Dick Cheney on War & Peace Vice President of the United States under George W. Bush

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Iraq War
• Other issues under War & Peace

Prevent next 9-11 by going on offense in Afghanistan & Iraq

We also had to realize that defending the homeland would require going on the offense. Relying only on defense was insufficient. The terrorists had to break through our defenses onl one time to have devastating consequences. We needed to go after them where they lived in order to prevent attacks before they were launched.

Although we had discussed Iraq earlier in the day, I also took time now to say that Afghanistan, where the 9/11 terrorists had trained and plotted, should be first. I believed it was important to deal with the threat Iraq posed, but not until we had an effective plan for taking down the Taliban and denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan.

We lost sight of goal of non-nuclear North Korea

Should have destroyed North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria

That is why I argued that we should have taken action ourselves to destroy the North Korean-built nuclear reactor in the Syrian desert. It would have sent an unmistakable message to the Syrians, the Iranians and the North Koreans that our words meant something, that we would not tolerate the proliferation of nuclear technology.

2001: Counseled attacking Iraq after Afghanistan

Colin cautioned against it. "We would lose the UN, the Islamic countries, and NATO. If we want to do Iraq, we should do it at a time of our choosing. But we should not do it now, because we don't have linkage to this event."

Dick Cheney understood the threat of Saddam Hussein and believed we had to address it. "But now is not a good time to do it," he said. "We would lose our momentum. Right now people have to choose between the US and the bad guys."

I welcomed the vigorous debate. Unless I received definitive evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 plot, I would work to resolve the Iraq problem diplomatically. I hoped unified pressure by the world might compel Saddam to meet his international obligations. The best way to show him we were serious was to succeed in Afghanistan.

1994: If we take out Saddam, Iraq breaks up into quagmire

2003: American troops will be greeted as liberators

2005: Iraq is in the last throes of the insurgency

2003: Iraq occupation will last weeks rather than months

OpEd: Saw 9/11 as an opportunity to take out Saddam

Now most of them believed the Iraq threat was serious, and that played a large role in my willingness to go along with, if not necessarily wholeheartedly embrace, the decision to confront Saddam militarily.

The campaign to sell the war didn't begin in earnest until the fall of 2002. But, as I would later come to learn, Pres. Bush had decided to confront the Iraqi regime several months earlier. Cheney & Rumsfeld saw 9/11 as an opportunity to go after Saddam Hussein, take out his regime, eliminate a threat, and make the Middle East more secure. And Bush agreed.

On 9/11, said no Saddam-al-Qaeda link; but yes by Dec. 2001

2002: Saddam is a madman pursuing nuclear weapons

Cheney pushed the envelope even more by bringing up the most fearful scenario of a madman seeking nuclear weapons. "This is a man of great evil, as the president said," Cheney said on CNN's Late Edition. "And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time, and we think that's cause for concern for us and for everybody in the region."

PlameGate: discredit Niger report by revealing CIA operative

The point of mentioning Plame was to dispel once and for all the notion that Cheney had somehow arranged Wilson's mission to Niger. It also carried with it a whiff of nepotism.

But the charge of possible nepotism wasn't the reason the colum caused an explosion. Rather, it was the first time the name Valerie Plame had appeared in print along with the words "agency operative." By revealing Plame's status, the columnist, Robert Novak, inadvertently elevated the Niger controversy into a full-blown scandal.

Intentionally disclosing the name of a covert CIA officer to an individual not authorized to know it, such as a reporter, is a felony. Novak evidently didn't recognize the seriousness of publishing Plame's identity.

OpEd: VP's office knowingly misled public about PlameGate

As for what Rove and Libby told me when I was asked to publicly exonerate them, I can only conclude that they knowingly misled me. All objective observers agree that what I said on their behalf was false; they were in fact involved in anonymously disclosing her identity--or leaking it--to some reporters. And I stated publicly at the time that my comments were based on personal assurances given to me by Karl and Scooter. I said they had "assured me they were not involved" in the leaking of classified information. I would never had made that statement had known the facts above.

Adopted Kissinger’s “Victory is the only exit strategy”

Kissinger supported the Iraq war, but increasingly saw it through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out. He claimed that the US had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress. In The Washington Post on 8/12/05, Kissinger wrote, “ Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.” [A few months later], the administration issued a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” It was right out of the Kissinger playbook. The only meaningful exit strategy would be victory.

