The neocons' crazy dream of World War III
By Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer
Nov 5, 2007, 00:58
"There are roads one does not
There are armies one does not strike.
There are cities one does not attack.
There are grounds one does not contest.
There are commands of the sovereign one does not accept."
--Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC � 496 BC), "The
Art of War"
"I believe that it [events on the United Airlines plane that crashed on
9/11] was the first counter-attack to World War III." --George W. Bush,
May 5, 2006
"I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it
seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having
the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." --George W. Bush,
October 17, 2007
U.S. President George W. Bush "threatens
humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons." --Fidel
Castro, Cuban dictator
"World War III will be a guerrilla information
war with no division between military and civilian participation."
--Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), Canadian thinker
�The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes
of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but
World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
greatest human catastrophes of the 20th century were World War I (10 million deaths) and World War II (62 million deaths).
In February 2002, neocon journalist Norman Podhoretz (a leading
warmonger who is currently senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate
Rudy Giuliani) wrote an article calling for a new world war. He did it again in
an article titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means,
and Why We Have to Win" (Commentary magazine, September
2004), calling for what he called "World War IV", i.e. a war against
the country of Iran that he demonized by calling its leaders "Islamofascists", who cannot be trusted with
having nuclear weapons as can some other
countries in the region that already have them (Israel, Russia, Pakistan,
Podhoretz and other fellow neocons label their pet world war "World War
IV" because they have decided that the Cold War was really �World War III�.
As a matter of fact, there never was a Third World War between the nuclear-armed USA and the USSR.
Indeed, because of the policy of containment and deterrence,
such a nuclear holocaust was avoided and
the world lived through the last half of the 20th century in relative peace.
Unless one is a madman, nobody in his right mind would
contemplate a nuclear world war that would likely kill hundreds of millions of
human beings, and which could bring forth the collapse of civilization,
and lead to the extermination
of human life on earth. Indeed, nuclear armaments have made total war a
crime against humanity and civilization. It is of paramount importance to avoid
such a calamity.
But when someone is so deeply wrong and confused in his reading
and presentation of history, as Norman Podhoretz seems to be, why would anyone
want to listen to such a flawed analyst, irresponsibly calling for a new world
war? Well, crazy as it seems, the current sitting American president does
invite Podhoretz to the White House to get
advice on how he should frame American foreign policy in the Middle East.
President George W. Bush went so far as to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom on
Podhoretz in 2004. Does he really agree with Podhoretz' crackpot ideas about
preventive nuclear wars?
What's going on? Is the world getting crazy or what?
Let us remind ourselves that 25 years ago, neocon Podhoretz
and other dimwits wanted President Ronald Reagan to launch a (preventive)
nuclear war against the Soviet Union. Indeed, in the early '80s, some neocon advisers around Reagan
were deluding themselves and were arguing that the Soviet Union was preparing
for a preemptive attack on the United States. They opposed President Reagan's
efforts at rapprochement. They were pushing for the U.S. to achieve ''nuclear
dominance'' and argued that only a ''strategy of strength'' matters. Mr. Reagan
ridiculed them with their hairy plan and he was wise enough to dismiss these exceptionally naive and warmongering
What is frightening today is that many of the same neocon
wackos (Podhoretz, Pipes, Perle, etc.) are now
advising the current Bush-Cheney administration. With the operative help of
Vice president Dick Cheney, they have already succeeded in
persuading George W. Bush to invade Iraq, telling him that it would be a
"cakewalk" and that the "war will finance itself" out of
Iraq's oil revenues. Amazingly, Bush's ears are still open to such wrong-headed
advice. Will he be persuaded to launch a campaign of nuclear bombing against
Iran, and fall into the neocon trap that President Ronald Reagan avoided?
If we read into Bush's public pronouncements, he may be well
advanced in fostering that very idea. Indeed, on October 17, Bush II speculated aloud,
in apocalyptic terms, about getting engaged in "World War III" if
Iran does not bend to his wishes about its perfectly legal uranium enrichment
program! What is odd is that President George W. Bush seems to be obsessed
about getting involved in World War III, while he is probably the only person
on earth who could possibly start it. This is most eerie.
Last October 25, the Bush-Cheney administration pursued its
unilateral approach to international affairs and announced new sanctions against Iran,
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a
"proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" and its elite Quds
Force as a supporter of terrorism. Previously, the Bush-Cheney tandem had
labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization.
This is reminiscent of the fall of 2002, when Bush Jr. was cynically swearing on his mother's head that he was doing everything
he could to "prevent" a war against Iraq, when it is now known that
he had already given the go-ahead to attack Iraq.
Incredibly, the same cynical
neocon scenario seems to be at play during the fall of 2007. The Bush-Cheney
administration is inching up its gratuitous threats against Iran, while it has
stationed three military naval armadas, more than 150 war ships, in or around
the Persian Gulf. This represents an act of war in itself. It seems to me that
Bush and his real putative father, Dick Cheney, are trying very hard to start a
fight, and will seize any opportunity or pretext to launch a hot war against
Iran, possibly using nuclear bombs. As experienced Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) has said, the Bush-Cheney's aggressive war action "not
only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in
2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for
an invasion of Iran."
The Bush-Cheney team is now
attempting to push aside Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
who says that there is no proof that Iran seeks atomic weapons, just as it
pushed aside chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix who said, in early 2003, that Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction. The same charade goes on.
No responsible leader starts wars of aggression (this is
against international law and the U.N. Charter) and no responsible leader
should talk lightly about an immoral world war that could kill millions of
people and that could threaten the survival of the planet. Above all, he should
not be itching to start one. Instead, President George W. Bush should be
actively working to prevent a nuclear war and to make such a disaster illegal,
and not muse aloud how he could personally be involved in one.
lives in Montreal and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
He is the author of the book �'The New American Empire.� His new book, �The Code for Global Ethics,�
will be published in 2008. Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor