From a review of World War IV, the new book defending Bush’s Iraq policy, by Norman Podhoretz:
The most astonishing part of “World War IV” is Podhoretz’s incessant use of violent imagery to describe American politics. Critics of the Iraq war represent a “domestic insurgency” with a “life-and-death stake” in America’s defeat. And their dispute with the president’s supporters represents “a war of ideas on the home front.” “In its own way,” Podhoretz declares, “this war of ideas is no less bloody than the one being fought by our troops in the Middle East.”
I actually think the WW4 metaphor for the struggle against Islamic extremism is, in fact, appropriate; however, the same people that are most determined to fight it are also usually determined to fight it in the most stupid ways possible. As an avowed secularist, I think Islam is f–ing scary – more so than modern Christianity – and that the most meaningful difference between Saudi Arabia and North Korea, in terms of US foreign policy, is oil. Both are very alien places that are rather disturbing and, ideologically, are in no way natural allies of the United States.
If Cheney and company were secretly Saudi moles determined to hurt the United States and advance the interests of the House of Saud, what would they be doing that they aren’t already doing now? When the United States repeats its biggest foreign policy blunder in recent memory step by step, when the rule of law is being systematically eroded, when whistleblowers are treated as dangerous terrorists, when billions of dollars are being given away in the biggest fraud ever, when we have a response to a natural disaster that is totally incompetent and STILL haven’t recovered yet, when the head of the Justice Department’s “Office of Legal Council” effectively resigns in protest and John Ashcroft – of all people – found himself playing gatekeeper, we’re either dealing with an administration whose incompetence rivals that of James Buchanan, or something more sinister is happening. Take your pick.
WW4? Whatever happened to WWIII? Did someone decide that the cold war would do for that?
I just got the grenade launcher firefox plugin to integrate with my blogging software.
Oh, no, wait.
I guess the Cold War was WW3? It’s nice to see the right wing acknowledge how devastating it was for ‘hot’ areas. North America didn’t see much violence, but the third world certainly did- direct and structural.
Yes; according to the “World War Four” metaphor, the Cold War was World War Three. It was fought differently, but had much in common with the previous struggles between world powers.
Calling the “War on Terror” by “World War IV” is even more ridiculous than calling the Cold War “World War III”.
How is this not a war? Our enemies are terrrorists, a bunch of nationless fighters who are incapable of holding territory to governing a rock, let alone conquer even a patch of land. It is true that insurgents and terrorists are making life difficult in Iraq, but that’s only because of a lack of infrastucture and centralized government, and really, whose fault is that?
The single most destructive and glorious terrorist attack in history was 9/11, and let’s take a look at that. Nearly 3000 dead and a city block destroyed, while a tragedy, pales in comparison to the destruction and death caused by modern industrial wars. The ultimate fear is terrorists detonating one or a handful of nuclear bombs, which is nothing compared to what would have likely occurred had the Cold War ever erupted into World War III.
But frankly loss of life at the hands of militant Islamists does not frighten me as much as the utter hatred Podhoretz shows for his fellow countrymen, especially considering he’s the foreign policy adviser for Rudy Giulliani. Bin Laden is a mass murderer, but it was not he who shat upon the Constitution, started an unwinnable war in Iraq and allowed for the President to hold unrestrained power. We did that, and fear was the catalyst. All Podhoretz offers is fear and folly.
Yeah, “war” is probably a bad term for what I’m trying to discuss anyway, and by the metric I’m trying to use, World War 1 might not really count as an ideological struggle of this kind (although, at the time, Woodrow Wilson managed to convince much of the United States that it was). What does one call widespread ideological conflicts that don’t erupt into shooting wars between nations?
If World War 2 was about the defeat of fascism and the Cold War was about the defeat of communism, then the so-called “War on Terror” ought to be about the defeat of theocracy. Right now, the forces of theocracy are, on a level of conventional militarily power, extremely weak compared to their opposition. We can’t assume that will always be the case. Furthermore, missiles are far cheaper to build than to defend against; would the threat of mutually assured destruction be enough to deter someone who actually believes that getting blown up by an enemy is a one-way ticket to Paradise?
“If World War 2 was about the defeat of fascism and the Cold War was about the defeat of communism, then the so-called “War on Terror” ought to be about the defeat of theocracy. Right now, the forces of theocracy are, on a level of conventional militarily power, extremely weak compared to their opposition.”
I think you understand that, numero uno, the designation ‘war’ and the defeat of a major ‘ism’ are not contingent on each other in any way, and that, numero dos, the enemy’s weak level of military power is precisely the thing that doesn’t make this a ‘war’ in any meaningful sense. But just to be clear, I’ve gone over it in the roundabout way in the preceding sentence. ;)
Defeating theocracy is a worthy goal – not exempt from a cost/benefit analysis, of course, but all in all a net positive for the world. But do the War on Terror’s masterminds and loyal backers actually consider it a war on theocracy? After all, Iraq’s was a secular regime. If they do think of it that way and Iraq was just an aw-shucks mistake, why don’t they CALL it a “War on Theocracy”?
And if the “War on Theocracy”‘s masterminds and loyal backers do not consider it as such, what are the chances that it will be executed along those lines?
It reminds me of some of the points Christopher Buckley made in “What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?” — the incessant need for those who think class privilege makes them too special to actually risk their lives (Young Republicans, I’m looking at you) to use endless military metaphors for what are, in reality, completely bloodless struggles.
I think we also agree that there is a big gap between what ought to be done and what actually is being done.