Terrorist enemy’s hatred of us is limitless

Sept. 11th, 2001, made clear the challenges we face. On that day we saw the harm that could be done by 19 men armed with knives and boarding passes. America also awakened to a possibility even more lethal: this enemy, whose hatred of us is limitless, armed with chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons.

Just as surely as the Nazis during World War Two and the Soviet communists during the Cold War, the enemy we face today is bent on our destruction. As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win. Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander in chief, we will prevail.

US beat communism because of leadership & military force

Cheney described Churchill as the first author to have had a profound impact on him. Churchill’s six-volume history of World War II impressed upon Cheney the point that leadership in world affairs is about recognizing dangers and confronting them rather than wishing them away. “The reason that the twentieth century ended with the forces of communism and fascism defeated and with capitalism and democracy increasing as the political and economic models people aspire to,” Cheney would say, “is due in no small part to US leadership backed by military force.

Most dire view of terrorist threat of all Bush advisers

Of all the president’s advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most dire view of the terrorist threat. On Iraq, Bush was the decision maker. But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity. Beginning in Aug. 2002, he persistently warned that Saddam was stocking up on chemical and biological weapons, and in March 2003, on the eve of the invasion, he declared that “we believe that he Saddam Hussein has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Cheney later said that he meant “program,” not “weapons.” He also said, a bit optimistically, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”) After seven months, investigators are still looking for that arsenal of WMD.

More "U.N.ery" just gives Saddam the chance to mess around

There were also persistent reports of problems re Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing for much more robust, less UN-related lines. Bush speech had gone down well and seemed to shift opinion around the place but they were arguing for such a tough UNSCR that it would not be acceptable to anyone.

OpEd: Says "democratization" but world fears Americanization

I said to Bush I felt they had to GET this anti-Americanism. A lot of it was jealousy and some of it resentment that they felt obliged to feel sympathy and solidarity post-September 11. But some of it was just fear of their power. When I said we were worried about some of the language they used, Cheney looked pissed off and said 'You mean we shouldn't talk about democracy?' I said not if what people take out of it is not a message about democracy but a message about Americanism. Bush seemed to get it.

OpEd: Polarized policy debate into Powell vs. Rumsfeld

Bush's Middle East [policy seemed] too consumed with the squabbles and struggles within the government, particularly Powell v. Cheney/Rumsfeld than in really thinking through a plan on the Middle East. Also, truth be told, Bush had a surer touch on domestic than international. I pointed out that Bush calling for the Palestinians to reject Arafat was the surest way to ensure a boost for Arafat.

Skeptical about Arafat's commitment and ability

Need leadership and trust to make progress in Mideast

LIEBERMAN: America has a national strategic and a principled interest in peace in the Middle East. Al Gore has played a critical role in advancing that process. These peoples have come centuries forward in the last seven years. I pray that the unrest in the last week will not make it hard for them to go back to the peace table. We’ve been on a very constructive course in the Middle East, played a unique role, and Al Gore and I will continue to do that.

CHENEY: We made significant breakthroughs at the end of the Bush administration because of the Gulf War. By virtue of the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were no longer a factor. My guess is that the next administration is going to have to come to grips with the current state of affairs. I think it’s very important that we have a president with firm leadership who has the kind of track record of dealing straight with people, so that friends respect us and adversaries fear us.

Serbs deserve credit - Russia and US should support them

CHENEY: I hope it marks the end of Milosevic. It’s a victory for the Serbian people. This is a continuation of a process that began 10 years ago all across Eastern Europe, and it’s only now arrived in Serbia. We saw it in Germany, we saw it in Romania, we saw it in Czechoslovakia, as the people of Eastern Europe rose up and made their claim for freedom. We want to do everything we can to support Milosevic’s departure. Certainly, though, that would not involve committing U.S. troops. Governor Bush suggested that we ought to try to get the Russians involved to exercise some leverage over the Serbians and Al Gore pooh-poohed it. But now it’s clear from the press that in fact that’s exactly what they were doing. This is an opportunity for the U.S. to test President Putin of Russia, whether or not he’s willing to support the forces of freedom in the area of Eastern Europe.

