Skip to comments.World War Three?
Posted on 09/15/2003 6:47:55 AM PDT by jonalvy44
World War Three?
by Jon Alvarez
Are we in the midst of World War Three as Bill O'Reilly recently suggested on his TV show? If so, will September 11, 2001 be the date history books note as the beginning? The case could be made for this, as we are involved in a worldwide conflict, which could take years to resolve. While this conflict currently seems to be centered upon the countries of the Middle East, we cannot overlook the fact that hostilities may soon be breaking out in Asia as well. Each enemy we face represents tyranny and repression. Their ideology is in direct conflict with freedom and democracy. Once again, an enemy struck an unsuspecting America while she slept. Was September 11th this generations' Pearl Harbor? Will it take a second attack of this magnitude for America to unite behind President Bush and win World War Three?
The classic lines of distinction between good and evil apply to this current war. As in the last world war, the Allies stood together to battle the forces of evil that sought to dominate the world. The exception being the evil USSR, an ally only by circumstance, as it inconveniently found its geographic proximity to Nazi Germany to be in direct conflict with their non-aggression pact. President Bush has assembled a "coalition of the willing" to combat the Axis of Evil. President Bush has even referred to the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as "battles" in a larger campaign to defeat the evil forces of the world. One note of irony: France is, once again, on the sidelines as we put forth our best effort to make the world safe for humanity.
What constitutes a "world war"? How many countries need to be involved and how many theatres of operation are required for this current situation to be labeled a world war? The "Allies" assembled for the Battle of Iraq is made up of approximately thirty countries. The "Axis" currently consists of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Of course, as the war progresses, we will see changes in the makeup of both sides as more countries are forced to become involved. While there are certainly many similarities to the previous world wars, there are also several key differences. Regardless, it seems that history will regard the "War on Terror" as one theatre of operations in what is surely to become known as "World War Three".
One major difference from the last world war is that this one promises to be more inclusive, in several ways. Borders do not hinder this enemy and its targets are not limited to military personnel. Religious fanaticism is the driving force, as opposed to the ultra-nationalism of Germany and Japan. Of course, North Korea would fall under the latter as the second front of this war becomes a reality. No country will be immune from attack as the threat of terrorism can strike anywhere. Borders and statements of neutrality may only create a false feeling of security. Eventually, this war will impact other countries in several possible ways. Terrorists seeking new targets could strike within their borders. Nuclear fallout from an attack by either Iran or North Korea could easily spread to neighboring countries.
Another difference is the amount of internal resistance within America to this war effort. We have a vocal minority of Americans who have waged an aggressive and sometimes violent campaign to discredit President Bush and his efforts to defeat terrorism. We should note that much of the opposition to the war on terror within this country emanates from those opposed to capitalism. International A.N.S.W.E.R., a Stalinist organization, is one of the largest organizers of the anti-war movement. Their efforts have emboldened our enemies abroad. The liberal news media and the Democratic Party have embraced their ideology. One can witness this daily by picking up the newspaper or by watching the network news programs as they criticize any and all efforts by this administration to ensure American success in Iraq and elsewhere. The danger is that their constant barrage of propaganda will weaken the resolve of the American public. To compromise, to show weakness at such a time in our history, may be our ultimate downfall.
The focal point of this war is the Middle East, as has been predicted for years by many. Biblical prophecy and the Holy Crusades aside, we've somehow known for years that this far off land was going to be a source of conflict. Is this a new crusade for control of the Holy Land, as some Arabs may suspect? No, it's merely one freedom-loving country siding with another versus a common foe. Many Americans simply support Israel because it is a longtime democratic ally. Radical Islamic fundamentalists have long let it be known of their intent to destroy Israel and now they have extended that scope to include America as well. These radicals have proven to the rest of the world that they are an enemy to freedom and democracy. It may be time for the surrounding Arab nations to either join us in the 21st century or be sent back to the Stone Age. It's also time for moderate Arabs in America to join us and to take a more active role in policing their communities before it's too late.
A second front will possibly open up in Asia. North Korea seems to be revising the role of the bellicose Asian country with a nationalistic, resource-starved populace. Eerily similar to the situation with Japan prior to World War 2, North Korea appears poised to bring about a second "Pearl Harbor" upon the USA. Keep in mind; North Korea has a history of attacking without warning, as Japan did. News reports now indicate that this country has the technology necessary to launch a nuclear missile capable of hitting the United States. We could see things heating up in that part of the world very shortly. Will we be caught off-guard? Will we look back and wonder why we chose to downplay all the red flags?
