Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

July 22nd, 2006

Tags

Comments

15 Comments so far.
Add yours.

“WWIII is not realism, it’s romanticism”

Thomas Barnett takes issue with the GWOT as WWIII, listing a number of reasons why he thinks the metaphor is unfitting. The reasons include:

  • the world has never been more at peace
  • World Wars were wars between states
  • “world war” since 9/11 hasn’t yielded a good week’s worth of WWII dead
  • the road to victory in the Long War is overwhelming non-kinetic
  • this view indulges in the myth that what Israel does against 4GW opponents actually works, when it does not

He closes with:

… 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.

Of course, we expect that kind of solution from the “future worth creating” guru. One comment I thought was very interesting was Barnett’s choice of the “U.S. cavalry in the Wild West” as a model for the Long War. Can anybody say Imperial Grunts?

Comments to this entry

Sean Meade
July 22, 2006
2:39 pm
i could say 'Imperial Grunts', but i haven't read it ;-) does St K use the same metaphor therein? care to draw out how they compare?
Kirk H. Sowell
July 22, 2006
3:03 pm
I prefer to refer to it as "the Global War," a phrase I am taking from the head of Statfor. I agree that much is non-kinetic, but a couple of points of dissent:

- This is to a significant degree a war between states: Terror sponsors Iran, Syria and the former Iraqi regime at the forefront; many in India would add Pakistan to the list, although I consider it an open question how high support for anti-India jihadists goes in the Pakistani heirarchy these days.

The war also involves proto-states: al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups have always viewed themselves as vanguards for the caliphate, and whenever they have gained military control in an area, they have begun to set up a government. See recent events in Somalia on this.

- In re to Israel, the bar Barnett sets is too high, and is historically invalid. Israel's measures against its opponents have been very successful, not only against states but against Hamas and other terror groups. Compare the kill rate on Isreali civilians in 2001 after Arafat launched his last terror wave up through mid 2002 to the last four years. The reason the problem hasn't been solved is because the infrastructure of terrorism is so thoroughly embedded in Palestinian society.

But a note of optimism in re to Lebanon: unlike Palestine, but like Iraq, Lebanon has an anti-terrorist majority determined to live in a free, independent and peacefully coexisting state. If Israel can pummel Hizbullah enough without making the Lebanese central government collateral damage, then the regular Lebanese army could really take control of their territory when Israel leaves. That is a tightrope to walk, and we'll see soon if they can do it.
Kirk H. Sowell
July 22, 2006
3:05 pm
Point of clarification: the reason I wrote that Barnett's test for Israel was "historically invalid" is that in the past it hasn't been considered a test of a country's success that it solves the problems of a foreign society. That standard is being applied to Israel.

Also, we could add the former Taliban state in Afghanistan to our list of state participants in the Global War.
Flea
July 22, 2006
3:46 pm
I must have missed the memo that defined "World Wars" as "wars between/amongst states."

And one (or, given al Qaeda's MO, two) atomic strikes on, say, Paris and/or London and/or Los Angeles will add up to WWII casualty numbers in a flash.
alec
July 22, 2006
4:47 pm
Really? Israel has done well against non-state entitities? Could have fooled me, as Israel has made Hezbollah collateral damage as it destroys all of Lebanon's infastructure. And I don't know how you define terrorism, but applying it as a blanket term to a country basically without a military or real government such as Palestine is fairly offbase. Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah are the factionalized/political reflections of a marginalized people that don't have formal methods to wage war against a very strong enemy.

Also, this idea of 'World War 3' is worth giving as much credance to as the coming of the apocalypse. Israel acting against two non-state organizations who are funded by two rogue states does not equate a greater conflict. Does anyone see formal state actors acting militarily against Israel anytime soon? No, and as complicated as the situation is with the covert involvement of Iran and Syria, no one should exagerate it's ability to trigger a multi-continent conflict...
Jeff Medcalf
July 22, 2006
10:51 pm
Alec, that's a lot to wade through!

Isreal has done well against non-state entities, absolutely. They have not done as well as they could have done, because they haven't been willing to slaughter the sheltering societies outright. But within that constraint, they've done fairly well at holding down the non-state attacks on Israel. The significant exception is that Israel has done a terrible job against non-state actors every time it has put "peace" ahead of security.