Iran: against sanctions; makes oil deals there

Gulf War results: stable Arabs; secure Israel; confident US

Saddam Hussein’s offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated. This is a very significant development.

Israel, I think, from a military standpoint is more secure today than she’s been at any time in the recent past because of the elimination of Iraq’s offensive military threat. A very significant development.

I think would-be aggressors, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere around the world, have to pause and reflect before they contemplate the possibility that aggression is a course that holds rewards for them. A significant development.

Critical of Israeli policy which opposes US interests

Cheney noted that he has tried to listen to all sides involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. During one month, he met with [leaders of Israel, Jordan, & Egypt]. Cheney vows to “argue as persuasively as I know how” with his former colleagues on Capitol Hill to adopt a “more balanced policy” in terms of improving relations with Arab nations.

Supports balance in supplying arms to both Israel & Arabs

Supported 1986 Libya bombing

Israel: Displeased with 1982 invasion of Lebanon

Outraged that Israel spied on US in 1980s

Mideast peace process must include Palestinian statehood

Cheney, whose prognosis then has proven to be correct, is scarcely less pessimistic about the Middle East seven years later. “You’re talking about animosities that go back centuries,” Cheney said recently in Wyoming. “It’s not an area where you can anticipate that overnight there’s going to be some solution and everybody’s going to say, ‘Great, peace has arrived.’ This requires tough, hard, day-to-day efforts to maintain momentum for peaceful resolution of the conflicts in that part of the world. You cannot expect, given the track record, any quick and easy results.”

Opposed ground troops in Bosnia

2000: UN & CIA concluded that Saddam had WMDs

There were also by this time sixteen UN Security Council resolutions aimed at mitigating the danger arising from Iraq. Saddam repeatedly violated them, ignoring requirements related to WMD as well as those that had to do with terrorism. Resolution 687, passed in 1991, had declared that Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. But in 1993 the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) attempted to assassinate former Pres. George H. W. Bush, and throughout the 1990s, the IIS participated in terrorist attacks.

Post-9-11 no president could ignore reports of Saddam's WMDs

For a period extending back to the first Gulf War, the US intelligence community had been providing detailed assessments concerning Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, carry on biological and chemical weapons programs, and support terror. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was a continuation of earlier evaluations, and sobering as its judgments were, what the president and I read in our daily briefings was even "more assertive," as Director Tenet would later write.

After 9/11 no American president could responsibly ignore the steady stream of reporting we were getting about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We had experienced an unprecedented attack on our homeland [killing] 3,000 Americans.

Even with benefit of hindsight Saddam was nexus of terrorism

When we looked around the world in those first months after 9/11, there was no place more likely to be a nexus between terrorism and WMD capability than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight--even taking into account that some of the intelligence we received was wrong--that assessment still holds true. We could not ignore the threat or wish it away, hoping naively that the crumbling sanctions regime would contain Saddam. The security of our nation and of our friends and allies required that we act. And so we did.

1992: stay out of Baghdad; 2002: invade Baghdad

Many conservatives may wish that Vice President Dick Cheney had paid closer attention to the warnings by then-secretary of defense Cheney, since several of the answers to the questions of what went wrong in Iraq can be found in Cheney's 1992 statement. It did not matter that most leaders in American and across the world believed Saddam had WMD. The fact that those weapons were never found crippled the Bush White House politically.

2003: Accused of falsifying Niger uranium to justify Iraq

Wilson added in an interview that he was "absolutely convinced" that the vice president's office had received "a very specific response" based on his trip.

The vice president's office disputed the notion that Cheney must have known about Wilson's findings. "The vice president's office did not request the mission to Niger. The vice president was not aware of Wilson's mission."

OpEd: Used fear of terrorism to intensify war sloganeering

It is shocking how little Congress or the media challenged the Bush administration. That is not too far-removed from the way the tragedy in Vietnam unfolded 40 years earlier. Unlike Vietnam, however--which did not represent vital strategic security interests for America--the war in Iraq and its consequences are playing out against a backdrop of the world's largest reserves of petroleum, and the contagion of a virulent strain of religious fanaticism that threatens to inflame the entire Middle East.