Will history condemn us for waging a politically correct war? Only when we decide to get serious and quit playing games with those that seek to kill us will we win this war. Rather than attempt to make distinctions between those terrorist groups that pose a threat to us, it is time to deal with all of them in the same manner. President Bush warned the world that "you're either with us, or you're against us". It's time to recognize this and deal with those that pose a threat to us accordingly. It's also time for the USA to allow Israel to deal with those terrorist groups and countries as it sees fit. We've seen that the United Nations has outlived its usefulness and is no longer a viable political entity. There will be no room for the United Nations at the political table once this war is over. This corrupt institution will go the way of the League of Nations.
The question continues to be asked whether or not we are safer now since the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is similar to an instance where one is about to be stung by a bee. Killing the bee sends a signal to other bees, marking you as a possible target for further attacks. Now, do we leave the nest alone, hoping to never be stung again? The same can be said about the war on terror. We cannot simply sit back and hope that those that seek our destruction don't attack again. We must root out and destroy proponents of terrorism, regardless of whether this might lead to more attacks. As in previous world wars, we must take this fight to the enemy and not let up until they are defeated.
The future remains uncertain, but we cannot allow fear to hinder us in our efforts. What is certain is that if we do not remember the lessons of the past, we could most certainly be condemned to repeat it. What is also certain is that war is hell, war is costly, and that people perish in wars. In times of war, uncertainty and hesitation can be fatal. We must do whatever is necessary to prevent another massive attack on America. It is also certain that we must prevail in this war no matter what the cost. Failure is not an option. America and her allies must be on the winning side of World War Three.
Alvy's Forum: http://groups.msn.com/AlvysForum
Who do we want in office leading us if N. Korea launches a pre-emptive strike?
Good point. Also, as far as I'm concerned World War IV started October 23, 1983 with the bombing of the U.S. Marines Barracks in Beirut. It took us 18 years and thousands of more American lives to accept the war. Many in this country still don't accept it or believe it's anything more than a police action.
A second front will possibly open up in Asia.
Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and so forth are all in Asia.
Wrong. I served in Europe during the Cold War, and I'm quite sure there are more rounds fired in anger in one minute on the streets of Baghdad than there were the entire two years I was on the East-West border. The Cold War was not a war at all...it was a stalemate, a staring contest. But it sure sounds cool to say it was, doesn't it? Whoever the idiot who first said the Cold War was WW3 is a moron, don't buy into his idiocy.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
In the first two world wars, there were major campaigns and theaters, large scale battles between Us and Them. When did that happen in the Cold War? World War Two had the Battle of Kursk, Operation Barbarossa, the Hurtigen Forest and the Battle of the Bulge...what major engagements did the Cold War have that even remotely resembled these battles? It was the Allies versus the Axis then...did NATO and the Warsaw Pact ever come to all-out blows in the same manner? I must have slept through it if they did.
The War on Terrorism has had two major theaters of operations so far...Afghanistan and Iraq, and who knows how many classified operations? The WOT is a real war...the Cold War was not.
When I was in Germany, we had a few dozen cross-border incidents, mostly escapes, some of which involved a round or two being fired. Major Nicholson was killed in East Germany. How does that constitute a World War? It doesn't. To even call the Cold War a war is to stretch and distort the meaning of the word "war". "Cold War" is really nothing more than a convenient label to put on a period of time that would be more difficult to explain with other words. To call it the Third World War is a complete misnomer. Words mean things, you know.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I heard Mr. O say WWIII last week during his show and wanted to bring this to his attention before it got ingrained in the debate. If my memory serves me right, the former Director off the CIA has already referred to this as WWIV in a policy speech he gave in the last year.
You said the conflicts you mentioned were part of the "Cold War", presumably because of the simple fact that they happened between the years 1945 and 1991. If that's the case, are the brushfire wars in Columbia, Liberia, Kyrgistan, Indonesia, East Timor, etc., part of the War On Terror? After all, they're being fought at the same time we and our allies are fighitng the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The answer is, of course, no. Those brushfire conflicts are having no affect on the rest of the world outside their regions. Same went for the Falklands, Grenada, El Salvador, The Congo, etc. Each conflict that took place during the "Cold War" was a separate event, not part of any global campaign of Us versus Them. The difference between that and World Wars 1 and 2, and the current World War 3, should be obvious. To call the "Cold War" a world war is to ignore the meanings of "world" and "war".
