| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| U.S. Analysts debate whether World War III is in the offing |
| 2006-08-14 |
| A raging war between Israel and the radical Shiite movement Hezbollah in Lebanon; a de facto civil war in Iraq more than three years after the U.S.-led invasion; mounting conflict over Iran's nuclear program; recent reports over terrorist plans for spectacular attacks against transatlantic aviation; NATO's faltering war in Afghanistan... All of them taking place simultaneously, are these indications that the world is heading for a fresh world war? This is the talk of the day here. But intellectually, the strongest ideas on where the world is standing with respect to a global conflict, or what the United States should do, came from Richard Holbrooke, a top diplomat during former President Bill Clinton's tenure and "Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay," Holbrooke wrote in an Aug. 10 article in The Washington Post. He then went on to compare the present threat with how World War I broke out, referring to historian Barbara Tuchman's classic, 'The Guns of August,' which recounted how a seemingly isolated event 92 summers ago -- an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist -- set off a chain reaction that led in just a few weeks to the world's first global conflict. "There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that resonates in this summer of crisis: 'The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit,'" Holbrooke said. He said preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of American policy. He called on President George W. Bush's administration to contain the ongoing violence in the first place, also urging Washington to engage in talks with Syria and even Iran. In a counter-article in The Washington Post on Aug. 11, Gingrich mostly agreed with Holbrooke's analysis on the present situation, which he called "an emerging Third World War," but the two men's solution offers diverged greatly. He rejected Holbrooke's calls for dialogue with Iran and Syria, saying the "architect of Bosnian peace" represented the diplomacy first-diplomacy always school. Needless to say, U.S. foreign policy hawks agree with Gingrich's 'go-for-it' approach, and calls by Holbrooke and other Democratic and centrist analysts to engage in talks with Iran face deaf ears from Bush's administration. And Gingrich's position is what the centrists and liberals would call a provocation for the new world war. As for Keegan, he sees the comparison between today's threats and World War I's outbreak in the eyes of a pure military historian, declining to offer any solutions. Keegan said: "If the Middle East descends into mutual aggression as a result of the present crisis, it will not be because of similarities or analogies with World War I, but because leaders of states and non-state organizations are willing to run terrible risks." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #10 For something comparable to WWI and WWII to occur, there have to be two roughly evenly-matched alliances facing off. EUrabia, Russia and China vs. U. S. India & Japan. Sounds pretty even. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-14 20:58 |
| #9 After 9-11, the US exhonerated Pak-Saud terror financing as long as they moved against Wahabi al-Qaeda, while Teheran re-activated its relations with Zawahiri-al-Qaeda. Russia and India, who also financed the Northern Alliance, allied with Teheran, and sell massive amounts of weaponry to the Islamic Republic. In its relations with Iran, Russia invokes counter-balance to the US alliance with Sunni Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is a fact that these alliances undermine Western Civilization. The US must unite the Free World against Islamic tyranny. This ideal solution faces one central problem; Much of the Free World has become so This duplicity needs to end. So far, only Australia and Britain have demonstrated anywhere near the unalloyed solidarity needed to pose a cohesive front against the terrorist sponsors. Others here at Rantburg have already mentioned a new NATO-sort of alliance whereby signatories all enjoy a mutual anti-terrorist umbrella of cross-protection once they make and keep their commitments in quelling terrorism. Those nations who have already shown themselves to be so lackadasical in their condemnation of terrorism and any countering thereof must undergo a sort of embargo where they no longer benefit from America's superpower umbrella of protection. The rug needs to be yanked out from under these spineless parasites who constantly undermine our efforts with cries of unilateralism whilst simultaneously enjoying the threat of American intervention should they be attacked. The post-WWII model of NATO in Europe largely describes this same current state of affairs. We need to establish this group quite soon and somehow rally these resources into a truly nasty set of consequences for those who oppose it. All of my personal dislikes of G.W. Bush aside, I do not think that he truly possesses the personal charisma or ultimate leadership necessary to convince and recruit this assemblage of foreign powers. I'd love to be proven wrong by the man, but his current waffling regarding Lebanon leaves great doubt in my mind. That said, this administration needs to cobble together a package of sufficiently desirable benefits and long-term gains to dangle in front of prospective new allies. Those who continue to sit on the fence must be confronted with the loss of support in times of peril. Opinions, embellishments, criticisms and enhancements upon the above are all welcome. We need something substantial and we need it d@mn soon. Iran is cranking up the meat-grinder and unless we subject them to their own devices an age of darkness will descend upon us, not soon to be lifted. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-14 20:49 |
