WWIII is the wrong metaphor
Saturday, July 22, 2006 at 4:22AM DATELINE: Yardley PA, 22 July 2006
I had this discussion with Gingrich in Alabama earlier this year: he's pushing the Civil War metaphor, declaring 2006 to be the equivalent of 1862, and I'm pushing the far longer concept (I'm a big believer of Abizaid's Long War concept) of the settling of the Wild West.
Now, Gingrich, among others, are reviving the talk of WWIII that a lot of excited pundits were tossing about right after 9/11.
I consider this approach to be as wrongheaded as the End Times thinking: it's a form of escapism that turns the definition of war on its head.
First off, the world has never been more at peace. This is a not a claim or a vision. It's just the way it is, statistically speaking.
Second, World Wars were wars between states. We have none of those here. No State A on State B. The "war" that revives all this talk is Israel going into Lebanon against non-state actor Hezbollah. Wasn't a state-on-state war when Israel did the same to the PLO in 1982. Isn't a state-on-state war today.
Third, the road to victory in the Long War, as the new Counter-insurgency (COIN) doctrine argues, is overwhelmingly non-kinetic. A "war," however "global" in its day-to-day expression (I have freckles all over my body, but it doesn't make me a black man), that is both won or lost on the question of non-kinetics (the ultimate exit strategy in the Middle East is called JOBS!) ain't exactly a rerun of either of those two bloodbaths.
Fourth, the scale here is all wrong. Not just the tiny percentages of combatants, but the tiny amounts of death. This whole "world war" since 9/11 hasn't yielded a good week's worth of WWII dead.
Fifth, this view indulges in the myth that what Israel does against 4GW opponents actually works, when it does not. Masada-on-steroids isn't the answer. We, the Core, don't have to shoot ourselves out of this situation. Time is on our side, as all all the major dynamics that count (energy, investments, demographics, sheer firepower, enduring ingenuity, strength of our societies, our enduring resilience--none of which favor the other side). The Brits in Northern Ireland or the U.S. cavalry in the Wild West are our models. Stick to the Long War. Don't give in to quick fixes or Armageddon-like fantasies. WWIII is just the End Timers with a patina of strategic analysis, but shit on a stick still tastes bad.
But worst of all, the WWIII talk obscures the solution set, which is not destruction but construction, not disconnectedness but connectedness, not take down nets but put them up. When you call everything a war, you come up with more "war" answers, and those inevitably involve firepower.
Firepower won't get us the win here, plain and simple. WWIII is not realism, it's romanticism. It's starry-eyed, not clear-eyed. It looks for what is easy, instead of what is right.
Resist the temptation. Make your own history. Stop living in the past and embrace a future worth creating.
Reader Comments (37)
Too funny. I'm on vacation but I was tempted to E-Mail you and ask you what you thought of all the WWIII analogies. I guess you "pre-empted me!"
P.S. Some are even calling it WWIV, with WWIII being the Cold War. However you cut it, I guess "World Wars" get better ratings than "Global Struggles to create free trade and jobs for all."
Love the positive!! I posted on another blog last night after someone said "doom and gloom" that the world is going to come around and be stable for the most part. I believe once people get the "what is REALLY important" ideal, connection will happen. It will be the light bulb moment.
actually, RCB, i have a bad feeling many people will continue to not get it. bad news sells, for one. i heard 2 'experts' on NPR yesterday talking about how all the trend lines are down in the Middle East including America's 'adventure' in Iraq.
while i hope people will get it soon, i don't really look for it. like Tom, i'm pessimistic/cynical in the short term. i look for more political sniping, more protectionist cries about borders and jobs and buying American, more calls to abandon the UN and leave the world to police itself, more warnings against the 'spectre' of 'scarily' rising China, etc.
but maybe people have more sense than that...
I'm placing my bet with the "but maybe people have more sense than that" crowd.
Question: How do we connect to a group of people who worship the way things were done in the 6th Century? How do we convince them we have a better plan when they detest our culture as depraved? How do we sell optimism and free enterprise to people who worship death?
