World War III

[Jim]

On January 16, Newt Ginrich had this exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:

 

 

MR. GINGRICH: I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel. And frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon and that the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force, not as a political force in the parliament, but as a military force in south Lebanon.

 

MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?

 

MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III.

 

On July 20, Sen. Sanatorum delivered a prepared speech to the National Press Club stating:

 

No today the biggest issue facing our children’s future is a war. Not, as so many describe it, the War on Terror. Not the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the world war, which at its heart is just like the previous three global struggles.

 

In those wars we fought against European tyrants and their allies, from the Kaiser to Hitler to Lenin, Stalin, and their heirs. We fought them because we knew that our survival was at stake. The tyrants would never stop attacking us until they had defeated us, or we had defeated them. Our only choices — choices imposed on us, not chosen by us — were either winning or losing, because there was no way out.

 

We are in the same kind of conflict today. We are not fighting a War on Terror anymore than we fought a war on blitzkrieg in World War II. Terror like blitzkrieg is a tactic used by our enemy, not the enemy itself. We are fighting against Islamic fascists. They attacked us on September 11th because we are the greatest obstacle to their openly declared mission of subjecting the entire world to their fanatical rule. I believe that the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from German Nazism and Soviet Communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose.

 

And later in the speech:

 

Paradoxically, when we refuse to criticize anybody, we end up patronizing everyone, which is offensive to everyone and self-defeating. It makes a mockery of freedom of speech, and traps us in the discredited nonsense of moral equivalence. This war is not between two morally equivalent sides; it's a war between brutal totalitarian fascism and freedom. Our freedom, not just freedom for Iraqis and Afghans. We are the fascists’ prime target, and they intend to impose a brutal tyranny on those of us who survive their onslaught.

 

Islamic fascism is the great test of this generation. When we fail to fully grasp the nature of our enemy and the urgency of our victory, our own people become confused and divided, and the fascists are encouraged to believe that we’re afraid of them.

 

This has to stop. We have an obligation as leaders to articulate exactly what this threat is, and to defeat it. The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom, once they understood what was at stake.

 

We had no problem branding communism an evil empire — it was.

 

We had no problem understanding that Nazism and fascism were evil racist empires — they were.

 

We must now bring the same clarity to the war against Islamic fascism.

 

While I'm fairly hawkish by this board's standards and agree with most of the points made by Ginrich and Santorum, I'm still not sure what I think about two leading republicans in the space of five days saying we are in World War III. It feels like a signficant moment on several levels.

 

First, they could be right and even I would need to rethink a lot of assumptions. Second, this could be the leading edge of the 2006 campaign:

 

There is a political element to his talk of World War III. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is, "OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

 

Recall that Gingrich, a historian, was able to distill the Contract for American in the 1990s to win the House. It wouldn't do to underestimate his ability to find issues and encapsulate them persuasively.

 

Third, policies which are not possible in a mere "war on terror" could become very thinkable in "World War III."

 

So, what do you think? How apt is the analogy to previous world wars?

 

How significant is this rhetoric?

[silkworm]

I'm not scared of this "World War." The "axis" is simply too weak. Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and North Korea? Israel could make a parking lot out of all of them all by themselves.

 

And honestly, WW2 Germany or Japan by themselves can handle all of these nations.

 

So, in terms of a long drawn out war that both WW1 and WW2 were, this is more like an beat down. I simply don't see any worthy enemies on the "axis" side. Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

The only issues will be postwar occupations, which hopefully a nation with a more capable regime than the current one in the US can handle.

 

The rhetoric is not significant. However, it does show me how handcuffed the "right" is in finding diplomatic solutions in any conflict.

[5614]

Ye, Israel could. But would they?

 

Israel would need a totally solid and amazing reason for which they could justify such an attack. By the time this comes it could be too late.

 

Israel has come under attack, politically, for small things in the past. If they went to war with Syria/Iran they would need a bloody good reason, and no, the fact they are not safe countries is not good enough.

 

There are people who are against Israel now. Imagine how big it would get if it spread to Syria/Iran as well. It's just not something really worth discussion currently.

