I decided to title my post World War Ten not because it has any relevance to its actual content, but because I hope it will get your attention. Along the same lines, some folks want to rename the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan World War III. What similarities they hold to World Wars I and II, I don't know. Why is Newt Gingrich so adamant in calling the wars America currently finds itself in "World War III"? (Why such titles call for Roman numerals, a la the Super Bowl, is the subject for another post.) I suppose Gingrich's label is an improvement of Norman Podhoretz's insistence that America is embroiled in World War IV (forgive me for missing school on the day World War III was covered and for being ignorant of when World War IV even began). World War III is too Madison Avenue for me. Killing the enemy, not naming the conflict, should be the primary concern. That it's not suggests that concerns with the perception of the two wars at home trump the effectiveness of the two wars abroad. It is an election year, you know. Labels matter. But accurate labels matter too. Both world wars witnessed dozens of nations at war and the loss of tens of millions of lives. Thankfully, we're not there yet--not even close.

"Killing the enemy, not naming the conflict, should be the primary concern."

Who is the enemy?

What war needs is a versioning system like software has. If this is WWIV according to Podhertz, then it should really be referenced as WW4.1 alpha. Can't really be said to be out of the initial development stage can it?

Or maybe WW4 2006 XP Middle East Edition...

Well if we are defining world wars as wars that are fought across much of the world, then the Napoleonic wars were the first World War, World War I was not a World War at all, World War II was the second, the Cold War the third, and this one, depending on one's perspective, could be called the fourth.

I can hear the conversation now in an Israeli cafe:

DAVID: Did you hear about the USA?

JACOB: No, what?

DAVID: The USA is still on WW3.6.

JACOB: Are you serious? We upgraded to WW4.1 months ago!

DAVID: Tell me about it. It seems the USA is going to wait for us to work out the bugs before they upgrade.

JACOB: Can't blame them, what with all the attacks getting through our firewalls.

etc... etc...

The Great War not a World War? Australians fighting Turks? Germans sinking Brazilian ships? Japan seizing parts of China? The dark continent witnessing black Africans fighting for Germany against brown Indians fighting for Great Britain?

Obi Juan: super hilarious.

Ralph: the persons who take up arms against you.

"the persons who take up arms against you."

Just those? By a strict application of that definition, the enemy that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 perished in the attack. Why, then, did we invade Afghanistan?

I suspect you intend a broader sense for "take up arms." I would be interested to hear it.

Ralph, I din't know you were a deconstructionist. But then whenever there is a BS party-line political position you want to justify, this sophistic deconstructionist smart a$$ comes out. If all the people involved in taking up arms against us on 911 had died in the attack, it wouldn't have been right to seek any more death. Presumably we are after the people who helped them, i.e., their accomplices. Do you think the residents of Lebanon, including the Christians, are accomplices of Hezbollah's attack on Israel. Do you think they also count as accomlpices to the 911 terrorists? That the way you talk.

There's a difference between ana-lysis and deconstruction. I engage in the former.

The enemy includes "people who helped them, i.e., their accomplices."

Here's an interesting ana-logy. As I understand the teaching, the Catholic Church judges a person to be an accomplice to an abortion if they knowingly aid the procurement of the abortion (e.g., by paying for the procedure, driving to the clinic, advising the woman to get an abortion, etc.). I suspect that a person can be an accomplice of the doctor as well. Suppose a landlord leases space to a doctor with the knowledge that the doctor will use that space to perform abortions. Is the landlord complicit?

The Lebanese goverment has, in violation of its agreement with Israel, allowed Hezbollah to control the Souther border, and to arm itself with over a thousand rockets. Is the government complicit?

Winston Churchill called the Seven Years War the first world war, with some justification. Battles occurred in India, North America, Europe, the Caribbean isles, the Philippines and coastal Africa.

We call our theater the French and Indian War. As a Pittsburgher, I'm perversely proud of this because the war was triggered by a dispute over control of Pittsburgh.

"Suppose a landlord leases space to a doctor with the knowledge that the doctor will use that space to perform abortions. Is the landlord complicit?"

Yes.

"The Lebanese government has, in violation of its agreement with Israel, allowed Hezbollah to control the Southern border, and to arm itself with over a thousand rockets. Is the government complicit?"

Yes. But it is a matter of degrees. Israel has the right to defend itself, but it would not be a measured and appropriate response for it to launch all-out war on Lebanon. Still, Lebanon is responsible for controlling what goes on inside its border. Sitting by while your territory is used as a launching pad is used for attacks on your neighbor is irresponsible, to say the least. It is at least comprable to the difference between murder and negligent manslaughter. Hezbollah is guilty of the former; Lebanon of the latter.

And this here is coming from someone who is decidedly non-pro-zionist in my favored foreign policy.

"The Great War not a World War? Australians fighting Turks? Germans sinking Brazilian ships? Japan seizing parts of China? The dark continent witnessing black Africans fighting for Germany against brown Indians fighting for Great Britain?"

There were colonial skirmishes all over the world, to be sure, but the vast majority of the fighting of real consequence did not strech very far beyond the Balkans.

Ben-T,

The Dardanelles campaign, just to name one, was not simply a "colonial skirmish." And do you not consider the Bolshevik Revolution and Civil War the result of "fighting of real consequence" which stretched far (over 1000 miles from Belgrade to Moscow)? Just because the most spectacularly bloody battles occurred on the Western Front is no reason to minimize the importance of the battles on the Eastern.