It isn't state on state, but something far more difficult. It is modern civilization against a group of "True Believers" whose philosophy glorifies dying for their cause and brain washes their children to willingly do the same.
They hold no territory, they hide among civilians, they have no permanent bases, and they are masters of terrorizing normal people with sheer barbarity. They cannot be rooted out and desposed of without massive collateral damage. The collateral damage makes it that more difficult to bring about the connectivity and commerce.
IMO most people who are calling it WWIII or WWIV are primarily trying to get people to see that we are engaged not only by shadowy terror groups but by state sponsors like Syria, Iran, and, yes, Saudi Arabia. This is not localized; it is combat that is spread all over the Muslim Gap. Yes, we have all the advantages, but so did Rome when they faced the barbarians of their time. What they are saying is we must not underestimate our foe and the determination it is going to take for modernity to triumph.
Jim G.
Good points. Collateral damage will always be present when a state is up against a terror group. However, they do hold territory. It's called Iran...and easily includes Syria. If Isreal can put off Hezbollah in Lebanon without a huge uprising of muslim brotherhood and similar groups, then the connectivity that Tom speaks of can start to make its way in the re-builing of Lebanon's infrastructure.
Someday the mid east residents (property owners), not transient terrorists and insurgents, will wake up and nail the terrorist to the wall. They will eventually be fed up the the terrorist hidding behind their grandmother's skirt and say enough is enough! Move on out of My Country. Thats when they - terrorists- go to Africa as the last vestage of hope.
Eventually everyone - particularly young Arabs- will get fed up and decide to "to turn their swords into plowshares" ie economic development (JOBS). In the meantime, it will be a long (25 year struggle) similar to Northern Ireland.
THis is not WWIII, not even close. Its more like Guilliani vs. the mob.
"How do we sell optimism and free enterprise to people who worship death?"
A key question is how many such people there really are?
Is apocalyptic Islamic terrorism: (1) The unpopular activity of a tiny minority? (2) Or is it a true large-scale movement, but still a minority? (3) Or does it at some level represent the orientation of millions of muslims?
I don't know. We need to get that answered. The lower on the scale our correct answer is will tell us whether this is primarily a police action or something more on the scale of an attenuated "world war" like the Cold War.
I tend to think it is somewhere around (2) above, possibly tending toward (3). I hope it is really toward the low end.
The existence of state sponsors, Saudi and our supposed ally Pakistan keeps this in the middle-to-high range for now.
We should not make ourselves panic, nor should we underestimate the scale of the problem.
Tom's basic idea is right. But the nastiest part of the Gap is the Arab Middle East and closure may be the work of generations. (I specify ARAB middle east because I have some hope that the Shia Heart of Darkness, the mullah regime in Iran, may put itself out of business.)
Those who use the WWIII metaphor are doing it purely for political reasons. It is not analytically based.
Guys, this beats setting up my fantasy football team or watching the British Open.
If GEN Abizaid holds the legacy of General Sheridan who won a war of attrition assisted by European immigrants, British capital establishing the railroads and technological advances such as "the singing wire" then, the "long war" will be won with the assitance of new core legatees of Western Civilization with large populations, India and China.
If Iran is playing chess while the US plays checkers, maybe the smart thing to do is to involve our friends from China who'll gladly display their Go skills while keeping an eye on their, and India's, long term oil supply. IMO, if we see Indian and/or Chinese boots on the ground in southern Lebanon, that might be a harbinger of progress in "the long war."
Is this not the point in the movie where the USA locks-in new core for SysAdmin assistance?
Resist the temptation. Make your own history. Stop living in the past and embrace a future worth creating.
I really love your words, now if only the other side would embrace the logic. It doesn't work unless both parties want the same thing. And so we are back to zero.
"A key question is how many such people there really are?" is truly key, but not just those who accept an "apocalyptic Islamic terrorism" but I think more relevant is how many would actually perpetrate it? (And to a lesser degree those who incite it.) This would significantly reduce the size of the problem.
Dr. Marc Sageman authored Understanding Terror Networks which reveals important research about who typically commits terrorism and how they get there. Sageman's conclusions would lead us to only a few mosques in the West where provocations take root in a few 'at risk' groups (who are not particularly religious).
