My suggestion is the "War with the Neanderthals".
Posted on 08/04/2006 10:34:51 PM PDT by neverdem
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently that “we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war.” Citing fresh examples of North Korean belligerency, Islamic terrorism in India, ongoing fighting in Afghanistan, insurgency in Iraq, support for Hezbollah terrorism by Iran and Syria, the related fighting between Israel and Lebanon, and the arrests of terrorists aspiring to murder Americans, Gingrich analogized the current state of affairs to the Great War and World War II.
In politics, the term “war” is sometimes used metaphorically in ways that do not shed precise light on the problem at hand—see the “wars” on drugs and poverty, for example. To call something a “World War,” though, is to draw direct, evocative and controversial comparisons. There are arguments for and against using the term “World War III” as Gingrich did.
One argument against the term is that today’s enemy is not of the type we faced in World Wars I and II. In those wars, there was a relatively precise definition of the enemy: those countries who were in alliance against us were our enemies. In this war, the definition of “enemy” is markedly imprecise. The Bush administration has defined its enemy as a nexus of terrorists, state sponsors of terrorism, and purveyors of dangerous weapons. America’s enemy is commonly referred to as a “network”—an informal collection of states and terrorist groups. In Afghanistan, we are fighting the remnants of the Taliban government and the al-Qaeda terrorist group. In Iraq, we fight against a Ba’athist-Jihadi alliance. We are right now using diplomatic means to deal with Iran, the patron government of Hezbollah, and with North Korea, a major proliferation threat. We conduct maritime interdiction operations to stop terrorist traffic on the high seas while working against the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and against Chechen and Arab terrorists in Georgia. Even with all this, questions remain unanswered: Are all terrorist groups our enemies? What does this mean for groups like the FARC in Colombia? Are all jihadists our enemies? Because of the imprecise definition of the today’s enemy, some argue that comparing this war to the war against the Central or Axis Powers is comparing apples to oranges.
Still others argue that we are not in fact at war with any broad terrorist enemy, and that dubbing this conflict World War III is thus inapt. Many Europeans, for example, seem to acknowledge the fact of terrorism without declaring war against it. The U.S. did lead ‘wars’ in Afghanistan and Iraq, Europeans concede, but they were distinct and not part of a wider, global war. Madrid and London saw terrible carnage, but many explain the terrorist attacks as simply the work of disaffected, impoverished youth, not of an enemy of war. To those who argue this way, there is no validity to declaring that we are in the midst of World War III, or a major war at all.
Perhaps the strongest argument against comparing today with the two World Wars is that the comparison falsely implies that today’s is a conventional war. World Wars I and II were conventional wars between states: armies against armies, our techniques of war versus theirs. Today’s war is decidedly different. On the military front, brief periods of conventional warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq have been followed by protracted asymmetrical warfare. Furthermore, the military aspect of this war is subordinate to the cultural and social. As Bush administration officials know but sometimes seem to forget, today’s struggle might well hinge on ideas, not armies. Victory in the long term may require untraditional attention to changing political, social, and cultural norms in much of the world. Therefore, to give this war a name that evokes the conventionality of World Wars I and II is to risk losing focus on the central issue at hand.
Despite all that, there may be some value in viewing today’s as a third world war.
Though there are dissimilarities between today and the World Wars, there are some weighty similarities to consider. Our current enemies threaten suicide bombings and promise to impose sharia law worldwide. If they succeed, they will destroy our liberal, open way of life just as fascism and eugenics tried (but failed) to do before.
Also, though today we are not fighting state vs. state as in World Wars I and II, we are combating an enemy ideology comparable to that of World War II. The Jihadists have made a practice of perpetrating televised beheadings and indiscriminate bombings of civilians. These acts, as the Nazis’ did, grow out of an ideology that rejects one of the main premises of western civilization: the sanctity of life. And the ideology is spreading. Osama bin Laden is a hero in much of the world, and the willful killing of innocents is considered by many to be a reasonable tactic. The ideology of our enemies is focused, as Hitler’s was, on domination—on the creation of a universal Islamist caliphate, untainted by liberalism. What’s more, our enemies don’t need to achieve their ultimate aim in order for us to suffer a severe defeat as they try: achievement of a universal caliphate is unlikely, but the prospect of terrorism forcing Americans to change our fundamental lifestyle is not far-fetched.
