Tweet
Opinion Editorials, VA
Nov 30 2004
World War IV - the Best Label
James Allan White
As Americans, we love labels for anything except those that relate to
us personally. We love what marketers call `tag lines.' Whether these
descriptions relate to an event or a person we seem to appreciate a
simple descriptive moniker. Our media also loves labels. It appears
the newspapers and television commentators compete with each other to
garner the best moniker. In some cases, these descriptions are
tremendously accurate, some are legendary and, in other cases, some
are ludicrous. Our media tries but, in many cases, cannot honestly
define an occurrence or person because they are prejudiced by their
world-view or whatever hidden agenda they may have.
Just recently, many news organizations are calling Yasser Arafat a
`freedom-fighter' or `liberator.' It is more accurate to label Arafat
the `Founding Father of Terrorism' or perhaps `Islamic Fascist' or my
personal favorite `Cowardly Killer and Swindler of Innocents' - but I
digress.
The media, the pundits, the late-night comedians, your work
colleagues and your neighbors all begin applying these titles. We
obtain these labels from reading and listening to our punctilious
media.
These titles or designations then become the common description of
historical events or people. Some are very accurate such as `The
Holocaust,' `Armenian Genocide' or the `Great Communicator.' These
labels are simple, descriptive and accurate. At the same time,
history has proven that others are wholly inaccurate such as `The
Cultural Revolution' or `The Decade of Greed' or `Islamic Freedom
Fighter.'
I was pondering labels as they apply to our current state of affairs
in the `War on Terror.' It led me to assess the labels on major wars
of the past 100 years. So let us analyze some of the labels of this
past century. `World War I' - simple and to the point and incorrectly
known as `The War to End All Wars.' The war many of us seem to
forget: a war against blatant expansionism that included many
countries as allies and our own as a participant. By the way, just in
case you did forget, we were on the winning side.
Next, `World War II' - yep, again simple and descriptive - I believe the
`World War' moniker was attached as a mantle of hope that no more
wars could occur. Again, we fought against fascist totalitarianism
that included other countries as well. Obviously, the forces of
freedom were again victorious. The defeated became successful
democracies.
Thirdly, the `Cold War,' which lasted from World War II until the
last decade. Bernard Baruch, a presidential advisor, first coined the
term during a debate in 1947. During that time, the Cold War was not
resulting in military battles (aka `hot' wars). That was very
accurate two years after World War II. However, since that time many
other military battles and confrontations against the same forces
ensued making the term `Cold War,' in effect, obsolete.
The Cold War was not only about nuclear proliferation, espionage and
arms competition. That war, really against the same forces of
socialism, communism and fascism should also include the `Korean
Conflict,' the `Vietnam War,' the `Cuban Missile Crisis,' the `War in
Grenada' the list can go on. Therefore, it was another war against
communist totalitarianism that included many countries (and our own
as the other primary superpower). However, this war needs a more
accurate label.
If we remain consistent with history, the best choice is simple and
obvious. The Cold War and related `crises, conflicts and battles'
should be tagged `World War III' - another war against similar forces
as II and I. Sounds ominous, sounds horrific, I do not remember
rationing tin during the `Decade of Greed.' However, the label fits.
By the way, I may have forgotten to mention that we, the forces of
freedom, won that one also and the defeated are taking bold steps to
become successful democracies.
If my association between socialism, fascism and communism upsets
your label sensibilities then you probably cannot get past the common
`Left' and `Right' labels. No difference exists in the freedom of the
individual between the three. They are all equally evil. We should
probably have only one label that encompasses all three. Some people
like to enforce detail on the differences because they are `closet
socialists' like many in the media and academia.
Now a `terrorist' enemy has attacked us within our own borders. The
enemy targets were our own World Trade Center (three times) and
Pentagon (once). Over three thousand Americans have lost their lives.
