what his advisers say and to decide, sometimes, that all of them are wrong. HermanCain obviously lacks that knowledge and understanding. And so, quite apparently, doesMitt Romney.In an interview with him after his failed 2008 campaign, Romney convinced me of hisgood intentions, intelligence, and sincerity. But I could not avoid concluding that hedidn't have an independent base of knowledge of national security and foreign affairs.In last week's CNN national security debate, Newt Gingrich said many things that sethim apart from the rest.Defending the Patriot Act against a Paulist tirade, Gingrich said "I don't want a law thatsays after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I wanta law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you."While Romney, Perry, and Cain fumbled around the wisdom of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan--all embracing some form of nation-building--Gingrich said we should befurious with Pakistan for harboring Osama bin Laden. He said that if we are to keeptroops in Afghanistan we need to put the military in charge, and tell the Pakistanis toeither cooperate or get out of the way.Gingrich was also the only candidate clear on Iran. On sanctioning the Iran CentralBank, he said, "I think it's a good idea if you're serious about stopping them havingnuclear--I mean, I think replacing the regime before they get a nuclear weaponwithout a war beats replacing the regime with war, which beats allowing them to havea nuclear weapon. Those are your three choices."Mitt Romney proposed indicting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for violating the GenocideConvention. Seriously? Is that the depth of Romney's thinking?Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that the only grownup in theroom is Newt Gingrich. He has lectured at the National War College for abouttwentyyears. He is the only one of the eight contenders who won't require on-the-job trainingon defense and national security.Gingrich is the only presidential contender who has addressed the issue of militaryspending in correct terms. In his new "21stCentury Contract with America," Gingrichwrites: “We need to be able to discuss the threats that face us in a clear andopen manner. The courage to be free is only sustained by the moralcapacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be calledby name, we will not be able to deter--or even recognize--threatsto our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our values, then we won't be able to mobilize the spirit necessary todefend America.… We need a new strategy that is as decisive andcomprehensive as our bold and unprecedented response to the rise of the Soviet threat after World War II. It will streamline our security,intelligence and diplomatic departments, and recapitalize our militaryinfrastructure."