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Okay, when in these wars was there a NATO/Warsaw pact battle or engagement, in the same manner as the Allies and the Axis in WW2? I'm not talking about engagement by proxy, I'm talking about Ivan Meets GI Joe. In World Wars 1 and 2, it was Us (not a proxy) vs. Them (again, not a proxy). That never happened during the "Cold War".
"There was indeed a global struggle of capitalism/democracy vs. communism, and it was fought to some degree in virtually every nation on the planet."
Yeah, but Capitalism vs. Communism is not a war, it's a competition of economic and political systems, not a battle between nations, or groups of nations, as WW1 and 2 were. Yes, there were wars all over the globe between freinds of NATO and friends of the Soviet Union, and in some cases, NATO nations and WP nations were actually involved in the fighting. But they never fought each other, in the manner of the Allies and the Axis. Affected the whole world? Okay, how did the fighting in the Congo affect Joe and Jane Sixpack? Did they have to cary around ration cards like their parents did during WW2? Were there scrap metal drives during Grenada? Did the lights in Hometown, USA have to be blacked out at night during Vietnam, El Salvador, or Nicaragua? No. Why? Because those conflicts, in fact, all the conflicts that happened between 1945 and 1991 were regionally significant only! Did the British have to carry gas masks and hide in bomb shelters during Vietnam? No! Did the North Korean Army march triumphantly through the Arc De Triumphe (or however the hell its spelled) in Paris? No, but that's not to say the Frenchies wouldn't have surrendered to them if they'd been given the chance.
Hmmmmm....the Frenchies surrendered in WW1, they surrendered in WW2, and they haven't surrendered in the WOT yet, but by golly, the odds are good. Maybe a French surrender should be the detrermining factor if a war is truly a World War? Maybe...but I digress!
"What nation can claim to have been unaffected by the aforementioned struggle? Both sides had their agents in every nation on the globe to influence those nations to join their side, or not to join the other."
Again, this does not a World War make. When did the chief protagonists, NATO and the WP, meet one another on the field of battle? When did Soviet artillery hit NATO positions with chemical weapons in advance of an attack? At what point did US Cobra and Apache helicopters help blunt a WP push at a breakthrough point in the Fulda Gap? Did I miss the news of Soviet Naval Infantry landing on the shores of Belgium to wreak havoc on the port of Antwerp? The "Cold War" was no war at all...it was a time period in which several small, regional wars happened, just as has happened throughout history. The only difference was the tension, the worry that the world's two nuclear superpowers might, might duke it out. But of course, that never happened. Therefore, the "Cold War" was not World War 3, it was, in fact, nothing but a label for people too lazy to describe the period for what really it was...the struggle of American Capitalism vs. Soviet Communism. It was as much a war as is the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or the Celebrity Battle of the Sexes.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
There have also been reports of actual US-USSR combat, where the identities of one party or both have been denied; the largest-scale espionage war ever seen, diplomatic war, and ideological war. Is there any doubt, that absent M.A.D. doctrine, the USSR would have launched a war to control as much of the planet as they could?
So the two sides fought a war, a real one, by the only means they could - via proxies, diplomats, and spies. Thus I maintain that it was a war, and it was fought.
I see no rationale for the Iran-Contra fiasco, or our supply of rebels in Soviet-held Afghanistan, absent the context of war between the two nations.
Maybe a French surrender should be the detrermining factor if a war is truly a World War? Maybe...but I digress!
I am in absolute agreement with this! In WW3, the French surrendered in 1968. In WW4, they surrendered in 2001, '02, or '03, perhaps all, depending on how you look at it. (In the latest case, they achieved the distinction of surrendering to both sides simultaneously - a remarkable diplomatic feat, if you ask me!)
Are there Frenchies serving in Afghanistan? If so, it's never too late for them to surrender to the Taliban, or maybe to Ali Babba, the opium farmer. They've already surrendered their testosterone, and any national dignity they may have left.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Vietnam was one of the many battles of the Cold War -- how many shots were fired in anger there?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!