Hizb'allah is not collateral damage: it is the intended target. Targeting the infrastructure an enemy uses to resupply, reposition/reinforce/escape, hide or attack is certainly legitimate. The various jihadi armed groups use civilian houses to hide their weapons and house their troops; civilian airports and seaports to supply their troops; roads and bridges to move their troops; they fire from among civilians and within "civilian" structures (including hospitals and mosques); they use ambulances to move weapons and explosives. Under such circumstances, your only means of fighting them are to attack "civilians" and "civilian" infrastructure; otherwise, you just surrender and either give them whatever they want, absorb their attacks, or both.

Terrorism is generally defined as attacks on innocent civilians, which attacks are intended to advance a political purpose by frightening the opponent into surrender. It certainly applies to Hamas, Hizb'allah and Fatah. Whether or not they are also political parties, and whether or not their people are marginalized, and whether or not they have any other means of fighting, their attacks against Israeli civilians are indisputably terror attacks. If you want to argue that terror attacks against innocent civilians are moral, please feel free.

I don't think that "World War III" is a legitimate moniker for the war. Of course, "World War" was also an inappropriate moniker for the first one, because it was really a European and Mediterranean war. I like the term Long War, and suspect it will be what sticks. But within that war will be many small wars, including the fight between Israel and Hizb'allah. The real scope of the Long War will, in hindsight, probably be seen much as the Hundred Years' War in Europe: a set of religious or ideological wars over a long time period and geographic spread. The basic question in the Hundred Years' War was whether Catholicism or Protestantism would dominate Europe. The question of the Long War is whether radical Islamism will dominate the world.

However, I don't think that it is an exaggeration to see the potential for triggering a multi-continent conflict. Let's say that Israel drives up the Bekaa Valley to cut Hizb'allah off from Syria. Let's further say that Syria intervenes, and Israel and Syria fight. Would Syria use its chemical and biological arsenal to stave off defeat? If so, it's pretty likely that Israel would use its nuclear arsenal against Syria, and somewhat likely that Israel would include Iran in the attack because they'll only get one shot, and they can't afford to leave an implacable enemy after that shot is fired.

In that circumstance, don't you think that Russia getting involved is a possibility? What about Europe, on behalf of Turkey? What about the US? It's not necessarily the case that this conflict will lead to a multi-continent war, but it's also not out of the question.
J.Kende
July 22, 2006
11:05 pm
bq. Terrorism is generally defined as attacks on innocent civilians, which attacks are intended to advance a political purpose by frightening the opponent into surrender. It certainly applies to Hamas, Hizb'allah and Fatah. Whether or not they are also political parties, and whether or not their people are marginalized, and whether or not they have any other means of fighting, their attacks against Israeli civilians are indisputably terror attacks. If you want to argue that terror attacks against innocent civilians are moral, please feel free.

Thank you. That is a very clear and useful definition.
Rommel
July 23, 2006
3:27 am
Jeff Medcalf - At the risk of nitpicking, I would like to point out that the Hundred Years War was the long medieval conflict between England and France (and later, Burgundy). The conflict you speak of is generally known as the Wars of Religion. I am assuming you are referring to the conflict between Catholic and Protestant factions in Central Europe (in particular, Germany, where perhaps more than half of the populace died). The Hundred Years War bears little semblance (historical factors aside) to the Long War, IMO but again I am fairly confident that was not the comparison intended.
Rommel
July 23, 2006
3:32 am
As for the comparison between the Long War and the Wars of Religion..
An apt one as far as I am concerned, with Iran (or the United States) playing the role of France.
Recent events have shown that the Long War is just as much (or more) a conflict between Islamic factions as it is a West vs. Islamic war. Perhaps the most complicated and atypical war the world has yet seen.
sun bin
July 23, 2006
4:59 am
while you guys talking about WWIII,
it was "said to be only at the BRINK of war":http://www.boreme.com//boreme/funny-2006/brink-of-war-p1.php
alec
July 23, 2006
5:15 am
I have no problem with your definition of terror, I just think it's just a sloppy way to define movements in the Middle East. I think Westerners, especially Americans, tend to over-simplify the region (read: good vs bad, terrorism vs democracy, etc.) which may be in large part to the information we consume (for the life of me, I have no idea how you KIDNAP a soldier, though I have a fairly good idea about how you CAPTURE one). How would you characterize the actions of the IDF when it targets a militarist but ends up blowing up a few civilians around him or her? The IDF has shown no regard in my opinion for human life as much as their much decried adversaries. I think it may be tough for Americans to see that Western democratic nations and its citizens are as capable of savagery (Abu Ghraib, IDF shelling of the family on the Gaza beach, Algerian War) as those we see as 'backwards', or shall we say, more 'terror inclined'.