However, Michael Moore (of fakeumentary fame) doesn't think terrorism
is a threat, Madonna (that intellectual giant) thinks it is
everywhere and not something to take seriously and John Kerry
(Anti-Vietnam poster boy and presidential loser) thinks it is
equivalent to prostitution and illegal drugs. Let us not forget the
hosts of shortsighted peaceniks that think since we overtook the
Taliban in Afghanistan we have effectively retaliated against the
enemy.
I do not mean to steal the most popular word in the Kerry mansion or
to denigrate those beloved Red Sox but if anyone believes that it is
a bit `idiotic.'
We are currently in a war against Islamic Fascism. Islamic Fascism is
another totalitarian philosophy. We in America and any country, group
or faction that does not adhere to strict Islamist fascist
totalitarianism is the obvious enemy of this evil. Arafat (aka Nobel
Peace Prize winner - what a label) was one of the key progenitors of
this philosophy. Islamic Fascists clearly know we are their enemy.
We are their enemy not because our culture is materialistic or
capitalistic, not because we were originally Christians and not
because we support Israel. It is because we are the beacon of the
free. We represent social and economic freedom and, yes, its excesses
and prosperity. Our country represents the protection of freedom for
the individual. Islamic fascism is against freedom, anti-civil
liberties, and anti-women, pro-slavery and downright racist.
Consequently, this type of fascist totalitarianism is anathema to
everything America stands for - remember World Wars I, II and III?
Please do not forget the outcomes of these world wars. The defeated
became mostly free and democratic nations. Some became great friends,
some just good but all are governments of whom we now have
constructive relationships and dialogues. Most are trading partners.
Most have improved living conditions of their citizenry.
Let us be clear about our enemy here: It is NOT Muslims. Our enemies
are Islamist Fascists. Their objective is totalitarian. Islamist
Fascists are the biggest killers of Muslims. This is not a West
versus East thing (forget those Cold War labels), a Muslim versus
Christian thing (stop with the anti-theist drabble), an Arab versus
non-Arab thing (can we for once discount racism?) or a rich versus
poor/oppressed thing (when will the class envy ever stop?). It is
simply a war pitting the forces of freedom and democracy against the
forces of Islamic fascist totalitarianism.
I do not understand why some cannot recognize this obvious enemy.
Perhaps incorrect labels of people and wars such as Arafat loving
`peace' and Islamic terrorists as `freedom fighters' influence them.
These wars are only battles in the larger war - the war against another
fascist totalitarian enemy that includes many countries.
So the common sense label for this war: World War IV.
It is my hope that if you view this war as a `World War,' a label as
accurate as any, it will provide clarity. Look at the bigger picture
here. We have seen how Islamic Fascism can affect others and us and
it is very clear that our enemy plans to continue their aggressive
war against us. We have also seen how we have affected others in
previous world wars and how freedom and democracy is the only
successful avenue.
America is the only country that can win this World War. As with
previous World Wars, one can also expect the defeated countries to
embrace freedom and democracy as in Afghanistan and starting in Iraq.
One can assume that these countries will become friends and trading
partners, which will benefit their citizenry and ours. I believe
history is clear on this.
However, World War IV is not only unfolding in Israel, Afghanistan
and Iraq. This war may involve Iran, Syria and other Middle Eastern
and African countries. It may have to occur in our own backyard.
Although the geographic targets are not always obvious, the
demographic targets most definitely are. We need to continue
appealing to our government officials to keep up the fight to wipe
out Islamic Fascism and work hard to implement freedom and democracy
in its wake no matter how long it takes.
I want to be able to watch the History Channel thirty years from now
and see how we, as Americans, again pressed on to make the world a
better place from the evil of fascists and socialist totalitarianism.
The military will be correctly labeled `heroes', the defeated
countries will enter a `New Era of Happiness and Prosperity', and
peace will be the norm.
What would be your reply to an interview on that History Channel
thirty years from now? If the interviewer reminded you of your 2004
behavior toward this war - what would your label be?