[ecoli]

Silkworm - the fact you're missing is that the greatest enemies in this war would not by Syria, Iran or even North Korea. It will be ourselves.

 

Media-induced sympathy and propaganda created by the 'siteless' on our own side will hamper us. No country can fight a successful war with so many people in the international community and at home against the war.

[5614]

No country can fight a successful war with so many people in the international community and at home against the war.

Good point.

[Phi for All]

I don't have the time to respond properly and fully, Jim, but I would like to say that mention of WWIII in politics runs contrary to Godwin's Law. WWIII immediately makes a person run through all the Nazi comparisons, and instead of losing the debate when the Nazis are mentioned, calling, "WWIII" increases the fear levels beyond anything the "War on Terrorism" could ever do and makes ignorant citizens call out for protection at any cost.

 

I absolutely believe this is campaign strategy. And since I see little difference between the major parties when it comes to using our fears to help them campaign, it doesn't matter too much whether it's Dems or Reps.

[MM]

I don't have the time to respond properly and fully' date=' Jim, but I would like to say that mention of WWIII in politics runs contrary to Godwin's Law. WWIII immediately makes a person run through all the Nazi comparisons, and instead of losing the debate when the Nazis are mentioned, calling, "WWIII" increases the fear levels beyond anything the "War on Terrorism" could ever do and makes ignorant citizens call out for protection at any cost.

 

I absolutely believe this is campaign strategy. And since I see little difference between the major parties when it comes to using our fears to help them campaign.[/quote']

 

I agree that fear plays a large part of todays politics where by I would like to postulate that 'fear is the root of all evil'.

[Sisyphus]

It wouldn't do to underestimate his ability to find issues and encapsulate them persuasively.

 

Third' date=' policies which are not possible in a mere "war on terror" could become very thinkable in "World War III."

[/quote']

 

I'd say this is what is going on. Think "death tax" vs. "estate tax." Think random, vague, color-coded fear alerts that disappeared after 2004 election. Think of the portion of the far right that seems to be obsessed with apocolyptic predictions of all kinds. Think "Left Behind." It's just a buzzword that will be picked up and echoed around, and then, when it becomes more and more obvious how silly it is, it will be like nobody ever said it.

[Saryctos]

I'd say this is what is going on. Think "death tax" vs. "estate tax." Think random, vague, color-coded fear alerts that disappeared after 2004 election. Think of the portion of the far right that seems to be obsessed with apocolyptic predictions of all kinds. Think "Left Behind." It's just a buzzword that will be picked up and echoed around, and then, when it becomes more and more obvious how silly it is, it will be like nobody ever said it.

 

Those color coded useless things are still around...you just don't see them because noone shows them anymore.

[walrusman]

...the fact you're missing is that the greatest enemies in this war would not by Syria, Iran or even North Korea. It will be ourselves.

 

Media-induced sympathy and propaganda created by the 'siteless' on our own side will hamper us. No country can fight a successful war with so many people in the international community and at home against the war.

 

Amen. The PR war is absolutely necessary and we are absolutely losing right now, Israel too. And consider this war has limited use of our big war toys. Our military was designed for outright big muscle battle of the superpowers, not necessarily close urban combat with guerillas.

 

If it was just a matter of sending in jets and bombing an entire country 100 years into the past with impunity, sure we could take that whole region of the world in a few days. But this war is about seeking out the bad guys within a trust fund state full of enablers.

[Jim]

I don't have the time to respond properly and fully' date=' Jim, but I would like to say that mention of WWIII in politics runs contrary to Godwin's Law. WWIII immediately makes a person run through all the Nazi comparisons, and instead of losing the debate when the Nazis are mentioned, calling, "WWIII" increases the fear levels beyond anything the "War on Terrorism" could ever do and makes ignorant citizens call out for protection at any cost.

 

I absolutely believe this is campaign strategy. And since I see little difference between the major parties when it comes to using our fears to help them campaign, it doesn't matter too much whether it's Dems or Reps.[/quote']

 

As I mentioned, I'm not sure what I think about calling this "World War III." Certainly there are many aspects of WWI and WWII which are not happening in this instance, e.g. millions of men mobilized to fight, millions of casualties (thus far), clearly defined sides and declarations of war.