But back to Tom's main point - we will win this struggle based on fundamentals - but attacking the roots of terrorism and balanced defensive rule sets can reduce the pain.
I rather liken Lebanon to a reoccurring cancer patient. We know if the cancer is allowed to spread it will kill the patient. The UN offers a slow prolonged hospitalization driving up everybody's insurance. Iran and Syria are the cancer’s blood supply; Israel is the surgeon on call. Surgery may not work, but it may get the patient to start doing the things it needs to protect it's healh.
Lately I've been coming to read Mr. Barnett's blog when I get weary of all the bad news. His approach is refreshing, though I don't always agree with him.
Lexington Green's question above is the one I've pondered ever since 9/11, and I find myself vacillating between his positions (2) and (3).
Re: Lexington Green's question. If 1% of the Muslims are active jihadis, that is a huge number. The other 99% should be able to oppose them if........they didn't see the West as so contemptible and corrupt.
Is this really more of a sales job than a military problem? Can we turn Muslims on to tolerance and free markets through reason and education? I wish I had the answer.
It is obvious that connectivity works. Good example: South Korea (connected) versus North Korea (unconnected). Reasonably honest government, private property ownership backed by courts, and enough stability for investment to take place are the conditions which allow a country like South Korea to become connected. We're trying to implement that in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is HAARD, so HAARD.
Can we say to the Muslims, "Look at these two countries - North and South Korea. Which one do you want to emulate?" If they say, "North Korea," do we then know it's hopeless?
The more I try to see solutions the more questions I have.
The reason that I think that World War III is a bad analogy but that World War IV is a good one is because the war that we are fighting now is a lot more like the Cold War than World War II.
Both the Cold War and the current war were over world views or mindshare or meme sets or whichever you care to call it. Communists were just as implacable as the Islamists and just as convinced that we in the West are corrupt and effete. There is a quote I read from some British between the wars intellectual comparing the absolute moral certainty of Bolshvists to Mohammedans.
It took us about 50 years to win World War III. It will probably take that long to win this war. That doesn't mean that all the Islamofascists will be gone. There are still Communists around. Heck, there are still people who subscribe to the New York Times and The Nation who insist that the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were innocent no matter what the declassified Soviet era files say.
Finally, we won World War III and we didn't do it by nuking Moscow. We can win World War IV without having to leave an arc of radioactive glass from Nigeria to Mindinao or establish a a modern Thomas de Torquemada to root out the Moriscos from our own soil.
Newt knows the number one issue in 2008 will be national security. That's all the WWIII rhetoric is about. But to give him some credit, there are a lot of people who would rather not think of the GWOT as global. Raising that point is not completely out of order, even if it is a bit simplistic and/or shrill.
Tom's right. Look, you cannot A) have a Third World War that isn't Great Power war, nor can you B) have World War III as a horizontal, and not vertical, scenario.
Could it be a regional war? Sure. Does that constitute World War III? No. I must admit I do appreciate the "World War IV" analogies, but that is strictly nomenclature. I don't think James Woolsey really wants us to call it World War IV. But it is certainly the fourth GLOBAL war we've ever waged.
In terms of terminology, I like Long War. Fits perfect for this horizontal scenario. How do we know when the GWOT has been won? We don't. Things can only get better or worse.
My article about Tom:
http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Guariglia_20060525_04.htm
To speak to Lexington Green's question about terrorism's popularity, I think the problem is that power in the Middle East is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of actors whose survival is linked to continued disconnectedness. Some of these enjoy a measure of popular support because they position themselves as "anti-regime", others make up the regimes--at the end of the day, they're both in the same boat. It's worth remembering too, that not everybody that voted HAMAS in wants to be a martyr--a lot of them wanted clean drinking water and less corruption in the govt. Osama is popular in Saudi Arabia more because people there want jobs, not because they too want to be on dialysis in some cave. Most of the people who "worship death" if given a choice between ok jobs and killing strangers, prefer the former. That's why I'll take Tom over Kaplan any day--the alternative to Tom's optimistic take on things is the first 10min of Gladiator on constant replay. Kill barbarians--rinse, repeat. That sucks.