Nov 30 2004
World War IV - the Best Label
James Allan White
As Americans, we love labels for anything except those that relate to
us personally. We love what marketers call `tag lines.' Whether these
descriptions relate to an event or a person we seem to appreciate a
simple descriptive moniker. Our media also loves labels. It appears
the newspapers and television commentators compete with each other to
garner the best moniker. In some cases, these descriptions are
tremendously accurate, some are legendary and, in other cases, some
are ludicrous. Our media tries but, in many cases, cannot honestly
define an occurrence or person because they are prejudiced by their
world-view or whatever hidden agenda they may have.
Just recently, many news organizations are calling Yasser Arafat a
`freedom-fighter' or `liberator.' It is more accurate to label Arafat
the `Founding Father of Terrorism' or perhaps `Islamic Fascist' or my
personal favorite `Cowardly Killer and Swindler of Innocents' - but I
digress.
The media, the pundits, the late-night comedians, your work
colleagues and your neighbors all begin applying these titles. We
obtain these labels from reading and listening to our punctilious
media.
These titles or designations then become the common description of
historical events or people. Some are very accurate such as `The
Holocaust,' `Armenian Genocide' or the `Great Communicator.' These
labels are simple, descriptive and accurate. At the same time,
history has proven that others are wholly inaccurate such as `The
Cultural Revolution' or `The Decade of Greed' or `Islamic Freedom
Fighter.'
I was pondering labels as they apply to our current state of affairs
in the `War on Terror.' It led me to assess the labels on major wars
of the past 100 years. So let us analyze some of the labels of this
past century. `World War I' - simple and to the point and incorrectly
known as `The War to End All Wars.' The war many of us seem to
forget: a war against blatant expansionism that included many
countries as allies and our own as a participant. By the way, just in
case you did forget, we were on the winning side.
Next, `World War II' - yep, again simple and descriptive - I believe the
`World War' moniker was attached as a mantle of hope that no more
wars could occur. Again, we fought against fascist totalitarianism
that included other countries as well. Obviously, the forces of
freedom were again victorious. The defeated became successful
democracies.
Thirdly, the `Cold War,' which lasted from World War II until the
last decade. Bernard Baruch, a presidential advisor, first coined the
term during a debate in 1947. During that time, the Cold War was not
resulting in military battles (aka `hot' wars). That was very
accurate two years after World War II. However, since that time many
other military battles and confrontations against the same forces
ensued making the term `Cold War,' in effect, obsolete.
The Cold War was not only about nuclear proliferation, espionage and
arms competition. That war, really against the same forces of
socialism, communism and fascism should also include the `Korean
Conflict,' the `Vietnam War,' the `Cuban Missile Crisis,' the `War in
Grenada' the list can go on. Therefore, it was another war against
communist totalitarianism that included many countries (and our own
as the other primary superpower). However, this war needs a more
accurate label.
If we remain consistent with history, the best choice is simple and
obvious. The Cold War and related `crises, conflicts and battles'
should be tagged `World War III' - another war against similar forces
as II and I. Sounds ominous, sounds horrific, I do not remember
rationing tin during the `Decade of Greed.' However, the label fits.
By the way, I may have forgotten to mention that we, the forces of
freedom, won that one also and the defeated are taking bold steps to
become successful democracies.
If my association between socialism, fascism and communism upsets
your label sensibilities then you probably cannot get past the common
`Left' and `Right' labels. No difference exists in the freedom of the
individual between the three. They are all equally evil. We should
probably have only one label that encompasses all three. Some people
like to enforce detail on the differences because they are `closet
socialists' like many in the media and academia.
Now a `terrorist' enemy has attacked us within our own borders. The
enemy targets were our own World Trade Center (three times) and
Pentagon (once). Over three thousand Americans have lost their lives.