 

I think Ginrich and Santorum's point is that we need to go into more of a war footing. They are saying we need to define the Islamic fascist enemy as a global threat and we need to treat the threat as seriously as we did in the previous global conflicts.

 

I don't think Godwin's law is necessarily implicated because that condemns the hyperbolic use of the Nazi/Hitler analogy, in part, to ensure that the impact of the comparison is fresh when the analogy is accurate. This is the question I'm posing in the thread - is the analogy made by these two gentlemen correct? Santorum's speech is lengthy and, at least to me, fairly persuasive in many respects.

 

Both of these gentlemen seem sincere and have probably concluded that we need to redefine the "war." As Santorum says, who ever heard about a "war on blitzkreig" or on any particular method of the enemy. The terminology of the war on terror really doesn't work.

Amen. The PR war is absolutely necessary and we are absolutely losing right now, Israel too.

 

I agree. I think they have realized that a "war on terror" is not sustainable. You can only worry for so long about "terror" at least so long as we are not hit again. If we are to consider ourselves in a wartime footing, it requires an enemy. Okay, here I'm tempted to say that Wag the Dog already took the Armenians but the question, I suppose, is whether Islamofascism is an equivalent threat to previous forms of fascism.

[walrusman]

...the question, I suppose, is whether Islamofascism is an equivalent threat to previous forms of fascism.

 

I think it's a worse threat, not equivalent. But only because of what I said before: we have to seek out the bad guys within trust fund states of enablers. We can't just unleash our military might like it was designed for. This means a much longer, tougher war - with more emphasis on world opinion and support. WWII took us a few years to win, this one will take us decades, if it can be won at all.

 

And with Israel killing civilians, albeit within their rights, they're just validating the propaganda used to brainwash those people into terror pawns.

 

Edit: Ok, after re-reading your post I think I may have misunderstood you, still might be. But, it most definitely is a worse threat because they see ancient history as if it happened yesterday - they hold grudges like nothing I've ever witnessed. And since half of these countries are swarming with brainwashing mills turning out poor misguided suicide bombers, it just seems impossible it will ever stop. They don't just want us out of that region. They want to kill us all for their god. Religion is powerful, I'm certain this is a worse threat.

[Phi for All]

I think they have realized that a "war on terror" is not sustainable. You can only worry for so long about "terror" at least so long as we are not hit again. If we are to consider ourselves in a wartime footing, it requires an enemy. Okay, here I'm tempted to say that Wag the Dog already took the Armenians but the question, I suppose, is whether Islamofascism is an equivalent threat to previous forms of fascism.

A war on terror is not sustainable when fought as we are fighting it. You can't win against small cells of fanatics with bombs and planes. You either fight terrorists with subterfuge, rooting them out surgically with covert forces who are not going to make splashy worldwide martyrs out of their targets, or you fight them with diplomacy. Undermining what the terrorists are fighting about, usually aggression and suppression, by peaceful diplomatic means is lengthier but probably more effective in the long run. Unfortunately there are other pressures being brought to bear which may not be affected by diplomacy. Non-Islamic factions who want to keep this aggression going are difficult to counter.

 

While I think we do need to redefine exactly what we are fighting against, I think it would be a big mistake to call it Islamofascism. Anything which makes this all about the world vs Islam is only going to increase the fanaticism. If we really do want WWIII, implying that Islam is part of the reason will ensure that the fanatic fascists will be able to recruit plenty of followers.

[walrusman]

Undermining what the terrorists are fighting about, usually aggression and suppression, by peaceful diplomatic means is lengthier but probably more effective in the long run.

 

There is no such thing as diplomacy with these groups though. They do "false diplomacy". They dress up all nice and smile and take pictures for the camera to foster a sense of diplomatic character. The fighting stops and they regroup and replenish their weaponry and get started again. They just use the illusion of diplomacy to buy time, land, concessions - but the war is never over to them - never...

