A Fair and Balanced look at World War Three.[]
A Google news search on "World War III" returns hundreds of articles. That's a news search, not a Web search, and even if the results are dominated by the op-ed echoes of a much smaller number of primary stories, this suggests that some people out there are thinking big.
It turns out that GWOT, the less evocatively named "Global War On Terror," is up for a promotion. "WW III' isn't the only candidate; some prefer giving that name to the Cold War, making the current project World War IV. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, a true Crusader, dates this one back to the beginning of Islam and argues for "World War I."
For the sake of argument, I'll stick with "World War III." As seen by Bill O'Reilly, who, like other Fox News personalities, is an advocate of this POV, the early victories in this conflict are being won by the "IslamoFascists," making unprovoked attacks across many fronts while the soft West fails to connect the dots and refuses to see it as a serious drive for world domination.
Calling the current situation "WW III" is like gratuitous use of the word "fascist." Even when there are parallels between the current and historical situations, such language draws its power from its untruthfulness, evoking past horrors that don't exist now. It becomes a tool for manipulating opinion when it's used in historically inaccurate ways.
"World War" conjures up pictures of total war, mass mobilization, conscription, rationing, and scrap drives - or of mushroom clouds and vaporized cities. Asymmetric "terror" attacks, widely separated in space and time, as in the West, or occurring in response to local situations, as in Iraq, don't fit this picture. Unfortunately, wars of regime change and occupation can be sold to the public when the "World War" card is played. Newt Gingrich may have admitted too much about the reason for the use of the term when he told us that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. "OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"
The need for a Third World War to unify the American people behind their government is evidence that 9/11 and the "War on Terror" are losing their magical power to dominate or suppress debate - and to elect Republicans. But there's a more gruesome reason: some neocons, like Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle, remain eager to bring regime change to Syria and Iran. If they and Fox News can convince Americans that failing to do so is the equivalent of not taking Hitler seriously in the 1930s, then perhaps they can make us forget everything we should have learned from Iraq.
Whether those who want to sign us up for World War III are far-seeing patriots or dangerous fools, we shouldn't forget who they are or what they're saying. Deadplanet 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second the sentiment that "WWIII is too serious to trivialize this way". My grandfather's best friend died in the South Pacific and his cousin was on the beach at Normandy. The "Axis of Evil" is not making a serious bid for world domination that must be stopped by this kind of total mobilization of US power.
- As many people probably know, I'm a vocal supporter of the Unity Movement. Over in the Unity Supporters Web Forum there's a thread on the way Terrorism is talked about where this WWIII story came up. It's also a front page story of Digg's "Poltical Opinion" section. - JenniferForUnity 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What scares me about this "WW III" talk is that this time, the US is the aggressor. Sure, it was preceded by acts of terrorism, but 9/11 wasn't a "Pearl Harbor", forcing the US out of isolationism, it was a "Reichstag Fire", giving a political party the public support necessary to use the nation's military power to further its own goals; Bush is not an FDR, he's a (sorry for the cliché) Hitler. In the wrong hands, the United States' military power can easily destroy the Earth itself, and I'm afraid that's exactly where that power is now. It may sound melodramatic, but having not been around for previous wars (the Gulf War doesn't count), this is the scariest time of my life.
- Oh, and if Bush has any success in interfering with presidential term limits, the rest of the world has my personal permission to commence bombing. --whosawhatsis? 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think WWIII is too big. I like the comments that I've seen so far, and I'm scared of where this is going. We have a choice; Perpetual War or Perpetual Peace. WWIII has always meant the end of civilization in myth, no matter who wins. Chadlupkes 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. There is such a communication breakdown here that I don't know where to begin. First of all, we've got 1 (One) major media company pushing a Conservative agenda, and it's instantly labeled as extreme propaganda and in league with Bush and it's all a coverup/conspiracy/right-wing plan for world takeover with absolutely no evidence provided by any of you except your own opinions (which, for the record, are not arguments). I hate to break it to you, but EVERY media company is biased towards what will sell. The New York Times sells to the liberal/progressive markets, Fox News sells to the Conservative market. Let's not have all this nonsense about who's helping Bush; everybody's just in it for the money.
- Second of all, Pearl Harbour in no way 'forced' us out of isolationism (like we were practicing it anyway), but it was kinda common-sense (Somebody attacked us, we attack them back). The President could conceivably declined, although it would have meant the end of his presidency and, eventually, the country, if the war was not fought.