Our new strategy in Iraq has succeeded by careful planning

Aug.’02: “No doubt” that Saddam had WMD (later proven wrong)

Had Cheney told Bush, “Yes, you’ve got to do it?” Tenet had never been in the room when that happened, but he believed Cheney was privately pressuring Bush, arguing strongly for was as the only solution to the Saddam Hussein problem.

On Aug. 26, Cheney said in a public speech, “There is no doubt that Saddam now has WMD. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

In Jan. 2003, a White House spokesperson said, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” On Feb. 8, Bush said, “Saddam Hussein recently authorized the use of chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

Pushed Saddam-al Qaeda connection but CIA & Powell disagreed

Powell was to make the WMD intelligence case for war to the UN. Cheney wanted him to look at the Saddam-al Qaeda link. Powell thought the link didn’t exist and he refused to include it in his speech.

After Powell’s UN speech, Cheney wanted to give his own speech making the charge [that Powell had omitted]. Tenet was upset. If Cheney gives the speech, Tenet told Bush, the CIA cannot and will not stand behind it. Bush backed Tenet and told Cheney not to give the speech.

Mar.’03: “Greeted as liberators”; no need for 100,000 troops

The opposition to the study’s author was described as coming from “a group of about five people” in Cheney’s office--“a cabal”, one army colonel reported. Another Pentagon officer said, “it was the vice president” [who suppressed the dissenting discussion].

Three days before the start of the war, on March 16 2003, Cheney predicted, “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” The interviewer said that Congressional testimony indicated that the post-war phase would likely require more troops. “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, I don’t think that is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement,” Cheney said.

Post-9-11 philosophy: two-generation war starts with Iraq

Copies of the memo, straight from the neoconservative playbook, pleased Cheney, and it had a strong impact on President Bush, causing him to focus on the "malignancy" of the Middle East. Rice found it "very, very persuasive." Summarizing their conclusions, DOD analysts said, "We're facing a 2-generation war. And start with Iraq."

OpEd: Chose Iraq as first target & permanent military base

This dependence on military force to expand America's influence and other recent deviations from traditional values have dramatically reduced the attractiveness of our political, cultural, and religious offerings to the world.

OpEd: repeatedly made false statements to incite Iraq War

Although the deceptiveness of these statements was later revealed, the die was cast, and most of our trusting citizens were supportive of the war. Exaggerated claims of catastrophe from nonexistent weapons of mass destruction kept the fears alive, with Cheney repeatedly making false statement, such as, "Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of war."

There is little wonder that, at least for a few months, fearful American citizens and members of Congress supported the unnecessary war.

2001: Success in Iraq would be a blow to 9/11 terrorists

FactCheck: Oct. 2002 vote for appropriate force, not for war

FACT CHECK: Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted “for the war” and “to commit the troops,” when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy. The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.” And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies: In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote “for war” at the time.

FactCheck: Iraqi portion of losses is 38%, not “almost 50%”

CHENEY: The 90% figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well a the allies, they’ve taken almost 50% of the casualties in operations in Iraq , which leaves the US with 50%, not 90%.

FACT CHECK: Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark. Edwards is correct counting only “coalition” forces-those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That’s just over 88% of the coalition deaths. For Iraqi security forces, estimates put the figure at 750, producing a total of 1,955. Of that, the Iraqi portion is 38% (not “almost 50%” as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.

FactCheck: Cheney DID suggest connection between Iraq & 9/11

FACT CHECK: The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often “skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers,” especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.

Cheney would ‘recommend’ Iraq war again

CHENEY: What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action.

Questioned on link between al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein

A: Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director’s testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship. The effort that we’ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Never suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11

CHENEY: I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that’s the place where you’re most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years. Edwards and Kerry have got a very limited view about how to use US military forces to defend America.

We’ve made significant progress in Iraq

CHENEY: We’ve made significant progress in Iraq. We’ve stood up a new government that’s been in power now only 90 days. The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic government. They’re well on their way to doing that. They will have free elections next January for the first time in history. We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security responsibility.