 

Look at Israel. Land for peace? They withdrew from Lebanon as asked. They withdrew from Gaza as asked. They withdrew from the west bank as asked. They did what was asked, for peace and they got none. They got murdered and kidnapped soldiers in return.

 

There is no diplomacy. We still don't understand this enemy. And they understand us REAL WELL. They're playing us for fools. And they love it when you start talking about diplomacy.

[Phi for All]

There is no such thing as diplomacy with these groups though.

Not diplomacy with the terror groups, but rather with the countries who enable the terrorists to set up camps, recruit and train. If we make it more profitable or more enticing for those countries to deal with us rather than support the terrorists, the terrorists gain no new followers, but as long as we are dropping bombs, they can point to us as the aggressors.

 

The way we've been fighting them is to throw gasoline on the flames of their religious fervor. I'm pretty sure that's not going to work.

[Sisyphus]

I agree with Phi for All. Anything that frames the conflict in terms of some huge apocolyptic struggle between Islam and the rest of the world is EXACTLY what they want, and exactly what they will use to grow stronger and more aggressive. That's because it's not an enemy like Germany or Japan, and it CANNOT be defeated by military force. It is made up of individual people who decide, one by one, that they must destroy us at any cost. If you kill one enemy, but, in doing so, inspired two more, you have only helped their cause.

 

So how do we defeat them? Well, several have mentioned that the real threat is here at home, in those who have "sympathy for the enemy" or whatever. Well, the real war is a public relations war, but it isn't here in the West, it's in the Islamic world. The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, which means THEY have to have "sympathy for the enemy," which means they have to have sympathy for us, which means all the asinine bravado about "World War 3" is just helping us lose.

 

Right now, terrorists are heroes to far too many people. Until that changes, there can be no victory of any kind.

 

BTW, what's a trust fund state?

[Phi for All]

The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, which means THEY have to have "sympathy for the enemy," which means they have to have sympathy for us, which means all the asinine bravado about "World War 3" is just helping us lose.

Exactly, well put Sisyphus. Perhaps we need a campaign fostered by Islamic religious centrists who can better point out that fascism in Islam cannot be tolerated and will only hurt the faith and it's followers.

[Jim]

A war on terror is not sustainable when fought as we are fighting it. You can't win against small cells of fanatics with bombs and planes. You either fight terrorists with subterfuge' date=' rooting them out surgically with covert forces who are not going to make splashy worldwide martyrs out of their targets, or you fight them with diplomacy. Undermining what the terrorists are fighting about, usually aggression and suppression, by peaceful diplomatic means is lengthier but probably more effective in the long run. Unfortunately there are other pressures being brought to bear which may not be affected by diplomacy. Non-Islamic factions who want to keep this aggression going are difficult to counter.

 

While I think we do need to redefine exactly what we are fighting against, I think it would be a big mistake to call it Islamofascism. Anything which makes this all about the world vs Islam is only going to increase the fanaticism. If we really do want WWIII, implying that Islam is part of the reason will ensure that the fanatic fascists will be able to recruit plenty of followers.[/quote']

 

No one is saying Islam by itself is causing this "war." Here we have a government in Iran which is (a) theistic, (b) fascist, © hostile to the US and its culture, (d) willing to fund attacks against civilians through proxies behind which it hides, and (e) publically declaring its intention to destroy millions. To say that we can't say "anything" which makes this about the world against Islam ignores that there is a confluence of highly dangerous events which may well be analogous to the gathering clouds of the 1930s. We should be ruled by reason, not fear, which means we should only extend this analogy as far as it goes and, of course, should not be knee-jerk or stupid in how we fight this "war."

 

I'm pressed for time but I do agree that diplomacy would be the preferred approach EXCEPT for the fact that Iran is obviously going to have nuclear weapons in the next 2-10 years. I have little trust in the IAEE or diplomacy to solve this problem. Here is a pretty balanced article in the New Yorker which says, among other things, that neither the Europoeans or the Americans trust the IAEE.

 

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.”

