So I realized today that I haven't posted on here for a long time, and that I haven't really had any big political discussions or arguments in about a week. So I felt like writing a post, and what better than on a pressing issue of our time and the topic of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's speech today: national security.

Ronald Reagan summed up what American national security should be in a simple phrase of three words: Peace through strength. This has been misconstrued by many liberals to mean a kind of "fake peace" constructed only by force and coercion. There was definitely peace in Auschwitz and the Soviet Union under Stalin. But this is not what Reagan meant; otherwise, he would have used the words "force" or "coercion" in place of "strength."

What Reagan meant was that the presence of enforcement will always ensure justice and peace. The United States is, and isn't, an international policeman. It is not in the sense that we do not have the responsibility (or the means) to resolve or become involved in every conflict throughout the world. But it is in a sense that virtually every conflict affects U.S. interests merely due to its huge size and tremendous influence. The Israel-Palestine conflict interests us; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons interests us; even a Chinese economic law can change our domestic stock markets. But I digress.

When the United States is subtly sitting in the background with a substantial, but fair, military force, it keeps the world in line. During the Somalia fiasco during Clinton's administration, we pulled out after eighteen casualties. Osama bin Laden pointed this out and described America as a "paper tiger." This single display of weakness set in motion the planning of a massive terrorist attack on American soil, eventually evolving into 9/11.

George W. Bush has responded to this in a way precisely the opposite of what the terrorists wanted or were expecting. In the 80s, while distracted with single-handedly toppling the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's policy towards Islamofascism was going after only the individuals or organizations responsible. During the 90s, we ignored Islamofascism completely, including half a dozen attacks on U.S. soil such as the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and several embassy bombings in the Persian Gulf region. In 2000, there was a direct attack on a U.S. naval vessel that went completely unaddressed.

Finally, in 2001, we got our policy right. We took the fight to the terrorists. George W. Bush appropriately used a horrible attack as an opportunity to wage a war on all terrorists, not just a few. He took the fight to the entire Taliban in Afghanistan rather than just Osama bin Laden. He took the fight to Iraq, a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny, not to mention a dictator who has been seeking weapons of mass destruction for over a decade and has been a U.S. military interest since the Reagan administration.

This policy has had the terrorists in complete disarray. They say that we have created terrorism; this is completely false and untrue. Terrorists have been flooding into Iraq to fight Americans, but they haven't been becoming new terrorists. This is the equivalent to the Union Army in the Civil War crossing into the South for almost all the battles. We took the fight to them. If we invaded North Carolina but all the Confederate Armies stayed in Georgia, would that do much good? Hardly. This is what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists know that if they can get us to leave and retreat as we did in Somalia (and as Obama would have us do next year), they will have a landmark victory and inspire more terrorism there and abroad.

It is the pressure Ronald Reagan exerted (via the U.S. military) that caused the Soviet collapse. It was the weakness of the Clinton administration that culminated in the weaknesses allowing for 9/11. And this will happen again if Obama is elected.

The Republican Party is not the only one in this century to have such an attitude. The Democratic Party was just as fine on foreign policy as the GOP during and after World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely used Pearl Harbor as a reason to declare war on the entire Axis of Evil, including Japan and Germany. After winning WWII in Europe, his successor Harry S Truman smartly dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that could have been lost in an invasion and quickly ending the war in the Pacific. The civilian casualties were a tragedy, but it has ultimately led to the success of a capitalist Japan that is one of the most successful nations in the Far East.

When did this change? JFK was a bridge between the old and new Democrats. JFK was known to be weak on foreign policy. This is why Kruschev put a bunch of nukes 50 miles off our coastline. JFK held a tough stance, risking nuclear war but ultimately saving us from it. But after his assassination, Democrats embraced socialism rather than feared it. Lyndon Johnson made the New Deal permanent, something FDR did not intend or want, screwing every low-class worker into government dependence that is still a major problem in this country. Social security is falling apart and will be, according to one estimate, $53 trillion in debt in a few decades.

The point is, a strong national security is necessary for American safety and security. "Diplomacy" will only get us so far, and it also implies legitimacy. We cannot sit down with Ahmadenijad because it will legitimize his tyranny. We must pressure him through economic and social means, and, if necessary, military action. Yes, military action is a last resort, but diplomacy isn't even on the list of options, nor should it be.

There can be peace throughout the world. But it depends on the strength of America. America stands for justice and freedom. And that is the force that needs to have power in the world, not Iran or North Korea or Iraq which stand for oppression and tyranny.

"We will always be prepared so that we may always be free."