A Third World War by Newt Gingrich

Human Events Online ^ | July 17, 2006 | Newt Gingrich

[West Coast Conservative]

Like you, I spent the past week viewing the events in the Middle East with growing concern. In the 13 weeks that I have been bringing you my thoughts in Winning the Future, I have shared with you directly many challenges facing us. But no challenge confronting America is greater than the one I am writing about today. And no challenge requires us to be more candid and more direct about what victory will require.

As I talked about yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," I am now firmly convinced that the world confronts a situation that is frighteningly similar to a Third World War, one every bit as serious and dangerous as the two great conflicts of the 20th Century.

The recent attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel -- with the active political, financial and military support of Iran and Syria -- are just the latest acts in this war. It is a war that pits civilization and the rule of law against the dictatorships of Iran and Syria and the terrorist groups of Hezbollah and Hamas that they support. It is also a war that pits civilized nations against Islamic terrorist groups around the world, including, most significantly (but not exclusively), the al Qaeda network.

In the United States, we refer to this struggle as the "Global War on Terror". Yet, I believe this label fails to capture the nature and scale of the threat faced by civilization.

The nature of the threat -- with Iran at the epicenter -- is at its core ideological. The threat to the United States is an ideological wing of Islam that is irreconcilable to modern civilization as we know it throughout most of the world.

[L,TOWM]

Fortunately, this world war is against a bunch of pantywaist Moveon.org, Code Pink, the NY Times, and assorted gutless, nutless infidels, like that Kerry imbecile.

Just giving you a little perspective from the OPFOR's POV.

We may have the best military in history, but without the will to properly use it, that makes us look a lot weaker to any potential enemies.

Including the goat buggering Islamics.

[SandwicheGuy]

This is NOT WW3 or WW 4 or the Apocalypse or whatever. OK everyone? This is vermin control or international gang warfare.

Nukes is the difference. Nice rant through.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[schu]

It was a nice rant!

IMHO, there are three factors which make this WW III (or IV)

1. Nukes as previously stated

2. Oil

3. Global economy

The jihadists are fully capable of destroying or dramatically damaging our way of life by using terrorist tactics and/or the above as factors as weapons.

It is possible that Islam is the core problem, but Iran, Saudi etc are brainwashing people everyday with the hate-the-west/jihadist mentality. Until the mentality is changed, terrorism will remain and our way of life threatened.

FWIIW, schu

[blackie]

"Go figure..."

Judgemental folks need to take their own inventory.

I've been married three times; it took a little time for me to become housebroke ~ we just celebrated 43 years of wonderful marriage.

[ZULU]

"The threat to the United States is an ideological wing of Islam that is irreconcilable to modern civilization as we know it throughout most of the world."

I.E. Islam PERIOD.

[jpl]

Everbody implicitly understands that this current world war is significantly different from the first two world wars, because the current wave of psychopaths infesting the world are quite simply incapable of that style of disciplined military combat for any extended period of time. Guerilla warfare has been the preferred tactic of the weaker side for a long time now.

But the differences in tactics shouldn't fool anyone; their goals remain more or less the same as any major worldwide fascist movement throughout history.

[ZULU]

"Not by speeches and majority resolutions are the great questions of the day decided .............but by blood and iron." Otto von Bismarck.

[GOP_1900AD]

The problem no one wants to address is that behind all of this and underpinning both the Western (lack of) will and the so called rogue nations are two immense nation states who have minimal rule of law, do not conform with the Western branch of Judeo Christian philosophy, not only don't follow but utterly despise English Common Law and generally hate the West. They are China and Russia. So long as we lack the will to truly confront them, this crap will continue and may spiral out of control.

[gregwest]

It is not foolishness to believe that this "current wave of psychopaths infesting the world" are capable of fomenting sufficient chaos to instigate conflict between the major powers.

The strategic and economic importance of Iran and Korea should not be underestimated. The West as well as Russia and China know that the delicate geopolitical balance that maintains the peace can be toppled by the Islamofascists. China and Russia are opportunists, biding their time. When the United States is perceived as being too undecisive or too weak to act decisively, they will make their move on the Middle East and Asia. Then we will face armies, navies, and air forces that are capable of disciplined military combat.

This is why the cancer of liberalism is so dangerous. In the midst of mortal danger, liberals blur the lines between truth and falsehood, bind our leaders with legalistic stratagems, and seek to weaken our resolve. This is why these events are transpiring in our day. It is not happenstance. The test that comes to us is whether we have the moral clarity to make right decisions and act with conviction.

[GOP_1900AD]

I would have been saying, starting in about 1923:
1) 1923: Assassinate Stalin, attack the USSR head on
2) 1931: An immediate and massive war effort to contain Japanese aggression in NE Asia.
3) 1933: Embargo of Germany
4) 1935: Invasion of Italy in response to African aggression
5) 1936: MOU with Franco to render no support to Communist orgs in return for distancing from Hitler
6) 1936: All out war on Germany

There you have it, WW2 all done in 1937.

[Wonder Warthog]

"t would only take one nuclear warhead or potent chemical attack, to inflict incalculable loss of life and damage to property. "

Malarkey. No single attack can do "incalculable loss of life and damage to property". Cause a lot of damaged nerves,yes, and pretty major economic damage, but the US is simply too big and dispersed to be significantly effected by the type attack you describe.

[rjmeagle]

Cut me a break. A single nuclear attack on a major city can do incalculable damage. A biological attack can kill thousands if not more. The point of the discussion was that IF a terrorist organization or rogue state obtained these kind of weapons, it can be devastating if they use it. I did not say it would mean the end of our country. You are reading more into this than what I wrote.

