Herman Cain - Homeland Security
Anatomy of World War III
In July of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing Islamic terrorism and the reality of World War III.
July 26, 2006
Anatomy of World War IIIFormer U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich makes a compelling argument in a recent opinion column that the global scope of the war against Islamic terrorists renders it the Third World War. The global conflict against Islamic terrorists does indeed confer upon it World War status. However, an examination of four factors – the enemy, the weapons used, the battlefield and motivating ideology – shows World War Three (WW III) is here, though it is fundamentally different than any war we have ever fought.
In WW III, our enemy is the irreconcilable terrorist wing of a religion – Islam – and a handful of nations that harbor terrorists and fund their activities. Those nations include Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea. In World Wars I and II our enemies were nations headed by dictatorial regimes generally bent on conquering other nations to spread their sphere of power.
The terrorists wage their warfare and disrupt western civilization from within target countries, rather than by attacks from without. We are used to fighting nations led by dictatorial regimes. In WW III, we are fighting a global ideology that is religious, economic and political. As we saw in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001 and since, the workings of the West’s economic infrastructure can be temporarily sidetracked by an attack waged from within a nation. No western nation is immune from terrorist attacks. Every nation must assist in fighting WW III if we truly seek to continue our way of life.
The weapons utilized by Islamic terrorists in WW III differ greatly from those used by our enemies in previous conflicts. While previous wars here primarily fought with bombs and bullets, WW III is being waged with suicide bombers, guerilla tactics, the Internet and media propaganda.
Internet technologies assist Islamic terrorists by providing them a means to communicate no matter where they reside. In August 2005 Washington Post reporters Steve Coll and Susan Glasser noted, “Osama bin Laden biographer Hamid Mir watched ‘every (other) al Qaeda member carrying a laptop computer along with a Kalashnikov (machine gun)’ as they prepared to scatter into hiding and exile.”
Terrorist leaders also use the Internet to raise money for their activities, recruit new members, plan attacks and provide training manuals and videos accessible to their brethren anywhere in the world. Western media outlets assist the Islamic terrorists’ mission when they often refuse to acknowledge the religious nature of their motivation, instead calling them by innocuous terms such as freedom fighters or insurgents.
It should be clear that the battlefield where the victors of WW III will be decided is not just Iraq or Iran. The battlefield is the entire world. This is a war with no defined front, in which the enemy hides and plots among us until he is ready to strike. Islamic terrorists wage attacks nearly every day in nations across the globe, yet only the most lethal receive considerable media coverage. The global nature of WW III and the ease with which our enemies can communicate via available technologies underscore the necessity for the U.S. and our allies to use nontraditional means to root our terrorists in a nontraditional war.
Our enemy in WW III is unlike any we have ever faced, as is his motivating ideology. In previous wars, our enemies fought to acquire land and power or spread a political philosophy such as communism or fascism. Today, our enemy is motivated by a unique combination of factors derived from his religious and political beliefs. Islamic terrorists are not motivated merely to acquire land and power. Instead, they are motivated by the literal reading of the Quran’s call for jihad of the sword – death to those who refuse to convert to Islam.
The enemy is further motivated by a hatred of western civilization and the religious, political and economic freedoms we fight to protect. Religious pluralism and economic prosperity for all who desire it are concepts completely foreign to the Islamic terrorist, and are principles they believe must be violently overthrown wherever possible.
A critical component of our strategy in the new war must be to secure our borders. As long as our southern border remains porous, we are laying out a welcome mat to the terrorists who want to kill us. A secure southern U.S. border and a commitment to fighting Islamic terrorists with our allies in all corners of the world will allow western civilization to prevail.
The anatomy of WW III is unlike any we have ever fought. Unfortunately, this fact has escaped too many people who believe that traditional diplomacy, appeasement and concessions to the terrorists are the keys to our success. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Terrorists understand one thing – annihilation. It’s either them or us.
CNN National Security Debate
In Novemeber of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the national security debate on CNN. He stated that he supported something called targeted identification.
BLITZER: Herman Cain, let's bring you into this conversation. Are you with Senator Santorum when he says that there should be religious profiling, that Muslims in particular should get extra screening when they go -- go through airports?
CAIN: I believe we can do a whole lot better with TSA. And I called it, targeted identification.
BLITZER: What does that mean?
CAIN: We can do -- we can do -- targeted identification. If you take a look at the people who are trying to kill us, it would be easy to figure out exactly what that identification profile looks like.
But I want -- but I want to make sure that I get to the Patriot Act. So I believe we can do a whole better. The answer, I believe, also may be privatization.
Now, relative to the Patriot Act, if there are some areas of the Patriot Act that we need to refine, I'm all for that. But I do not believe we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater for the following reason. The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us.
So we should use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first -- first.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Now, just to be precise, Mr. Cain. I just want to -- I'll give you a chance. Is it OK for Muslim Americans to get more intensive pat downs or security when they go through airports than Christian Americans or Jewish Americans?
CAIN: No, Blitz. That's oversimplifying it. I happen to believe that if -- if you allow our intelligence agencies to do their job they can come up with an approach -- I'm sorry, Blitz, I meant Wolf, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
This was -- since we on a -- since we on a blitz debate, I apologize. Wolf, what I'm saying is let's ask the professionals to give us an approach of how we can increase the identification of people that might be a danger to civilians as well as a danger to this nation.
CBS Foreign Policy Debate
In Novemebr of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. He was asked about his support for torture and discusses his support for waterboarding.
Major Garrett: I don't need to tell the people on this stage that presidential politics is interactive business. And, of course, this debate is interactive as well. And we have an email question I'm happy to say, emailed into the National Journal. And it comes from Stephen Schafroth (PH) of Odell's (PH), Oregon. And I'd like to address this question to Mr. Cain. Stephen writes, "I served on an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam War. I believe that torture is always wrong in all cases. What is your stance on torture?"
Herman Cain: I believe that following the procedures that have been established by our military, I do not agree with torture, period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.
Major Garrett: Mr. Cain, of course you're familiar with the long-running debate we've had about whether waterboarding constitutes torture or is an enhanced interrogation tech-- technique. In the last campaign, Republican nominee John McCain and Barack Obama agreed that it was torture and should not be allowed legally and that the Army Field Manual should be the methodology used to interrogate enemy combatants. Do you agree with that or do you disagree, sir?
Herman Cain: I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique.Major Garrett: And then you would support it at present. You would return to that policy.
Herman Cain: Yes, I would return to that policy. I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.