Posted on 01/23/2005 1:05:25 PM PST by tbird5
Will George W. Bush spend the next few years backing down from the ambitious strategy he outlined in the Bush Doctrine for fighting and winning World War IV?
To be sure, Bush himself still calls it the "war on terrorism," and has shied away from giving the name World War IV to the great conflict into which we were plunged by 9/11. (World War III, in this accounting, was the cold war.) Yet he has never hesitated to compare the fight against radical Islamism, and the forces nurturing and arming it, with those earlier struggles against Nazism and Communism. Nor has he flinched from suggesting that achieving victory as the Bush Doctrine defines it may take as long as it took to win World War III (which lasted more than four decades—from the promulgation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989).
Even more than the Truman Doctrine in its time, the Bush Doctrine was subjected to a ferocious assault by domestic opponents from the moment it was enunciated. Then, when Bush actually started acting on it, the ferocity grew even more intense, finally reaching record levels of vituperation during the presidential campaign. But in defiance of everything that was being thrown at him, and in spite of setbacks in Iraq that posed a serious threat to his reelection, Bush never yielded an inch. Instead of scurrying for protective cover from the assault, he stood out in the open and countered by reaffirming his belief in the soundness of the doctrine as well as his firm intention to stick with it in the years ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Read this article a couple days. It's a must read. But, with Bush's inauguration speech, I doubt he will be backing away from the Bush doctrine in his 2nd term.
IF this erupted into an all out war it would be World War III, NOT World War IV. I'm going to attribute this error to the complexities of the Roman Numeral system or to the lack of the author's historical knowledge.
The Cold War had battles in Korea and Vietnam and near escalations in Cuba and some that are only now coming to light.
Those were more like jostling for influence and prestige than real wars. If they were real wars Koreans and Vietnamese would fly the American flag today.
I think the moniker "World War" should apply when you have total war between all of the dominant powers on the planet.
Venom, vitriol and vituperation from the weak and treason-biased leftist wolverines won't change the shape of things to come. Not having girly-men making decisions is a change for the better...
If its only just comming to light it's not really a major event that affects every country in the world in a major way then is it?
Calling everything a World War diminishes the impact of those words.
You obviously didn't read closely.
He made it clear he considered the Cold War to be 'WW III'.
I agree with him.
Has the President ever (as Podhoretz claims) specifically identified the enemy as "radical Islamism"??
As Mel says at the end of the movie Patriot, HOLD THE LINE, HOLD THE LINE, no retreat!
This can be blamed on Bush for failing to take real action against terror-supporting states while becoming mired in Iraq; for failing to secure the borders; for failing to take prudent steps to prevent entry of terrorists; for failing to root out sleepers and moles within the U.S.
However, a nuke in Chicago or a Smallpox release in Cleveland or a dirty bomb in Boston or a real nuke in Long Beach Harbor should and (hopefully) will bring an all-out nuclear attack on those terror states; a recall of troops for homeland security duty; deportation of all visa-holders from terror-supporting states; a securing of the borders; a complete revamp of "legal" immigration policy and the INS.
If this does not happen after the "next" 9/11 we are finished; Western Civilization will be lost. We shall see if Bush is up to what must be done.
--Boris
Or your inability to realize that the Cold War involved more countrys to fight communism and resulted in far more deaths in all of WWII! This is WW4, and no I need no Roman Numeral help!
i agree with the IV. i was in WWIII.
"One can only admire Hendrickson’s candor in admitting what is usually hotly denied: that even many leading realists, along with many liberal internationalists, are rooting for an American defeat."
{snip} "Instead of taking to the streets, the realists and the liberal internationalists will go back to their word processors and redouble their ongoing efforts to turn public opinion against the Bush Doctrine. Mainly they will try to do so by demonstrating over and over again that the doctrine is already failing its first great encounter with "hard reality" in Iraq."
The "realists" are what Mark Steyn call "stability junkies", who value stability more than anything else in foreign policy. They don't hate America and think it's the source of all evil, as many on the left do, but they do believe that it is not possible to radically change the political nature of other countries.
I don't understand those guys at all, because Germany and Japan after WWII offer the only necessary counter-example.
The liberal internationlists are the ones that cheer the UN, France, et.al. over America, and many of them are America hating. So I expected no less from them. They want us to fail, so that their transnational authority can take control, for our own good, of course.
But for the realists to hope we fail... that's really disappointing. They apparently feel that their foreign policy wisdom is so special (despite the Japan/Germany counterexample), and they are so sure this effort to transform the Middle East will fail, that they want it to fail as soon as possible so that we get back to a more routine and realistic foreign policy (where they are calling the shots again, naturally). I would have hoped that anyone who believed in America as the leading light of freedom in the world would wish us well in this endeavor, even if they thought it would probably fail. Alas, no.
While I agree with a lot of what Bush says, there is a lot I also disagree with (e.g., Palestinian state, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc). IMHO--he missed a golden opportuntity to mobilize American for the current war (and it is a war).
For example: he urged people to "go shopping" right after 911 (as opposed to enlisting). In order to make his strategy in Iraq work (its kind of wobbly now), the US has to drain the WHOLE swamp (including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the PA).
Doing this requires a much larger military than what we have right now. This is a hard thing to come to terms with in a Government where 80 cents on the dollar goes to social spending of one kind or another. Rumsfeld's problem is that he doesn't want to increase the size of the military, mostly because of what it will cost. Instead we have a penny-wise/pound foolish situation where we may eventually hand a victory to our enemies by taking ineffective half measures.