- We face the exact same situation today, except it is even more serious. Terrorists attacked civillians on American soil. Conceivably, the President could have declined a retaliation, but it would have been political suicide. If he had declined, Kerry's presidential campaign would have consisted of why we _hadn't_ retaliated. The actual issues are of no importance to politicians (Bush included), but they'll wear them when it will get them votes. Likewise, if we do not fight this war, it is entirely conceivable to me that terrorists will continue to attack as they did on 9/11, which would have irreparable damage to this country.
- Yes, I think we are in exactly the same scenario. Compaqdrew 16:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like imprecise language with a political goal, so yes on the propaganda... but as for "a coverup/conspiracy/right-wing plan for world takeover" I personally don't think it's any of those things.
- As to the substantive issues... the thing is we're not facing a country, we're facing cells of disgruntled civilians and transnational militants. They don't have a GDP. They don't have a territory populated by tax payers that we can invade to cut off the tax revenue. There's no central authority who can authorize a surrender if we "win" the "war". And they're just very very few compared to an actual army. A War on Terror is like a War on Drugs... it's impossible to win unless we conquer the entire planet and institute world-wide personalized surveilance to prevent individual people from engaging in terrorism (or drugs use or whatever individual behavior we're "at war with"). Thinking about this as war *period* was a bad idea, but to make it world war three just feels rediculous to me.
- The solution in World War Two was the total and complete destruction of the German and Japanese countries until they offered an unconditional surrender. Nearly every German and Japanese citizen had to feel in their bones that their country had been crushed and humiliated by another country that now had the right to dictate terms to them. Does it sound like a reasonable proposal to take that approach to every country with a significant population that supports revolutionary pan-muslim unity? That's what WWIII makes me think of, and it just sounds like a crazy scheme that we're sure to lose, and bankrupt ourselves in the process.
- How about thinking of this in terms of crime instead of war? Until it becomes clear that a nation is basically using terrorists as irregular soldiers the response should be with laws and courts and extradition treaties and punishments. We should be making friends with the governments, not starting bombing campaigns with expected but regreted "civilian collateral damage" to use a particularly choice euphemism for killing innocent people whose relatives are likely to become terrorists thereby (or at least vote for anti-American politicians who will be forced by political expediency to not cooperate with us on the crime oriented response).
- War is war... it means it's time to kick the utter crap out of some country, no holds barred. Fighting terrorism that way is just silly. Talking about Terrorism that way is just inciting foolish people to support bad policy... and in a democracy that's blame-worthy. - JenniferForUnity 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Criminals, yes, but with governmental ties. Al-qaida functionally controlled the entire country of Afghanistan until recently. Now we've kicked them out of there, and they're headed off to Somalia. We need to prevent governments from engaging with these criminals and offering them legitimacy. Compaqdrew 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda: Control of the Language, Terms of Discourse[]
The idea that the American right-wing media is trying to append a false label such as "WWIII" to the "War on Terror" should not really be a surprise. It is a small part of a broader set of tactics that they have been deploying very successfully for over a decade (or longer). By mis-labelling, mis-representing core, basic ideas from the git-go, the reader/listener/watcher is already implanted with a subconscious idea/message/emotion from the very first words. On the radio, you can tune out after hearing less than one sentance, but if that sentance contained the words "WWIII", it already sets your mind to spinning, whether you are Republican or Democrat. Worse, it sets your mind spinning onto a thread of ideas and emotions where the Republicans have a natural advantage. Next time you hear this phrase, you may well be more receptive to the message that the Republicans are trying to push, and you may well accept this message uncritically. Why would you be so uncritical? Why would you want to listen to the Republican agenda?
"Well, it seems like an interesting topic. This WWIII stuff. I want to hear more about it. Tell me more about WWIII. I heard about it and want to know more." Isn't this what you are thinking? Aren't you honestly curious to find out what all this WWIII business is all about? Well, right there and then, the Republicans have already won a small victory: they have convinced you, you open-minded, curious, exploratory, independent, free-thinking, no-one's-fool, liberal-minded-you, to get interested in this interesting message. Thier message. Thier message that they want to tell you.
Let me talk about equal rights, discrimination, universal healthcare. Wow, have I lost your attention already? Gosh, how did that happen? Is it really because you have Attention Deficit Disorder? Or is it because these hefty topics are no match for the vicarious pleasures of a news blurb on WWIII?