We can postulate all kinds of devastating scenarios, but I am not going too. If you read the entire thread in which I responded, I was reacting to underestimating the POTENTIAL capability of a terrorist or rogue state if they obtained WMDs.

[ConservativeMind]

I agree with you. And that concerns me...

[Wonder Warthog]

""Cut me a break. A single nuclear attack on a major city can do incalculable damage. A biological attack can kill thousands if not more. The point of the discussion was that IF a terrorist organization or rogue state obtained these kind of weapons, it can be devastating if they use it."

Sorry, but no. A single nuclear attack on a major city would do about the damage that Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans (not, please note, the TOTAL damage that Katrina did--Katrina affected a far larger area than would a nuke)--though the number of deaths would be significantly higher. And this would also be a "real nuke"---NOT a "dirty bomb"--which would do about as much damage as a chemical attack. And your original post specified "nuclear and chemical"---NOT biological--which is the one category that CAN do a large amount of damage with a small "input".

My background--PhD (Chemistry), minor (Nucelar Science). Current occupation--designing instrumentation to detect biological attacks. So this is an area where I "am" an expert.

The kind of attacks that terrorists can pull off can be best be characterized as "painful" but not "devastating". As with all "terror" attacks, the biggest damage would be psychological.

I want the Islamofascist nutcases terminated just as badly as you do---but please, lets stick to REALISTIC assessments of possibilities.

[Marine_Uncle]

I support all MJ wrote in thread #13.
One must study the historicity of this region as well as stay current in all the nuicences of each given ME country as core themes they culturaly/religiously adhere to, are modulated by changing conditions.
There is nothing new that has happened in the geopolitcal spectrum of the ME. Newt on this one is simply a blow hard IMHO. There is no WW3 going on in any shape or form.
Only the expected and projected regional flare ups.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Newt missed WWIII with deferments. Now he's too old and fat to serve in WWIV.

[rjmeagle]

I want the Islamofascist nutcases terminated just as badly as you do---but please, lets stick to REALISTIC assessments of possibilities.

Impressive background. I had worked in DOD on MAD doctrine back in the 80s so I have a little experience in this area as well. Without getting too deep into a discussion on this, what if a rogue nation or its surrogate gains control of a 20 megaton or greater warhead and managed to detonate via "air-burst" (assuming they have delivery capability) in either NYC (our financial & economic center) or Washington DC (our political & military center)? This is all "What If" that we can both agree we hope will never happen however, too many times throughout history, we ignored what could happen based on what did happen historically at our own risk and peril (I also have a degree in both history & political science). To be honest this discussion has gone further than I intended. I was making a short comment and not intending to type a dissertation on the subject.

You had said "let's stick to realistic assessments". Well, in my view this is a realistic possibility not without venturing as to the probability of it happening. Just because its possible, doesn't mean its probable. There are a host of variables that would have to occur before it became probable, but in order to keep probability down, we must first postulate that it can happen within the realm of possibility before we can prepare to defend and interdict against it. A case in point is why didn't we have some kind of risk assessment and interdiction system in place for what happened on 09/11? Was there any thought pre-9/11 to the possibility of this happening? If there was, what was the probability of it happening? Did this fall within the realm of realistic possibility/probability pre-9/11?

I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the islamofascists, but unless we start understanding what could happen (possibility), then it is probable that we are going to be unpleasantly surprised. Look at the Left in this country. How soon they forget and how quickly they have their collective head in the sand. We must educate the citizens of our country and of the world about just how dangerous our world is and how much more dangerous it can become.

[Peisistratus]

"Utterly absurd nonsense. Man who fed Gingrich the stupid pill?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627625/posts

The President's absolutely right, BTW. This is a war. It's a world war.

[MNJohnnie]

Fredrick the Great said it best.

"He who defends everything defends nothing."

Any US National Strategy has to focus on what can be done and what is the plausible enemy counter. The US Government has enacted the reasonable prudent defense to protect ourselves from the Terrorist threat. What we cannot do is eliminate every possible threat to ourselves. Life is dangerous, not one can make it risk free. What we CAN do is limit the probable dangers to us

What we cannot do is destroy any nation that MAY pose a threat to us. That is basically the argument of the "It's World War 3" crowd. They simply are arguing for an an American Imperial World Order. To their minds we should simply go destroy every nation that may possibly pose a threat to us.

The American public lack the both the political consensus and the necessary emotional ruthlessness to impose such a totalitarian solution on the world. Not only that, the current threat in no way comes even remotely close enough to make such an action morally justifiable. The Terrorists nations do not command the economic, military or political threat to our national survival that both the Sovs and the Nazis posed. The Terrorist states do not have the ability to destroy the USA while we all ready have the military power to totally eliminate them at any time. WE do control the world's large nuclear arsenal. We ARE referred to as the LONE Superpower for a reason.

So since we lack the political will to destroy ALL threats, we must accept what can be done within the limitations on our power. The idea that some how if we scream "It World War 3" we will convince the badly fractured American public, who all ready are expressing grave doubts about the current costs of the liberation Iraq, to support the additional costs in blood and treasure to conquer North Korea, Iran and Syria is simply ridiculous.

What we CAN do is the same thing we did in with the Soviet Union. Contain the threat while we use our economic and diplomatic power over time to aid those native forces friendly to our interests to remake those societies. It not as dramatic as screaming "Its World War 3" and getting all emotionally charged up, it IS however a politically, economically and militarily feasible way to address the problem of terrorist states. It not as dramatic and quick as the "It's World War 3" crowd would like but it DOES have the virtue of actually being doable.