Will this be expensive? Hell yes! However, the alternative is an expensive, long stalemate vs. an expensive, relatively short war. And once we're close to REALLY winning, you'll see the likes of France and Russia get involved to stay in the game.
The Cold War was World War III.
Too many people on this forum confuse George Bush's destiny with that of Jesus Christ. I don't think the President has it in him to do what is necessary.
Must read from Podhoretz.
Sets up the obstacles and obstructionists to
Bush's second term policies, then knocks them down
with hit's in the black.
Excellent read.
The Cold War was WW 3.
And a few that haven't. Ever.
Ha, hits in the black.
Dang pesky punctuation.
"The "realists" are what Mark Steyn call "stability junkies","
Otherwise known as sellouts.
Don't forgot The Cola Wars.
I'm a Coke man, myself...
It does. The next time there's an all-out military war across the globe, it's going to be known as "WWIII," because that's what everyone's going to call it. Just as there was no government decree that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were to be forever referred to as "9/11," no mere set of intellectuals is going to tell the public that we have to start calling the Cold War by a different name. Whatever name comes to the forefront of our culture is what will stick.
If there was a full nuclear exchange tomorrow morning between the U.S. and Russia, I don't think those of us that are left would be calling it "World War V."
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, told the Wall Street Journal after his retirement that the antiwar movement in the United States was "essential to our strategy."
the present leaders of the democrat party are the same anti-warriors of the 1960s-70s.
Does that mean that Al Gore and John Kerry were the New Coke and Crystal Pepsi of the Democratic Party?
The Cuban missile crisis didn't affect nations? It was not the only time we were on the brink of nuclear war.
John Kerry is very much a "Tab" kind of guy. A horrible byproduct of the 60s and 70s. An effiminate girly man. And it came in a pinko can.
Vehement agreement will not hide the fact that arbitrarily calling a non-war "WW III" is almost childish sophistry. More that "thinkers" who deal on that level are merely scammers and whatever they have to say is worthless.
W is a Dr. Pepper kind of a guy. Not that stuff that you see around America, but the local variety found in the Texas Hill Country, bottled by Dr. Pepper and still made with Imperial cane sugar.
So the Cold War was not a war then?
America gives medals for all who served if they want them.
The Korean War and Vietnam War had nothing to do with global communism, they were just territorial skermishes? Is that right?
The Berlin Wall was just a bit of civic redevelopment?
Let's see your credentials, Mr. Expert.
I seriously doubt they compare with those of Norm Podhoretz.
Yes, and they lasted about as long.
They still make that stuff! I just saw it in the supermarket last week. Still pink too.
"Which is why I think (to say it one last time) that the amazing leader this President has amazingly turned out to be will—like the comparably amazing Harry Truman before him when he took on the Communist world—have the wind at his back as he continues the struggle against Islamist radicalism and its vicious terrorist armory: a struggle whose objective is the spread of liberty and whose success will bring greater security and greater prosperity not only to the people of this country, and not only to the people of the greater Middle East, but also to the people of Europe and beyond, in spite of the sorry fact that so many of them do not wish to know it yet."
I beg to differ that the Europeans do not know yet that they need the security of a democratic ME. They know it. They just don't want the "swamps" to dry up before they sell their back log of weapons to offset their upcoming economic crisis. Besides, if the ME becomes overall prosperous..uh oh..no more "peasants" to exploit. What will that do to france's inflated self esteem? La boohoo.
The question is not whether when this goes hot it will be III, IV or V. The American Revolution was part of WW I. The Great War, the War to End All War, was WW II. The war against Fascism was WW III or WW II continued. The Cold War was no war at all but a series of local wars that involved the US locally. There was never to be a major war between Russia and the US, nor with China. In the next world war Russia, China, and the US will be allied once more.
Indeed.
The Patriot was an excellent movie. Rough, bloody, and a good study in history. The most wrenching part is when the British burned down homes. Makes you think, doesn't it?
I see an interesting parallel between subscribing to foreign policy that is based on stability or rights of the governments and insisting on an education policy that stresses the importance of the public school system over the needs of children to learn. The interests of people are second.
World War III is what Podhoretz is calling the Cold War, hence the *IV attached to this war.
His case is compelling; all the world wars reached across the breadth of the planet, affected most all nations to a greater or lesser extent. The Cold war certainly fits this description, as does the WOT. The only difference between Cold War/WOT and the Wars I & II is one of degrees; in armies/navies mobilized and engaged in combat.
For my part, I prefer to call this war on terror, world war V - our French and Indian war was a secondary theater to a world wide struggle between the French & Brits (insert T-in-C here...).
My point is, these are just labels, Ace... they can call it whatever they want, just as long as we kill all the bad guys.
CGVet58
OK...Bump for later. It's as long and thorough as his WWIV commentary.
There ARE medals for anyone who served in the Cold War. They are there for the asking.
For example, WWIII would require China, Russia, Japan, Germany and Britain to be called a World War.
Japan and Germany had their militaries castrated after WWII. Hard to include them in post WWII discussion although US troops were stationed in both countries and CERTAINLY Germany was split in the Cold War.
It was a COLD war, that is why massive troops did not see combat. Sheesh. What is it that you don't like about that term?
It was not mere military manuevers and political posturing.
FWIW, WWIV is also a cold war at this point.
WWII was fought to stop Japanese Imperialism (under Shintism) and Nazism. Italian Fascism and Spanish Fascism were not the big threat.
Now we face Islamonazism/Islamofacism and it is a problem in India/Pakistan/Indonesia/Thailand/Spain/England/Netherlans/US/Russia/etc...
It IS a global threat.
There are 35 wars in the world today. Many of them are fought by muslims (sometimes against each other).
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.