Ultimately, the unconventional nature of this war—the very thing that some say disqualifies the comparison to World Wars I and II—may be the best argument for calling it World War III. In endorsing the term, Gingrich was likely not purporting to have discovered the perfect descriptive phrase. Instead, the term “World War III” may be most valuable for its emotive content. That it elicits memories of the Great War and the Greatest Generation can remind America of the stakes of the current war, and may help adjust American perspective and resolve accordingly.
This could have a significant effect. Tallying and evaluating victories in this war will be difficult and unlike conventional wars of the past. This war’s victories will not all be marked by the drama of toppled iron statues. Many may be subtle, covert, spread over long time periods or come only after some tumult. Patience, resolve, and perspective are therefore especially important today and in the years to come. Viewing the fight as a serious, high-stakes war—as one akin to World Wars I and II and not as a series of disconnected battles or bureaucratic projects—may be essential to the war effort. Alternatively, Americans’ failure to see what is at stake risks debilitating the war effort.
Simply declaring World War III will not suddenly clarify the stakes for the American people. As we have seen, the phrase is imperfect. It could even be rejected by some as a scare tactic. If, though, administration officials were to consider using such language, it may serve them to make it part of a wide-ranging rethinking of public affairs and public diplomacy.
Words matter, especially in this war.
David Feith is a student at Columbia University and an intern at The American Enterprise magazine.
It will never happen. The last thing the cowards, creeps, cretins and traitors in the democrat party want to contemplate is that they may be called upon to actually do something to fight for and defend the freedoms they so vociferously profess to care about. To call the war WWIII is to acknowledge the severity of the threat we face
He must have been asleep though the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
"David Feith is a student at Columbia University and an intern at The American Enterprise magazine."
My guess is that he could only have slept during the end of the 80's, and World War III was never a formal designation for that time.
Even *that* is actually incorrect (off by one). The "real" First World War occurred approximately 100 years before the acknowledged First World War did. The first "world war" in man's history was the Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815), as campaigns were actually fought globally, and societies were totally reshaped in both the fightuing itself, and the aftermath, around the globe...
the infowarrior
the infowarrior
This war is neither WWIII nor WWIV, this is the real WWI long before "the great war" of the 20s. This world war has been going on since the crusades and has yet to end.
Both those require concerted effort which I haven't seen being expended in those directions... Outlook: Not good...
the infowarrior
["To call the war WWIII is to acknowledge the severity of the threat we face..]
My good friend, what you do is take them Patiently
one at a time: Iran, North Korea, and so on...
We don't want to let the Israel and the US get caught up in a similar situation as we (Serbs) did in the Balkans trying to fight these Islamofascists.
I have always seen the War on Terror much like the War on Drugs. You will never win the War on Drugs, and the best you can do is reduce the percentage. In the same way, we can only buy ourselves time. Even if we won tomorrow, Terrorism would be back within decades. We have to decide how much we want to pay for that time.
You only see it this way because we are fighting it much like a law-enforcement action rather than like a real war.
If there was a *true* war on drugs, we would execute every dealer, incarcerate every user into forced rehab, and make penalties for crimes while under the influence very, very severe.
This War on Terror needs to be fought with a greater ferocity. Unfortunately, we face a media and political opposition that emphasizes the enemies' point of view over ours.
what you say is true, however, what could be defined as WWIII will happen when not if.....when Russia deploys to the M.E.....with Ethiopia, Libya, Russia, Iran, Syria, form on Israel...this will start a chain of events that will also include China.....long story short. It's only a matter of time.
My suggestion is the "War with the Neanderthals".
You, too, are off by one. The first global war was the Seven Years War, which had campaigns not just in Europe, but in India and North America (where our provinicial custom renames it the "French and Indian War").
Sorry, I should have read the whole thread before posting.
OTOH, the Seven Years War laid the groundwork for British dominance of India, so perhaps it, too should be seen as having global consequences.
We could just call it the 1400-Years War, and admit it's just a continuation of the one that quiet down after Lepanto and the last Siege of Vienna.
Or, if we really get serious and decide to end it once and for all, we could call it the Last Crusade. (Though as an Orthodox Christian, given how the Fourth turned out, I'm not sure I'd be thrilled with that option.)
Islamic terrorism in the West happens because there are Muslims here. Adjusting to terrorism is just one of the changes to our "fundamental lifestyle" brought about in the name of promoting diversity, and not a particularly important one.
That it elicits memories of the Great War and the Greatest Generation can remind America of the stakes of the current war, and may help adjust American perspective and resolve accordingly.
In other words, even if it's not true it's OK to lie in order to whip the boobs up to a proper frenzy. Reminds me of that Dan Rather fake-but-true thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.