This is a very interesting discussion, but in reading all these comments, I am struck by how it sounds like a bunch of folks who don't know a single Muslim person. --Or that there are no Muslim readers of this blog.
Instead of talking about or reading books on how many jihadists there are out there, maybe we should start asking that question of the next Muslim we see in our neighborhood or in the workplace. They might have some valuable insights to contribute to this inquiry.
I really don't see how allowing Israel to destroy the civilian infrastructure of a key, moderate (and fragile) Arab state is going to help us build connectivity in the region. Not only will Israel accomplish nothing in the end, (have they even killed 10 Hizbullah combatants yet?), the recent Israeli action just shows the backwards relationship between the proxy and us. After we used Lebanon for a prop last year (all hail the cedar revolution, a direct result of the Iraq war), I only hope Lebanon doesn't turn into a failed state.
"I am struck by how it sounds like a bunch of folks who don't know a single Muslim person."
Leaving aside the Muslims I know or have met, this is not really much of an objection. The question is not really one of meeting Muslims personally. That kind of pointillist and anecdotal experience cannot be relied on. In assessing whether we face a few thousand active jihadis in the future, or the oft-cited "1% of 1 billion" is something we will learn by experience eventually. In the meantime, estimating the population of serious terrorists and likely terrorists is probably more a question of survey data and observing political trends, and possibly more study of actual terrorists to determine what motivates them in the first place.
I also agree that the GWOT is World War IV -- The second global conflict waged under the shadow of nuclear weapons, which makes open warfare between major powers too risky to actually happen. As Tom puts it, "Norman Angell with nukes" is correct this time in a way that he was not and could not be in the run-up to 1914. Just like WWIII, WWIV will be won without open great power conflict. Moreover, it may actually be more like a global police action, with casualties orders of magnitude lower than in WWI and WWII. Iraq may be the highest casualty-generating action in WWIV, and it is not likely to be repeated in anything like the same fashion. It will, hopefully, be won without the detonation of any nuclear weapons, too. Fingers crossed on that.
Word, Lex. I think Michal presupposes that Islam, rather than disconnectedness, is at the heart of the conflict. This is larger than some cultural misunderstanding, or if you like, "conflict of civilizations"--it's modern vs. antimodern, civilization, period vs. going back in time. Muslims here have more in common with Americans of any other stripe than they do w/ Muslims in the Middle East. Might as well ask them why Hezbollah chose now to attack Israel--how would they know?
Well ok. maybe not WWIII but instead
WWWWE- World Wide War Without End?
Guys: Am I wrong? Other "World Wars" (World Wars I, II and the Cold War) were wars, in general, between great powers. The "Long War" is not a war between great powers. The "Long War" looks to have the "global" aspect of the conflicts which occurred with empire/imperialism -- being wars by one or more great powers against lesser entities.
Tom:
First, I would have liked to have been the fly on the wall during that conversation! Having engaged both you guys in dialogue at one time or another, it would have been fun just to be the timekeeper.
But Newt does have a new book to sell.......
I have two direct experiences with Muslims, one an American, the other a Tanzanian. Both were (and are) fine men who practiced their religion in a peaceful, tolerant manner. Both had experienced some racism and some religious persecution but neither was bitter nor hostile. I would count myself as a very good Christian if I was as tolerant, forgiving, and peaceful as these two.
When 9/11 happened I could not connect the Muslims I knew with such a barbaric act and still can't. As a result, I want to believe that the majority of Muslims are similar to these two men, but the terrorists (some call them insurgents)in Iraq sure do upset the idea that Islam is a "religion of peace." I'm trying to learn all that I can about Islam and the cultures of the Middle East. Kind of following the rule: Know your enemy. What I have learned thus far does not set my mind at ease.
The Long War may become a war between civilizations, ala Huntington. I hope not. The Long War may involve sub-state actors using nuclear weapons or other bad things against states, ala Bush's national security strategy document. I hope not. The Long War may involve sub-state actors gaining high levels of competency at making devastating attacks against states and their economies, ala John Robb's Global Guerillas. I hope not. The Long War may involve state sponsors of terrorism hiding behind a nuclear deterrant sheild, with the possible failure of deterrance if the provocation is sufficient. I hope not.
