Are we in the midst of World War III?

May 9, 2006

The Bush administration has toyed around with different names for our war on terror — remember the “[tag]Global War on Terrorism[/tag]” vs. “[tag]Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism[/tag]” debate? — and last month seemed to be settling on the oddly-worded “[tag]long war[/tag].”

National Journal noted this morning, however, that the president seems to have settled on yet another label for the conflict. From a discussion with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow on the movie, “[tag]United 93[/tag]”:

Bush: “And it’s a — it’s a remembrance of the nature of the world in which we live. And it’s also a remembrance of the heroic action that Americans were — are willing to take in the face of danger. I haven’t seen it yet. I will see it.”

Kudlow said: “The late Scott Beamer’s dad, David, was on our program. He wrote a great article in the Wall Street Journal, and he said, essentially, that when the passengers retook that plane, he called it the first counterattack for [tag]World War III[/tag].”

[tag]Bush[/tag]: “Yeah.”

Kudlow: “I didn’t know if you saw. I don’t know if you have a thought on that.”

Bush: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first counterattack of World War III. It was — it was unbelievably heroic of the — of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and — and save lives”

I’m trying to understand the logic here. Bush seems intent on using the label — he repeated it twice — but does he really consider this to literally be the third World War? An open-ended, hard-to-define conflict with no foreseeable conclusion and with ambiguities over who we’re fighting?

You know the propaganda has gotten a little out of hand when one pines for the days of the GWOT v. GSAVE dispute.

Two thoughts on possible explanations. First, Maybe Bush wasn’t paying attention. He may have been thinking about fishing for bass on his private lake in Crawford. Therefore it is nothing. Second, maybe he sees this as an opportunity to increase his historical standing. If he presided over WWIII then he would have to be mentioned in the same paragraph as Wilson and Roosevelt. The GWOT may only merit a footnote in the WTF section of history’s bloopers and practical jokes.

  • We lost a war somewhere in there– have the neocons stopped saying that the Cold War was WWIII and that GWOT was WWIV?

  • “. . . ambiguities over who we’re fighting.”??

    I thought we are fighting terrorists who want to give us a choice of converting to Islam or killing us if we don’t convert. Flying fuel-laden planes into buildings is no different than dropping bombs onto those same buildings. Just because the terrorists are not all from one country or (supposedly) not sanctioned by one country, does not mean that they are not your enemies and mine.

  • The only way to describe George W. Bush is reckless moron. To use the World War III title proves he is living in his own little world of delusional self importance. World War III ends in November 2006.

  • To paraphrase an old T-shirt slogan — help, I’ve fallen down and I can’ t reach my koolaid.

  • I tend to agree with MNProgressive – Bush just repeated the question and then piled on praise for the passengers. He had no real answer:

    believe that. I believe that it was the first counterattack of World War III. It was — it was unbelievably heroic of the — of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and — and save lives

    If he had been serious about WWIII, he would have spoken less about about the act onboard the plane, and more about the conflict still facing the world.

    Basically, he just said something he thought was nice and sounded good.

  • fallenwoman,

    I thought we are fighting terrorists who want to give us a choice of converting to Islam or killing us if we don’t convert.

    Last I checked Al Qaeda didn’t mention all of us converting to Islam in his list of demands. You might want to check up on your facts.

  • “I thought we are fighting terrorists who want to give us a choice of converting to Islam or killing us if we don’t convert.” – Fallenwoman

    I thought we are fighting islamo-facists who want us and our influence out of the Middle East so they can overthrow their autocratic governments and establish an Islamic Caliphate based only on their interpretations of Sharia law.

    They have 400,000,000 Shia to convert or kill before they get anywhere near us.

    I suspect that Boy George II, on correction by his handlers, will realize that in trying to applaud the heros of Flight 93 (he probably got a private screening of the movie) mispoke in calling the conflict we are in WWIII. We really don’t want to imply that this is a world war, because then we’d be declaring war with 1,300,000,000 Muslims. Not really a good idea, until you’ve lined up the Hindus and Buddhists on your side 😉

  • “Just because the terrorists are not all from one country or (supposedly) not sanctioned by one country, does not mean that they are not your enemies and mine.”

    Absolutely right. Anyone who had anything to do with the planning or execution of these attacks or gave aid or shelter to those who did are enemies of the U.S. and of all humanity. So a war with Taliban-run Afghanistan was appopriate and we’ll know we won that war when Afghanistan has a stable government that doesn’t harbor people who mean to do us harm. But declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on– oh I don’t know– arson. You’re never going to stop all arson, so you’ve set yourself up to lose. And to declare war on al Qaeda is to give this group of people the status of a nation.

    It would have been smarter to treat the attacks as criminal acts rather than acts of war– it narrows your focus and doesn’t elevate the group of thugs you’re trying to neutralize. It’s not just semantics– all that war talk got us into Iraq, a country that had precisely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on us.