However, Michael Moore (of fakeumentary fame) doesn't think terrorism
is a threat, Madonna (that intellectual giant) thinks it is
everywhere and not something to take seriously and John Kerry
(Anti-Vietnam poster boy and presidential loser) thinks it is
equivalent to prostitution and illegal drugs. Let us not forget the
hosts of shortsighted peaceniks that think since we overtook the
Taliban in Afghanistan we have effectively retaliated against the
enemy.
I do not mean to steal the most popular word in the Kerry mansion or
to denigrate those beloved Red Sox but if anyone believes that it is
a bit `idiotic.'
We are currently in a war against Islamic Fascism. Islamic Fascism is
another totalitarian philosophy. We in America and any country, group
or faction that does not adhere to strict Islamist fascist
totalitarianism is the obvious enemy of this evil. Arafat (aka Nobel
Peace Prize winner - what a label) was one of the key progenitors of
this philosophy. Islamic Fascists clearly know we are their enemy.
We are their enemy not because our culture is materialistic or
capitalistic, not because we were originally Christians and not
because we support Israel. It is because we are the beacon of the
free. We represent social and economic freedom and, yes, its excesses
and prosperity. Our country represents the protection of freedom for
the individual. Islamic fascism is against freedom, anti-civil
liberties, and anti-women, pro-slavery and downright racist.
Consequently, this type of fascist totalitarianism is anathema to
everything America stands for - remember World Wars I, II and III?
Please do not forget the outcomes of these world wars. The defeated
became mostly free and democratic nations. Some became great friends,
some just good but all are governments of whom we now have
constructive relationships and dialogues. Most are trading partners.
Most have improved living conditions of their citizenry.
Let us be clear about our enemy here: It is NOT Muslims. Our enemies
are Islamist Fascists. Their objective is totalitarian. Islamist
Fascists are the biggest killers of Muslims. This is not a West
versus East thing (forget those Cold War labels), a Muslim versus
Christian thing (stop with the anti-theist drabble), an Arab versus
non-Arab thing (can we for once discount racism?) or a rich versus
poor/oppressed thing (when will the class envy ever stop?). It is
simply a war pitting the forces of freedom and democracy against the
forces of Islamic fascist totalitarianism.
I do not understand why some cannot recognize this obvious enemy.
Perhaps incorrect labels of people and wars such as Arafat loving
`peace' and Islamic terrorists as `freedom fighters' influence them.
These wars are only battles in the larger war - the war against another
fascist totalitarian enemy that includes many countries.
So the common sense label for this war: World War IV.
It is my hope that if you view this war as a `World War,' a label as
accurate as any, it will provide clarity. Look at the bigger picture
here. We have seen how Islamic Fascism can affect others and us and
it is very clear that our enemy plans to continue their aggressive
war against us. We have also seen how we have affected others in
previous world wars and how freedom and democracy is the only
successful avenue.
America is the only country that can win this World War. As with
previous World Wars, one can also expect the defeated countries to
embrace freedom and democracy as in Afghanistan and starting in Iraq.
One can assume that these countries will become friends and trading
partners, which will benefit their citizenry and ours. I believe
history is clear on this.
However, World War IV is not only unfolding in Israel, Afghanistan
and Iraq. This war may involve Iran, Syria and other Middle Eastern
and African countries. It may have to occur in our own backyard.
Although the geographic targets are not always obvious, the
demographic targets most definitely are. We need to continue
appealing to our government officials to keep up the fight to wipe
out Islamic Fascism and work hard to implement freedom and democracy
in its wake no matter how long it takes.
I want to be able to watch the History Channel thirty years from now
and see how we, as Americans, again pressed on to make the world a
better place from the evil of fascists and socialist totalitarianism.
The military will be correctly labeled `heroes', the defeated
countries will enter a `New Era of Happiness and Prosperity', and
peace will be the norm.
What would be your reply to an interview on that History Channel
thirty years from now? If the interviewer reminded you of your 2004
behavior toward this war - what would your label be?