A long time ago, we used to call this tactic "PROPAGANDA". Today, "propaganda" is a dirty word; you don't use it in polite company. However, the American right-wing has used it to tremendous, enormous, overwhelming effect: they have utterly dominated political discourse in American for the last 7-8. They will continue to do so until the left wing wakes up and realizes what its dealing with. There is no WWIII. The thing we are battling, the thing that is overwhelming our hearts and minds, that is clawing for our very souls is propaganda. Let this be known. Prepare for it. Work out a strategy to immunize against it, to fight it. Only then will we be able to bring the discourse back to topics that really matter, to the topics that actually are important. Linas 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me copy something I put on another page:
- We already have a thriving bogus populist movement, established deliberately and at great expense in response to the brief rise of the New Left in the late Sixties and early Seventies. There was no single Grand Conspiracy, but a many-layered uprising of all the groups at the top of the food chain who were threatened by such possibilities as extending democracy into economic life or rethinking the assumptions of the Cold War. They formed the Business Roundtable and the Eagle Forum in 1972, the Heritage Foundation and the Trilateral Commission in 1973, the Cato Institute in 1977, and the Moral Majority in 1979. As different as some of these groups are from each other, they all acted to popularize a new way of thinking about freedom and democracy that was compatible with virtually unlimited corporate and military power. The stage was set for the strange presidency of Ronald Reagan and the marginalization of the "liberals."
- Since then, things have grown only more ugly and more desperate. Karl Rove politics and Fox News journalism have brilliantly directed much of the anger of the powerless American masses toward an increasingly fictitious liberal elite in academia and the media. American exceptionalism has expanded into something resembling mass psychosis.
Whether you like it (as in John J. Miller's A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America) or not (as in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America), there's no point in denying that a well-financed and well-organized campaign to push "conservative" ideas into the mass media exists and has been much more successful than any equivalents that may exist for other ideological viewpoints. To dismiss the organized corporate reaction of the Seventies as a mere "conspiracy theory," one must be unaware of such primary sources as Lewis Powell's memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urging corporate investment in swaying the media, schools, and courts toward a business-friendly "free enterprise" position, and Samuel P. Huntington's chapter in the Trilateral Commission's report on The Crisis of Democracy, in which he calls for an increase in government and Presidential power to counter the "excess of democracy" he saw at the time.
By now most people know that the neoconservative movement, largely a product of think tanks funded by Olin and other activist right-wing foundations, has been a driving force behind the current administration's strategy in the "War on Terror." To see that the neocons do in fact support the use of American military power to gain world hegemony, see the documents on the Project for a New American Century's website, especially Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. To see this theory manifested in calls for the expansion of the wars in the Middle east, see the Weekly Standard. To see this same theory translated into a mass-market sales pitch for World War III, just watch Fox News.
It's true that a "free market" in the news business will tend to offer audiences the world they want to see rather than the world that exists. This is probably a significant factor in the persistence of American exceptionalism - the corporate media must flatter us to win our attention for their advertisers. Still, the need to please audiences doesn't preclude the use of the the media for propaganda purposes, as long as that propaganda doesn't threaten corporate interests or access to official government sources.
There are big differences between Fox News and older mainstream media products like CBS News and the New York Times. Robert Greenwald's video Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism uses Fox internal memos and former Fox insider statements to show how Fox News functions as not only a money-making product but as a mouthpiece for Murdoch's right-wing propaganda. But you only have to watch Fox News for a few hours to see how it sells certain ideas - including, now, the idea that we need to get ready to fight World War III. The visceral appeal of the "they hit us, we have to hit back" approach is out front, while the complexities of a situation that the Bush administration doesn't understand will always be missing from Bill O'Reilly's talking points.
Another Fox theme is that any consistent opposition to Bush administration policies comes from the dreaded "Far Left" as exemplified by... the New York Times. The Times and the Washington Post are valuable because they do in fact send actual reporters into the real world to get real stories which may or may not be favorable to the Bush administration, but ultimately they're just corporations. They won't publish anything that threatens their bottom line, and can't afford to make the administration unhappy enough to shut off their access to official sources. They were unwilling to challenge the administration effectively during the run-up to the Iraq war, and Judith Miller of the New York Times was an important conduit for pro-war leaks. The ridiculous "far left" accusations serve only to label unwelcome ideas as "not worth thinking about."
The right-wing propaganda machine can't reasonably be dismissed as a left-wing conspiracy theory, or ignored in the name of "unity". It's the dominant force in U.S. politics, and one of the most destructive forces in the world. Deadplanet 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)