The Rhetoric of World War
One of the trendy things on the right these days seems to be the proclamation of World War III, based (most recently) on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and before that 9/11. Newt Gingirch seems most determined to trumpet this theory, echoed by astute observers like Bill O’Reilly (and expertly mocked by Stephen Colbert).
This talk of World War III is wrong, and dangerous. First, the nexus of botched terrorist plots, a terrorist attack in India, North Korean missile tests, Iraq, and the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah certainly adds up to a messy and dangerous international environment. But World War? Protracted, fully-mobilized warfare between nation-states and empires claiming the lives of tens of millions of civilians and combatants and remaking the map of the world – that’s a World War. It’s wholly inaccurate – and, frankly, more than a bit disrespectful to those who suffered through those conflicts – to cobble together the worst headlines of the last few months and call it a World War
Second, it plays into the hands of terrorists. The only people alive today who really want a conflict the size of a World War are al Qaeda (even Hezbollah’s aims seem at least regional). By eagerly declaring the commencement of World War III, we’re rhetorically embracing exactly the kind of conflict that the most nihilistic and megalomaniacal terrorists crave. And, consequently, helping them frame their jihad against the U.S. and the West in the grandiose terms that they want to use in appealing to the Islamic world.
One of the strange things about war, terrorism, and terrible news from abroad, is the strange twinge of anticipation that it sparks in the voyeur. To live in interesting times. To be engaged in a heroic endeavor. These are understandable impulses.
No doubt 9/11 was an act of war, and the conflict that the United States is engaged in against jihadists is more than a law enforcement operation. No doubt a country like Iran is a grave threat, the situation in Iraq presents monumental challenges, and the conflict in Lebanon could escalate. But let’s keep matters in perspective. In groping for historical analogies, we can do better than simply wrapping our arms around the worst-case scenarios (artfully debunked by John Keegan). There is such a thing as war – and ideological conflict – that is not World War. We spent the Cold War avoiding World War III. Why are we starting the 21st century by trying to talk ourselves into it?
No related posts.
Excellent point Rhodes, not said enough these days of Armageddon-thumpers and jingoes. Reminds me of the conclusion of an Economist editorial in August 2002: “Mr Bush may have made a mistake when he chose to call his response to September 11th a “war”. Talk of war conjures up the need for the suspension of normal political life and even of civil liberties. That is bad enough in a war of the conventional kind. But this war, if war it is, is one that may go on for ever. It can certainly never be declared won; terrorism, like poverty, is probably always with us. Awful as it sounds, that may mean learning to live with terror, even as you fight it: to be dominated by a fear of terrorists, to credit them with greater power than they really have, and to tear up your freedoms in the face of their threats is to hand them a needless victory.”
Comment on August 1, 2006 @ 5:51 am