| #8 I've found Keegan entirely too "Britain won WW2 all by itself" for my taste. However, for pure information and a different perspective I would highly recommend him. He is also highly respected among most military history circles. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-14 18:45 |
| #7 It does kinda feel like the eleventeenth Balkan War tho. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-14 18:41 |
| #6 John Keegan's work is excellent, recomended |
| Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-08-14 15:07 |
| #5 We need to see that GWB, and not the Norquist-Powell Bush who catered to the Muslim enemy. You probably will have to wait for either the Giuliani or Clinton Administration. That W, like Elvis, has left the building. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-08-14 07:43 |
| #4 Muslims chose global regime change when Abdullah Azzam formed al-Qaeda at-Jihad in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1989. In 1995 Saudi Sheiks al-Hawali and al-Awdah took the globalist message to Teheran (and were jailed for 5 years for so doing), and a joint Sunni-Shiite undestanding on taking war directly to the enemy was settled. However, when the Taliban took over Afghanistan Osama bin Laden placed al-Qaeda on a Wahabi footing (Azzam, a Muslim Brotherhood member, was murdered in November 1989), and Shiites financed the Northern Alliance campaign, as did Pakistan and Saudi Arabia back Taliban/al-Qaeda. After 9-11, the US exhonerated Pak-Saud terror financing as long as they moved against Wahabi al-Qaeda, while Teheran re-activated its relations with Zawahiri-al-Qaeda. Russia and India, who also financed the Northern Alliance, allied with Teheran, and sell massive amounts of weaponry to the Islamic Republic. In its relations with Iran, Russia invokes counter-balance to the US alliance with Sunni Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is a fact that these alliances undermine Western Civilization. The US must unite the Free World against Islamic tyranny. Of late, Condi Rice is attempting to create yet another suicidal Sunni alliance - including Syria (!) - against Iran. She does that even as US/UK occupied Iraq is under Shiite mastery. However, Hizbollah's effective defense-in-depth strategy - as cooked in Teheran - has taken away IDF blizkreig capacity, and has led to a new Sunni-Shiite understanding on the destruction of Israel. The Genocide-Alliance against Israel will work to treat the US as wallpaper, as a total missile threat is employed. Unless the Bush government drops both the Middle East Democratic Initiative, and its indulgence of Iraq Shiite majority rule, the nuclearization of Iran will effectively eliminate all American power in the Middle East. By that time, Europe will be under Iranian extortion. American influence will be reduced to the Americas. But even here, Latin American alienation is manifesting in the rise of the same Leftist tyrannies that Reagan Foreign Policy suppressed in the eighties. Ahmadinejad's happy derision of American power, reflects actual weakness projected by the US. The President's linkage of the enemy - "Islamofascism" - with the World War adversaries that we slaughtered by the millions, is a step in not only the right direction but the only direction that the US can take. If President Bush does not eliminate the Ahmadinejad threat by the end of September, then he will go down in history as the President who put future generations of Americans in the ICBM target jeopardy of the worst genocidal tyranny since the Nazis. We saw Perle/Frum Bush when he gave his eloquent National Cathedral speech on Sept. 14, 2001. We need to see that GWB, and not the Norquist-Powell Bush who catered to the Muslim enemy. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-14 01:44 |
| #3 leaders of states and non-state organizations are willing to run terrible risks In a word: Iran Additional words: Mahdi Army, Hezbollah. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-08-14 01:06 |
| #2 This is really way overstated. For something comparable to WWI and WWII to occur, there have to be two roughly evenly-matched alliances facing off. Today, we have, at worst, the US alone, squaring off against the Muslim world as a whole. It's a complete mismatch. Only in Holbrooke's dream world does it resemble WWIII. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-14 00:28 |
| #1 Just can't STFU, can he? Holbrooke is another Clintoonian with no actual skills except Gov't BS - drooling over a return to relevance and polishing his resume for the 2008 Dhimmi candidates. There is no trap, just multiple fronts in the same war. The ONLY thing that can go wrong is a failure of nerve that leads to reinstalling this sort of moron to power and resuming the idiot's approach that the Law Enforcement model can deal with terrorism. Prosecute Iran - all else follows. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-08-14 00:15 |