In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read Chapter 9: "An Example of Real Change and a Failure to Change: Giuliani's New York City versus Iraq as Contrasts in Change Leadership".
Rudy Giuliani, Newt essentially argues that Mayor Giuliani of New York
City and Boston police chief Bill Bratton developed strategies that
dramatically brought down the crime rate in New York City. Critics have
maintained that Giuliani does not deserve all or any of the credit for
this decrease in crime. I've heard some say that Giuliani's police
chief brought down the crime rate. Others maintain that the national
crime bill that passed under President Bill Clinton brought down crime
on a national level, including in New York City.
Newt himself does not assert that Giuliani deserves all
of the credit. After all, Newt states on page 104 that "thanks to the
efforts of Mayor David Dinkins [who was Giuliani's Democratic
predecessor], there would be 4,000 more policemen joining the force..."
But I agree with Newt that Giuliani deserves some credit. On
page 104, Newt talks about how Giuliani and Bratton proposed for
anti-drug units to work at night, which was when the drug dealers
worked. That sounds like a reasonable way to fight drug crimes.
interested me in my reading of Newt's commentary on Iraq was how Newt
and the advocates for the policies that he criticized had some of the
same goals. At least that's my impression. Both did not want for the
Americans to appear to be imperial aggressors or occupiers in Iraq.
Newt, for example, praises White House envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for
attempting to organize an interim Iraqi government consisting of Iraqis,
but Newt believes that these efforts were obstructed when American
bureaucrats entered the picture and botched up attempts to rebuild the
But I think that even those Newt criticizes did not
want for America to be seen as an unwelcome and imperialistic presence
in Iraq. Newt acknowledges that a small number of troops were able to
topple Saddam Hussein in an effective manner, but he believes that more
American troops were needed to help Iraq rebuild and to keep the country
safe. Those who supported keeping the number of American troops in
Iraq low, however, did so because they did not want for Americans to
become tied down in the region (as occurred in Vietnam), and perhaps
also because they did not desire to appear imperialistic. Newt
criticizes the American Army in Iraq for focusing on the training of
Iraqi soldiers rather than countering insurgents, but those who
emphasized the training of Iraqi soldiers probably did so because they
wanted for Iraqis to take charge of their own country and security so
that Americans would not have to run the country, creating resentment
among Iraqis who would see Americans as occupiers.