It is still early.
But the scope of the conflict is global, the time scale is probably decades, the severity of the destruction is as yet unknown, the ultimate size, skill, movitation, armament and other aspects of the opposing forces are as yet unknown and unknownable.
If it is really just a big police operation, maybe it is not, in retrospect, much of a war at all. If it really is a major conflict against a large group of committed people who have state sponsors with serious armament and funds, then it is some kind of global war.
The whole question of major powers going it at it openly cannot be used a basis for saying whether a conflict is a major war or not. States with nukes can't openly fight. Sub-state actors may have a greater command of the allegiance of people willing to fight, and do war-size damage, as well as access to the means.
"The "Long War" looks to have the "global" aspect of the conflicts which occurred with empire/imperialism -- being wars by one or more great powers against lesser entities."
Yes, but the Long War could easily turn into WWIII (or IV). We must prevent this from happening, but if the US continues to bungle its role as the Core's primary military arm, the odds of it happening go up quite a bit. China, India, the EU, Japan, and Russia all really really want that Middle East oil. If, like Iraq and now Lebanon, our actions (or inactions) keep driving the price of oil up, the other major Core powers will get fed up and start acting on their own--there is speculation floating around that Europe is going to send some peacekeepers down to Lebanon at some point. Whether or not it happens, that's actually pretty significant, imo--Europe has pretty much deferred to the US in Middle Eastern military affairs since Eisenhower.
Compared to Mr. Barnett and probably most people who comment here, I'm a bit of a pessimist. The US will eventually lose its role as the predominant military/economic powerhouse. We've already run out of money and are spending the rest of the world's (80-90% of world savings) right now and our ability to follow through on our promises militarily (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) is being called into question. The question at this point isn't whether or not we will lose support, but when and how fast. The slower and farther out the loss happens, the softer and gentler it will be for the US and the world.
But WWIII would be disastrous. Better to keep it as the Long War and maintain a roughly united Core. I think that's what the struggle is shifting toward right now. We are entering a defensive phase.
One would think that for the "Long War" to become a true World War, other somewhat great powers, such as Russia or China, would have to join the terrorists' cause, openly oppose and prepare to fight the United States, and rally important, capable allies to their side. This is not in Russia or China's interests and they have little ability/capability to do this. Russia, China and the EU are much more likely to use their potency to help the United States in the cause against the global guerrillas -- thus, returning to the ways of empire/imperialism which served the great powers so well prior to the conflicts of the 20th Century.
In a time of assymetrical warfare, when the super-empowered individual can weild destructive power that previous civilizations could only dream of, it would be foolishly dismissive to underestimate the onslaught of the babarians at the gate breathing apocalyptic fire to cleanse our decadent world of the great Satan and make way for the return of 12th Imam.
Fascinating historical series on the Third Reich roots of the Muslim Brotherhood and Pan Arab Nationalism in the Asia Times.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/islamism-fascism-terrorism.html
The only way I see the "Long War" ending would be if a) great power conflict ever did occur again or b) a Cold War-type paradigm occured again, i.e., bipolar world. I don't see any of that happening. So the "Long War" is going to be a horizontal war without a definitive ending.
Eventually everyone - particularly young Arabs- will get fed up and decide to "to turn their swords into plowshares" ie economic development (JOBS). In the meantime, it will be a long (25 year struggle) similar to Northern Ireland.
Turning Muslim swords into plowshares only works if they have something to plow. Most Muslims, especially the nearly half-billion in Africa have nothing but time on their hands. Half a century ago Africa had hundreds of millions of starving souls, but at least they were mostly non-Muslim starving souls with no world-wide Jihad to distract them from their poverty.
Time is only on your side if your enemy is getting weaker. At the present time Islam is only a quarter of the world and only 7% of Europe. See http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/02/how_many_muslim_buggers_are_th_1.html
But in time, they will swallow Europe since Europeans are not having babies in any significant numbers.