'World War IV' (Commentary on Norman Podhoretz' Commentary)

NOT A VERY soothing phrase, is it? If World War III, whose dominant image was mushroom clouds where cities once stood, was painted as horrific, what would World War IV be like? Where do you go beyond apocalypse? We may already be getting the answer, because that war may already have started.

At least Norman Podhoretz thinks so. Mr. Podhoretz is the editor of Commentary magazine, the leading "neoconservative" journal, which is geared primarily toward American Jews. He broke ranks with his fellow liberals during the Cold War, when so many of them declared neutrality in that conflict or even tipped toward the other side, and was a founder of the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger. That clear-eyed view of the enormity of the Red threat leads Mr. Podhoretz to call the now-over Cold War "World War III." World War IV is what he labels, in a recent Commentary piece, "the war against militant Islam."

Pointing to 9/11 and the "homicide" bombings in Israel, Mr. Podhoretz argues that there is no coexistence for Americans or Israelis with Islamic terror or regimes that, for their own reasons, abet it. Even as we had to defeat the whole Evil Empire if we were to maintain our security and liberty, he writes, just as surely we must rid the world of the current regimes in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon--not to mention, regarding Israel, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. This seems a tall order, even for a president from the land of 10-gallon hats, but Mr. Podhoretz thinks that George W. Bush may already have embarked on it.

Mr. Bush, in Mr. Podhoretz's approving view, began prosecuting World War IV when he routed the Taliban in Afghanistan, started to harry al-Qaida around the world, and demanded a change in leadership of the Palestinian Authority before he would work toward creating an autonomous Palestinian state. The war effort must now target the aforementioned regimes, of which Saddam's is first in line for destruction.

"There is no denying that the alternative to these regimes could easily turn out to be worse, even (or especially) if it comes into power through democratic elections. After all, by every measure we possess, very large numbers of people in the Muslim world sympathize with Osama bin Laden and would vote for radical Islamic candidates of his stripe if given the chance.

"Nevertheless, there is a policy that could head it off, provided that the United States has the will to fight World War IV--the war against militant Islam--to a successful conclusion, and provided, too, that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II; it is what we have indirectly striven with some success to help achieve in the former Communist countries since World War III; and it is George W. Bush's ultimate aim in World War IV."

In his long article, Mr. Podhoretz devotes not one word to Israeli provocations that might have worsened local terror or to unwise U.S. policies in the Middle East that might have helped sell bin Ladenism to the Muslim throngs whose mandate Mr. Podhoretz fears. It's true that nothing in U.S. behavior justified 9/11. But some principled changes in that behavior might have prevented the attacks--or at least the repugnant applause in the Arab street that greeted them.

Yet, as we stand on the verge of invading Iraq, Mr. Podhoretz's martial arguments are more agreeable, and probably more valid, than the grubby rationales the political left is putting forth--(1) oil and (2) a filial obsession by Mr. Bush to tidy up Daddy's War. The despotisms and fanaticisms that thrive in the Middle East are uncontainable menaces to which a civilized world should wish good riddance. Just like three times (I, II, III) before.

Given the strangeness of the argument the author makes that we fought and won a WW III, he then can establish a WW IV against Islam.

Some writers just won't go away even when they start inventing their own histories. And they still think people will take them seriously.

I don't care for anything he wrote in this article. Some of his speculations are entirely unwarranted.

At the time, WWI was known as the Great War

WWII as the Second World War

WWIII as the Cold War

WWIV as the War on Terror

That's what most people mean when they say we won the third world war, the defeat of global communism.

"Pointing to 9/11 and the "homicide" bombings in Israel, Mr. Podhoretz argues that there is no coexistence for Americans or Israelis with Islamic terror or regimes that, for their own reasons, abet it. Even as we had to defeat the whole Evil Empire if we were to maintain our security and liberty, he writes, just as surely we must rid the world of the current regimes in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon--not to mention, regarding Israel, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. This seems a tall order, even for a president from the land of 10-gallon hats, but Mr. Podhoretz thinks that George W. Bush may already have embarked on it."

This is one of the few things Podhoretz has said that I entirely agree with. It is us or them. Let's roll.

--Boris

The two real world wars were marked by total economic and military and industrial mobilization.

The Cold War was basicly a guns and butter "war" if you can call it that. By the way, exactly how do you call it a war if American armies didn't fight Soviet armies?

The current War Against Terror is primarily against groups of rabid radical Muslim extremists funded by wealthy oil princes and, to a lesser extent, equipped by states like Iraq.

You can try to call it a world war but I'd say it's going to be American air power pounding their defenses to shreds followed by some action to oust Saddam and perhaps install a "democratic" regime.

In the current conflict, we will invade Iraq. There will be no declaration of war. Therefore, no world war, nothing more than what can be called a regime-change or a police action by historical standards.

Podhoretz has shrilled this sort of crapola for decades. After a while, it's a little tiresome. But then, my patience with neo-con hawks is notably short.

In the current conflict, we will invade Iraq. There will be no declaration of war. Therefore, no world war, nothing more than what can be called a regime-change or a police action by historical standards.

War -- 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within nations. 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. (Websters)

Please don't change the meaning of words -- we are at war.

BTW, concerning the question of whether this is a declared war, the congressional declaration was a declaration of war -- read the wording.

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.