 

The same article puts the estimates of Iran's program from between 2-10 years. Recall that we were WAY off in our "outside looking in" estimates of the Libyan program which was much more advanced than intelligence estimates thought.

 

All of this said, I don't know what we should do except at least clearly see the problem.

[walrusman]

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If I had my way about things, I'd pull out of that entire region and give them the proverbial middle finger. Concentrate on missle defense systems and shore up the borders with the national guard. I would provide no help or hinderance to them, completely ignored.

 

Only then would we have the moral high ground in the eyes of the world. Any attempted attack on us could be viewed as nothing less than "unprovoked". But all that is unrealistic, I know.

 

BTW, what's a trust fund state?

 

That's what I call these countries that drill a hole in the ground and out comes money - weee!! The rest of us have to actually earn our place in the global market. If it wasn't for oil, nobody would give a crap about their backwards ass countries...and they wouldn't be able to compete with the rest of the world. They might actually have to pull together and PRODUCE or MAKE something rather than KILLING things.

 

Sorry, I just can't stand the mentallity of people obsessed with religion and death...

[Pangloss]

I agree with Phi for All. Anything that frames the conflict in terms of some huge apocolyptic struggle between Islam and the rest of the world is EXACTLY what they want' date=' and exactly what they will use to grow stronger and more aggressive. That's because it's not an enemy like Germany or Japan, and it CANNOT be defeated by military force. It is made up of individual people who decide, one by one, that they must destroy us at any cost. If you kill one enemy, but, in doing so, inspired two more, you have only helped their cause.

 

So how do we defeat them? Well, several have mentioned that the real threat is here at home, in those who have "sympathy for the enemy" or whatever. Well, the real war is a public relations war, but it isn't here in the West, it's in the Islamic world. The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, which means THEY have to have "sympathy for the enemy," which means they have to have sympathy for us, which means all the asinine bravado about "World War 3" is just helping us lose.

 

Right now, terrorists are heroes to far too many people. Until that changes, there can be no victory of any kind.

 

BTW, what's a trust fund state?[/quote']

 

 

Nice post.

[Jim]

Nice post.

 

It was a well written post but the argument that the "ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for Islamic terrorism to become hated IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, which means THEY have to have . . . sympathy for us . . ." seems a bit naive. How, exactly, do we go about gaining this sympathy in such a short time frame? If we were to abandon Israel, withdraw from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and stone Britney Spears to death (and the leering Bob Dole for good measure), I'm not sure that would appease them.

 

Certainly the Islamic fascists would not accept these appeasement measures because to do so would deprive them of power.

[Phi for All]

No one is saying Islam by itself is causing this "war."

You don't need to. By saying we're fighting against Islamic fascists you give them all the ammunition they need to make it a religious struggle.

To say that we can't say "anything" which makes this about the world against Islam ignores that there is a confluence of highly dangerous events which may well be analogous to the gathering clouds of the 1930s.

Not at all. I feel we just need to stay away from what our opponents really want, which is to make this Jihad to unite all of Islam against us. Without that, you have millions of very reasonable people (who just happen to be of the Islamic faith) who would be able to decry fascism if it is separated from their religion.

We should be ruled by reason, not fear, which means we should only extend this analogy as far as it goes and, of course, should not be knee-jerk or stupid in how we fight this "war."

Agreed, which is why I hate the WWIII reference. It just brings in unnecessary fear at a time when we need to be very smart about who and why we fight.

[Skye]

That's what I call these countries that drill a hole in the ground and out comes money - weee!! The rest of us have to actually earn our place in the global market. If it wasn't for oil, nobody would give a crap about their backwards ass countries...and they wouldn't be able to compete with the rest of the world. They might actually have to pull together and PRODUCE or MAKE something rather than KILLING things.

You mean like this?

 

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-to-manufacture-cars-in-iran-01-02-05.asp

[walrusman]

You mean like this?

 

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-...n-01-02-05.asp

 

Yes, I mean like that.

[YT2095]

Sex, Death and, Money, sonny, that`s the Gospel here in Dragontown!

thats`what makes the World go round, that is why we all are gunna FRY!

(Alice Cooper).

 

sounds about Right to me!