The United States once treated its enemies with deadly conviction.  In the Second World War, the nation unified to confront Japan and Germany; the car industry learned to make munitions, farm boys learned to fire mortars, and their young wives staffed the factories.

Meanwhile, Hollywood and Disney built a propaganda empire that promoted the American cause, and in popular media portrayed the Nazis and Japanese as wicked, subhuman, and alternatively ridiculous, worthy of both scorn and derision.

The actor Clark Gable spilled bombs over Germany. Literary legend Ernest Hemingway threw grenades in Nazi bunkers while serving as a war correspondent.  The enemy was identified, and Americans were taught to hate him so that he may be swiftly vanquished.

The scourge of Communism followed a similar path, but faced some internal resistance as the ideology took hold in certain elite liberal circles in the U.S., including the State Department and Army, as identified by the Hero-Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Still, no one dared forget the disgusting, sub-human enemy was the communist, and few feared to utter the word.

Today, argues Lt. General Flynn, successive U.S. administrations, especially the current one, have been unwilling to so much as provide the enemy with a name, and therefore cannot hope to build an effective narrative or strategy against it.

According to Flynn, the enemy is Radical Islam, and the cure is a pervasive information campaign that denounces Islam in its radical forms, actively promotes and supports a Muslim-led religious reformation in the Islamic world, and augments a pervasive propaganda blitz with overwhelming military defeats of Radical Islamist forces.  In essence, we must butcher the God of Radical Islam by showing would-be terrorists that He will not save them.

Flynn is no ideologue.  He is the ultimate pragmatist; he has identified a problem and seeks its solution.  Some of his specific notions are far fetched – that Cuba and Venezuela are partners in the Islamist cabal, for example.  His criticism of Pakistan’s underhandedness is noteworthy because he then fails to also criticize, or even mention, Saudi Arabia’s rampant terror financing activities.  This perhaps betrays some of the neoconservative inclinations of his co-author, Michael Ledeen.

Regardless, this is all ultimately ancillary to Flynn’s final recommendation, which would be effective if implemented.  Why doesn’t Twitter and Facebook promote stories critical of Radical Islam, instead of suppressing them?  Why do virtue-signaling celebrities decry “Islamophobia” instead of speaking out against Radical Islam’s disgusting doctrine of violence against women?  Why does U.S. academia refuse to speak out against the failure of Islamic countries to provide their people with complete, well-rounded educations, which would include at least some availability of translated English-language texts?  Instead, Islamist nations continue to drown their people in astounding rates of illiteracy, and therefore ignorance of the modern world.

Inquiring minds continue to wonder whether this country has more enemies within than without!