The problem for Israel, and one of the failing points of the neo-conservative ideology, is the quest for short term security will severely debilitate long term security. Yes yes, pursuing action against terrorists is justified, yadda yadda yadda, but playing wack a mole with these groups will not destroy them. Do you think that as many Lebanese now feel sympathetic or even attracted to Hezbollah and similar movements by Israel's actions? Does the threat of getting blown up by Israel actually serve as a deterent even it out? If Israel wishes to continue the status quo of a non-viable Palestinian state, then it will have to face challenges from non-state actors fairly often.

I am not going to posit alternate worlds where your scenario comes true, because I am not a fatalist (though a pessimist) about the Middle East. Also, lets do ourselves a favor and not characterize this as the 'West vs Islam' war, because the Palestinian/Israeli conflict existed way before the formulation of the Islamic movement. And the Palestinian/Israeli conflict today is much more nationalistic than it is Islamic, regardless of what a Fox News drone may say about Hamas.
Kirk H. Sowell
July 23, 2006
12:46 pm
A few points, mostly regarding Alec's comments:

1) Historical point: "...the Palestinian/Israeli conflict existed way before the formulation of the Islamic movement..."

Not really accurate, although I suppose it depends on how you define the rise of Islamism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates from the late 19th century - I start with 1881, when the pogroms jumpstarted the Zionist movement following the assassination of the Czar - and modern Islamism I date to 1744, when the original Ibn Saud-Muhammad abd al-Wahhab agreement was reached.\

The Islamist dimension makes what is otherwise a nationalistic war more protracted, because the goal among Hamas and others is to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic state in Palestine as a basis for global jihad. If their goals were more pragramtic, as with Abbas apparently, then negotiation and compromise would become possible.

2) The intrinsic difficulty in dealing with organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah is that they blend in with the civilian population, unlike legitimate armies like those of Israel and the U.S. which demarcate themselves very clearly. They are entirely to blame when Israel targets a terrorist and ends up killing civilians.

3) Israel takes more care to minimize civilian casualties than any country in the world, the U.S. included, even if it means putting their own soldiers at risk. They could use airpower to do a lot of what they try to do with more surgical strikes, but it would kill a lot more civilians.

Re Lebanese infrastructure: dual-use civilian infrastructure is a legitimate target in war, and in this case the airport was being used by Hizbullah and the bridges that were bombed were destroyed in order to prevent the captured soldiers from being taken out of the country. Israel had specific reasons for hitting the targets it did. The number of Lebanese who have been killed is much lower than the number who would be killed if they had to confront Hizbullah themselves; Israel is doing them a favor.

For a more contextualized view of this conflict, see my recent article at ThreatsWatch: The Road Map Ends Here.

And for what its worth, I don't watch Fox News. I don't consider it any more a legitimate news source than CNN, CBS, etc.
Joe
July 24, 2006
1:14 pm
No, we're on World War IV now. There was a World War III already but it wasn't marketed all that well and it didn't end with a bang so nobody remembers it too much.

You know, it's just like the Final Fantasy series...
alec
July 24, 2006
5:21 pm
Well, change the word to 'viable' instead of 'formulation'. Terrorism would exist in the Middle East if Islam was there or not -- the problem is not Islam. The problem is a lack of serious political legitimacy for the Middle East countries, the cycle of violence and failure of the peace process in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the lack of economic and political development in Arab countries, rather than a group of humans who were born to be terrorists. And don't forget, the Nationalist / Pan-Arab movements were just as set on destroying Israel as any Islamic group is now. Further, the problem is not that Lebenanon could or has to confront Hezbollah, it's that it has no means or capabilities to confront Hezbollah.
snow
July 25, 2006
4:16 pm
"Western democratic nations and its citizens are as capable of savagery (Abu Ghraib, IDF shelling of the family on the Gaza beach, Algerian War) as those we see as "Ëœbackwards',"

I don't think these are good examples of equivalence. Abu Ghraib was hardly in the category of torture practiced by Saddam and most likely many others in the Middle East, and it's disputed that the shelling of the family on the Gaza beach may very well have been by Hezbollah itself (perhaps accidentally) rather than by the IDF. As for Algeria, I don't know much about it, but the Algerian independence movement was brutal and nasty.

There certainly is a difference between Israel and Hezbollah in the current conflict. Hezbollah has been firing rockets into Israel packed with thousands of ball-bearings. Packing ball-bearings has one intended effect-to kill or main as many civilians as possible. And the targets are not military, they are meant to inflict civilian casulaties and therefore increase fear of the general populace. I'm certainly not saying the Israelies have acted like saints (who does in war?), but I don't believe their actions are equivalent to their attackers.