My only problem with this is calling the war on terror WWIII. I would consider that the cold war and this WWIV.
Just being nitpicky, I guess. Don't know who gets to decide these things.
Dittos, Admiral Woolsey would agree...
I would argue that the entire 20th century was in effect, one long continuous war, starting in 1914 with the collapse of the old European order, followed by a 20-year armistace, followed by the six-year hell of "WW II," which was then follwed by the 50-year Cold War. In each case, the renewed hostilities grew out of unresolved issues from the previous ones. At root, it pitted authoritarian/totalitarian political systems against self-determining democracies and republics. Freedom triumphed, but at enormous costs, both economic and social. I would appropriate the term "Great War", now used to refer solely to the first 4 years of it, and apply it to the entirety of that titanic struggle.
The new "War on Terror," although pre-saged by other incidents, started on September 11, 2001 and is somewhat different; it largely grew out of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1947 and reflects the Islamic Third World's resentment of their inferior economic and cultural status. It is a wholly new and different type of war, so much so that many supposedly intelligent commentators actually question whether it's a war at all.