    “I thought we are fighting terrorists who want to give us a choice of converting to Islam or killing us if we don’t convert.”

    Not quite. Osama bin Laden has two gripes against us– our support of Israel and the presence of our military in Saudi Arabia. He doesn’t care about our converting to Islam. He just wants us to go away. When we free ourselves from petroleum, I’d love to oblige him. He can read all about it on Death Row.

  • Fallenwoman, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is no ambiguity about that fact. No one here would have a problem if we were in fact directing all of our resources toward bring these people to justice.

    GWOT, GSAVE or WWIII, if you will, expands the list of our enemies beyond those responsible for 9/11 in a very ambiguous way. The Global War on Terror designates, if we are to take the moniker seriously, is a fight against a tactic, terror, not against any particular group. The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism does no better in identifying who the enemy is. Violent Extremism is a category perhaps you can, without ambiguity, inform us what groups qualify for this category and why they are a threat to our well being?

    What GWOT and GSAVE and WWIII, for that matter, do is allow the President and his minions to appear to be doing something about the lost sense of security which many people experienced following 9/11. It is not about actually doing something to make us more secure. But, perniciously, it does more than that. It provides cover for the corporatists foreign policy goals of the administration.

    My advice to you Fallenwoman is get a grip and face reality squarely in the face. Bush is using your fear and need for revenge to his own ends.

  • I think every blog and willing news outlets should go with the acronym T.W.A.T. – The War Against Terror – in order to emphasize the ludicrousness of Bushco and his Republican Guard.

    Bush can’t stand criticism. If EVERYONE called his “long war” T.W.A.T. instead, it just might become embarrassing enough to him that he might declare victory in T.W.A.T. and end his shame.

    And yes, I recognize that Bush and his Republican Guard lack a conscience and therefore feel no shame, but if everyone did it they might tire of the ridicule.

  • The ambiguity of all the names they’ve come up with for the conflict we’re involved in have helped Bush and Co. expand the scope of what should be a limited affair. A group of fanatical Islamists attack us and then we start attacking sovereign nations in return. The name game is what helps Bush cash in the blank check this nation has permitted him to use.

    If it was the War against Al Quaeda we could understand the scope of this war, but because it’s a war against terror there is no way to fully understand who we’re fighting, what we’re hoping to accomplish, when it will end or if we’ve succeeded.

    Terror is a strategy of an opponent, terror is also an emotion we feel in response to the tactic. How can we wage war against a tactic and our own emotions?

  • “I thought we are fighting terrorists who want to give us a choice of converting to Islam or killing us if we don’t convert.” – Fallenwoman

    This is scary to me. The general public is so uninformed that they don’t know why the terrorists even attacked on 9/11. As absurd as Fallenwoman’s statement is to the informed, I’m sure that at least half of all Americans don’t even understand the motive of the terrorists. The sad thing is that the man running this country is probably as uninformed, or misinformed, as the rest of the general public.

  • Well, we’re all here to learn– I would hope that Fallenwoman sticks around and stays engaged in TCBR’s lively, informed, and respectful atmosphere.

  • “Flying fuel-laden planes into buildings is no different than dropping bombs onto those same buildings. Just because the terrorists are not all from one country or (supposedly) not sanctioned by one country, does not mean that they are not your enemies and mine.” –Fallenwoman

    Not to pile on Fallenwoman–I agree with all the remarks meant to set her straight thus far–but this is an important fact to keep in mind. There were no Iraqi’s flying planes into buildings. While Saddam had sanctions against him, the Iraqi’s were not our enemies–although they certainly are now, with Bush’s war. In fact, the 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi’s and we are anything but at war with them. The “War on Terror” is amorphous enough to justify any of Bush’s exploits, both here and abroad–and enough to keep the populace terrified of enemies seemingly everywhere so that they go along with it.

  • regarding comment about whether Bush was serious or just repeating WWIII from the question, please see
    link

    This was not the first time that Bush used the phrase WWIII – he also used it at TV address to win over public with war in 2005, only then he cited bin Laden as the source for the phrase.

  • I Like Jon Stewart’s “War on Terra”
    Not just the environment, but everything else on the planet.

  • im just a high school student in new zealand..we dont seem to get “alot” of information about what is actually going on out there in the world..we’re pretty up to date i guess but i honestly have no idea what is going on.im just doing an assignment for english at school and i have to do it on the war on terrorism or whatever you want to call it and i need someone like an american person or someone who live in america to answer a couple of questions.. i juts need your opinion on george bush and his efforts in the war and what you think about the war like your opinion and thoughts. if someone could answer, that would be cool because it is an assigment for my ncea which is like our high school system and it is required that we actually ask people about the topic and i dont know who to ask over here…so i thought an american opinion would be a good idea thanks

    • Comments are closed.