Sending more troops won’t solve the problems in Iraq

1991: None in Bush administration wanted to push to Baghdad

All these officials reflected the considerable caution and conservatism of American foreign policy during that era: no one was seeking to remake the political institutions of the Middle East. Merely dispatching American troops to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was considered as adventurous as anyone wanted to be. At the time marching on Baghdad was thought to be militarily risky and politically unwise since it would go beyond the original war aim of ousting Iraq from Kuwait.

Above all, going to Baghdad was also considered unnecessary, since most officials in Washington believed, erroneously, that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown after losing the war.

Biggest threat comes from WMD and from Saddam

After Sept. 11, it was clear to Cheney that the threat from terrorism had grown enormously. First, the standard of proof would have to be lowered-irrefutable smoking-gun evidence would not have to be required for the US to defend itself. Second, defense alone wasn’t enough. They needed an offense.

The most serious threat now facing the US was a nuclear weapon or a biological or chemical agent in the hands of a terrorist inside the country’s borders. And everything, in his view, had to be done to stop it. “The vice president, after 9/11, clearly saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace,” Bush said. “And was unwavering in his view that Saddam was a real danger.”

UN inspections would not reduce WMD threat

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us,” including “an aggressive nuclear weapons program.“ Ten days earlier, the president himself had said only that Hussein ”desires“ these weapons. Neither Bush nor the CIA had made any assertion comparable to Cheney’s.

Cheney also said that these weapons in the hands of a ”murderous dictator“ are ”as great a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.“ These remarks, just short of a declaration of war, were widely interpreted as administration policy.

Contradicted Powell and sought to connect Saddam and 9/11

It was about the worst charge that Powell could make about the vice president. But there it was. Cheney would take an intercept and say it shows something was happening. No, no, no, Powell or another would say, it shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a “We know.” Well, Powell concluded, we didn’t know. No one knew.

WMD inspections makes decision to take out Saddam harder

Pre-war planning: once the war starts, Saddam is “toast”

Cheney replied, “Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.”

After Bandar had left, Rumsfeld voiced some concern about the “toast” remark. “What was that all about, Dick?”

“I didn’t want to leave any doubt in his mind what we’re planning to do,“ Cheney said.

[The next day, to Bush], Bandar said, ”People are not going to shed tears over Saddam Hussein, but if he’s attacked one more time by America and he stays in power after you’ve finished this, yes, everybody will follow his word.“ The problem would be if Hussein survived. The Saudis needed assurance that Hussein was going to be toast. Bush said, ”The message [from Cheney that] you’re taking is mine, Bandar.“

Sticking to story about Saddam/Al Qaeda connection

To his hawkish eyes, a lone pair of souped-up flatbed trucks are “conclusive evidence” of Saddam’s WMD, and a memo that the Pentagon has labeled “inaccurate” provides, according to Cheney, “overwhelming evidence” that the former Butcher of Baghdad and Osama bin Laden had an “established relationship.”

He even persists in serving up that thoroughly moldy chestnut about head-hijacker Mohammed Atta hooking up with an Iraqi spy in Prague, despite the fact that the FBI has long since concluded that Atta was actually tooling around Florida in a rental car at the time of the alleged meeting.

Saddam had intent to create WMD

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror

Freedom still has enemies in Iraq. These terrorists are targeting the very success and the freedom that we’re providing for the Iraqi people.

Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we are rolling back the terrorist threat at the heart of its power. We are striking aggressively at the terrorists in Iraq, defeating them there, so we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities.

We are calling on other nations to help Iraqis build a free country, which will make all of us more secure. We are standing with the Iraqi people as they assume more responsibilities for their own security and self-government. These are not easy tasks, but they are absolutely essential. We will finish what we have begun, and we will win this essential victory in the war on terror.

UN made itself irrelevant by irresoluteness on Iraq

Rice agreed. The UN had become too much like the post-World War I League of Nations-a debating society with no teeth. They all agreed that the president should not go to the UN to ask for a declaration of war.

Cheney argued that to ask for a new resolution would put them back in the soup of the UN process-hopeless, endless & irresolute. All the president should say is that Hussein is bad, has willfully violated, ignored and stomped on the UN resolutions of the past, and the US reserves its right to act unilaterally.

US too soft on Iraq

Extend international order friendly to our security.

Conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

1. we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
2. we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
3. we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
4. we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.