue to do things as they have always been done, the tiny minority that dares propose anything new will always look like a presumptuous, unrealistic, intriguing faction. Taken all in all, it could well be said that we have reached the crisis point in the war on terror. The momentum of our victories has flagged. The way forward has become uncertain and the challenges ahead of us more complex. The ranks of the faint hearts are growing, and their voices are echoing ever more loudly in our media and our politics. Yet tomorrow could be the day that an explosive packed with radioactive material detonates in Los Angeles or that nerve gas is unleashed inside a tunnel under the Hudson River or that a terrible new disease breaks out in the United Kingdom. If the people responsible for the 9/11 attack could have killed thirty thousand Americans or three hundred thousand or three million, they would have done so. The terrorists are cruel, but they are not aimless. Their actions have a purpose. They are trying to rally the Muslim world to jihad against the planet''s only superpower and the principal and most visible obstacle to their ambitions. They commit terror to persuade their potential followers that their cause is not hopeless, that jihad can destroy American power. Random killings-shootings in shopping malls, bombs in trash cans-may be emotionally satisfying to the terrorists, but they are strategically useless: Two kids at Columbine did as much, and the Republic did not totter. Only truly spectacular acts of mass murder provides the propaganda the terro

Product Details

Author
David Frum, Richard Perle
Short Title
END TO EVIL
Pages
288
Publisher
Ballantine Books
Language
English
ISBN-10
0345477170
ISBN-13
9780345477170
Media
Book
Format
Mass Market Paperback
Year
2004
Publication Date
2004-10-31
Subtitle
How to Win the War on Terror
Country of Publication
United States
Residence
Washington, DC, US
Audience
General/Trade