Tweet
Everyone seems to think World War III has started.
A Wimpy World War III
July 19, 2006 06:27 AM EST
Steve Kellmeyer
Newt Gingrich, President Bush, Sean Hannity - the opinions are coming
fast and furious. Unfortunately, the assertion seems to be more
bombast than substance. While the conflict against Wahabbi Islam and
its variants span the globe, it is not at all clear that it approaches
anything like a world war.
World Wars I and II saw the institution of the draft and/or the
mobilization of millions of men in dozens of countries on several
continents. The smallest battles in these wars injured or killed
hundreds, the big battles saw tens of thousands of casualties. In both
wars, huge sections of major cities were either seriously damaged or
entirely destroyed.
In both wars, governments nearly succeeded in destroying entire
populations: in World War I, the Turks committed genocide against the
Armenians, in World War II, Germany committed genocide against gypsies,
Jews and Catholics. Both wars resulted in the functional disappearance
of empires (Austria-Hungarian and Britain's empire, respectively).
In both world wars, the economies of the combatants were so fully
engaged in producing war material and maintaining men in the field
that strict rationing was enforced on the entire civilian population
of virtually every participating country.
It is important to remember that the designation "world war" is a
purely 20th-century phenomenon. The Napoleanic Wars, for instance,
were certainly fought at various locations around the world (including
the Pacific) and certainly involved the whole of Europe, the northern
coasts of Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. Those wars mobilized
millions of men and involved the destruction of significant urban areas
Despite this, Napolean is not considered to have started a "world war."
Similarly, we can point to various times in Britain's history
where she was simultaneously involved in several wars to maintain a
world-wide empire (the American Revolution, for instance, was but one
brush-fire in a much larger series of British conflicts), but she is
not considered to have started a "world war" either.
So, does the current conflict rise to the level of "world war"? It's
hard to see how it would.
Certainly one can point to armed conflict in at least a dozen countries
around the world, but that's about the strongest argument that can be
made. Muslims are not fully mobilized for war, nor is a significant
percentage of Muslim men involved in armed conflict. Even the most
successful Islamic assault, September 11th, had less than two dozen
enemy combatants directly involved. Most of the incidents involve
groups much smaller than one dozen.
The "battles", if one wishes to call the various terrorist incidents
by this name, are not particularly deadly. In most cases (September 11
being an unusual exception), casualties do not even reach a thousand
injured, in fact, they generally don't get much above one hundred
or so. There is no war-time rationing. Indeed, quite the opposite is
the case.
Apart from the two occasions where American forces actually invaded
a country (Afghanistan and Iraq), there have been no serious pitched
battles between combatants. Instead, the terrorists have inflicted
a level of violence much more similar to that inflicted by mob-run
gangs who fought each other and police during Prohibition.
Cities are not razed, most are left entirely untouched. Even September
11 involved the total destruction of less than a dozen buildings
in New York City, an urban area that contains hundreds of thousands
of commercial buildings. Most attacks consist of train bombings or
individual suicide bombers, barely noticeable events on the military
violence scale.
Islamic terrorists seem to be set up much more along the lines of
organized criminal gangs than they are armies. Indeed, given the level
of intra-Muslim violence, it is not unreasonable to draw comparisons
between gang warfare and the current level of Islamic violence.
In short, if this is World War III, then world wars are definitely
getting pretty wimpy.
About the Writer: Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and
lecturer who integrates today's headlines with the Catholic Faith. His
work is available through www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted
at [email protected].
http://www.thecon servativevoice.com/article/16260.html
A Wimpy World War III
July 19, 2006 06:27 AM EST
Steve Kellmeyer
Newt Gingrich, President Bush, Sean Hannity - the opinions are coming
fast and furious. Unfortunately, the assertion seems to be more
bombast than substance. While the conflict against Wahabbi Islam and
its variants span the globe, it is not at all clear that it approaches
anything like a world war.
World Wars I and II saw the institution of the draft and/or the
mobilization of millions of men in dozens of countries on several
continents. The smallest battles in these wars injured or killed
hundreds, the big battles saw tens of thousands of casualties. In both
wars, huge sections of major cities were either seriously damaged or
entirely destroyed.
In both wars, governments nearly succeeded in destroying entire
populations: in World War I, the Turks committed genocide against the
Armenians, in World War II, Germany committed genocide against gypsies,
Jews and Catholics. Both wars resulted in the functional disappearance
of empires (Austria-Hungarian and Britain's empire, respectively).
In both world wars, the economies of the combatants were so fully
engaged in producing war material and maintaining men in the field
that strict rationing was enforced on the entire civilian population
of virtually every participating country.
It is important to remember that the designation "world war" is a
purely 20th-century phenomenon. The Napoleanic Wars, for instance,
were certainly fought at various locations around the world (including
the Pacific) and certainly involved the whole of Europe, the northern
coasts of Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. Those wars mobilized
millions of men and involved the destruction of significant urban areas
Despite this, Napolean is not considered to have started a "world war."
Similarly, we can point to various times in Britain's history
where she was simultaneously involved in several wars to maintain a
world-wide empire (the American Revolution, for instance, was but one
brush-fire in a much larger series of British conflicts), but she is
not considered to have started a "world war" either.
So, does the current conflict rise to the level of "world war"? It's
hard to see how it would.
Certainly one can point to armed conflict in at least a dozen countries
around the world, but that's about the strongest argument that can be
made. Muslims are not fully mobilized for war, nor is a significant
percentage of Muslim men involved in armed conflict. Even the most
successful Islamic assault, September 11th, had less than two dozen
enemy combatants directly involved. Most of the incidents involve
groups much smaller than one dozen.
The "battles", if one wishes to call the various terrorist incidents
by this name, are not particularly deadly. In most cases (September 11
being an unusual exception), casualties do not even reach a thousand
injured, in fact, they generally don't get much above one hundred
or so. There is no war-time rationing. Indeed, quite the opposite is
the case.
Apart from the two occasions where American forces actually invaded
a country (Afghanistan and Iraq), there have been no serious pitched
battles between combatants. Instead, the terrorists have inflicted
a level of violence much more similar to that inflicted by mob-run
gangs who fought each other and police during Prohibition.
Cities are not razed, most are left entirely untouched. Even September
11 involved the total destruction of less than a dozen buildings
in New York City, an urban area that contains hundreds of thousands
of commercial buildings. Most attacks consist of train bombings or
individual suicide bombers, barely noticeable events on the military
violence scale.
Islamic terrorists seem to be set up much more along the lines of
organized criminal gangs than they are armies. Indeed, given the level
of intra-Muslim violence, it is not unreasonable to draw comparisons
between gang warfare and the current level of Islamic violence.
In short, if this is World War III, then world wars are definitely
getting pretty wimpy.
About the Writer: Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and
lecturer who integrates today's headlines with the Catholic Faith. His
work is available through www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted
at [email protected].
http://www.thecon servativevoice.com/article/16260.html