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.
Missiles Neutralizing Israeli Tanks
Hezbollah has American TOW anti-tank missiles...where did they come from?
Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This is the kind of sophomoric conceit one would expect of a college kid. The fact is, moslems don't have ideas, so there is nothing there to influence. Radical moslems just need killing, in large numbers.
If there is any "war of ideas" at all, it is domestic, as the sleepy, distracted burghers of the States and Europe slowly come to the awareness that their comfortable, effortless civilization is under brutal assault, and by no means invincible.
God Bless Serbia.
Ghostly Shadows - How bloody-minded are the tyrants of Tehran?
Not a conforting piece!
In truth, WWIII was really the Cold War, in which the USA and the west had won. In truth this is WWIV.
I beg to differ. They have Islam, jihad, convert, dhimmitude or die.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping!
Well written.
Libo
The "War on Terror" is a ridiculous misnomer. Did FDR declare a war against "Surprise Attacks" after Pearl Harbor? Of course not.
This should be a War Against Militant Islam. Our Leaders are too PC to be honest about it however.
PC could very well lead to the end of Western Civilization.
btt
Excellent points.
I'm not sure these qualify as ideas. More like givens. In any case, there is little room for dogmatic true believers to reflect or examine the premises of their dogma. the prospects for "winning the minds (forget about hearts)" is dim.
Yeah, but even if we went all out, you can never completely put out the threat of terrorism. You can never get them all, and it only takes a few to attack. This will become even more true as time goes on. WMD's are going mainstream, and all we can do is slow it down.
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.