I agree that we're in a new world war (and the third in a row that is a fundamental clash of ideologies), but I wish that Newt would stop calling it World War III. It's World War IV. World War III was the Cold War. And unfortunately, this one may last almost as long.

[Update]

I should note this (a couple years old, and quite long) essay by Norman Podhoretz on this issue.

[Late morning update]

If we're in a long world war, then it makes no sense to talk about the "war" in Iraq. It was only a battle, as was Afghanistan, as Larry Schweikart points out:

The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events. That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle.

As historians (objective ones, that is) look back 30 years from now, and write the history of this war, they will find the battle of Iraq essentially was over after November 2004. I do not say that because Bush won reelection--that was critical, but so was the formation of the Iraqi government at that time--but because those two events then allowed a military victory at Fallujah, which was the tipping point of this battle (or, if you prefer, "war"). At Fallujah, more than 2000 terrorists were killed and the real al-Qaeda back of the so-called "insurgency" broken. Since then, Zarqawi was scrambling, as did the Japanese after Okinawa, to re-stock his ranks of suicide bombers. They were both unsuccessful. Last month, Zarqawi was killed, replicating the shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's plane in 1943. Even then, the war in the Pacific was not over--and the bloodiest battles had not been fought--but again, the outcome was further cemented.

And he's optimistic that we're going to ultimately win. I hope he's right.

Rand, you and I -- and maybe one other whose name escapes me -- seem to be about the only ones who count the Cold War as a WW.

We're right, but it don't make us any less lonely.

I agree that this is chronologically WWIV. But then WWIII was more like the Sitskriieg. Lots of maneuvering very little actual shooting between the principals. Both sides played smaller skirmishes and smaller arenas against each other.

It doesn't matter what we do or what we call it now WWIII, WWIV or Tuesday Night Bridge.

(Newt is on Fox as I type this)

We have lost the war, we have lost all moral high ground, we have lost the ability to bring anyone to a Democratically run government. All the Big 3 Networks and MSNBC and CNN have carried it already this morning.

They have George Bush, President of the United States of America, on tape talking with his mouth full. He doubted Kofi Annan's ability to stop the fighting in Israel and Lebanon.

And here is the damaging part for us as a nation, they have him on camera, and he said, "SH1T!"

I'm turning in my guns today, I'll burn my bible right after that, my wife wore a burka to work. We are doomed and it's all George Bush's fault for saying, THAT word!

Allah hu akbar!

Well, growing up during the Cold War, "World War III" was always going to be the "hot" war when the US and USSR started nuking each other. That didn't happen, so the "III" hasn't officially been used yet.

However, I agree that the Cold War should qualify as WWIII, in which the Korean War, Vietnam War, and all the other smaller conflicts such as Granada were battles. And thank God we won.

Not so sure about who's going to win this one, but I know I'd rather have us win.

The Cold War was WWIII. And it wasn't really all that "cold" as a couple of the major battles were Korea and Vietnam.

Steve,

Why are you so quick to throw in the towel? Our first two battles that we've actually fought in this war are going pretty well, especially Iraq. The Lebanese street (from what I can gather) is actually angry at Hezbollah more than anyone else, which gives a good hope that Lebanon will achieve a democracy once this conflict is over, as I don't think they will stand for Syria coming back over as happened in the 80s. Libya's working hard to get off our Sh*t list, so there's also a decent amount of hope for them, and I would say that Jordan, U.A.E., Turkey, and Kuwait are also all satisfactorily democratic or working to become so.

Anyhow, what I wanted to really post here in the comments, is anyone reading Redefining Sovereignty? The book makes the strong argument that the real battle isn't with Islam, since the West has so very many advantages, but the real battle to watch and worry about is the philosophical battle between the trans-nationalists (those who advocate transnational organizations such as the U.N. or E.U.) and internationalists (who advocate democratic sovereign states that may choose to join organizations such as the W.T.O. but don't give up any of their sovereignty to outside organizations)

Our first two battles that we've actually fought in this war are going pretty well, especially Iraq.

Yeah, it's going a lot better than in South Lebanon. Here is just the latest blame-the-Jews garbage from the leader of Hezbollah:

Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.’ These acts are not the work of Arabs. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.

Just kidding. It was actually Mahmoud Mashhadani, the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, who said this last week. (He said "Iraqis" rather than "Arabs".) But hey, some in Washington say that ol' Mahmoud is an able leader.

Ian,
Poor joking on my part I guess!?

I was parroting the network hand wringers I heard this morning. And the fact that they will be running headlong into using Mr Bush's FOUL language to prove he is a man of low moral character. This will of course, in their opinion, spell our doom, because we deserve to lose now. Not only does Bush lie to get us into a war. He curses.

One of the Big 3 Morning talking heads even said something to the effect that he should apologize for using the word while talking to Tony Blair because he is the Prime Minister of another country.

I'm sure Blair has heard and, MAYBE, even said SH1T. What is he, Blair, a 13 year old virgin raised in a convent?

It was early, I was tired. I think I'm hilarious, most times I miss the mark, as my wife often reminds me.

SpongeBob, the Moslems are pathological. The only way to turn Iraq into a non-threatening nation is to eliminate Islam from their lives. Short of that, this venture will be a noble failure. What we're doing is like trying to rebuild Germany while allowing Naziism to flourish as an ideology.

What I find disturbing about Bush's remark is that he apparently believes that Iran's proxy Syria can be convinced to call off its own proxy Hezbollah. Either he doesn't get the big picture as painted by Ledeen, et al, or he doesn't believe it.

The only way to turn Iraq into a non-threatening nation is to eliminate Islam from their lives.

We're batting 1000 -- they are eliminating just about everything other than Islam.

More wisdom from Mashhadani: "I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists."

Interesting words from inside the Green Zone. I wonder if Yaron Brook would say that we should arrest Mashhadani instead of protecting and promoting him.

What I find disturbing about Bush's remark is that he apparently believes that Iran's proxy Syria can be convinced to call off its own proxy Hezbollah.

I thought he was saying that Kofi Annan called the shots.

I do not say that because Bush won reelection

This raises an issue. Since the battle in Iraq is akin to the battle of the Pacific in World War II, we wouldn't want to change horses in mid-stream. Should Congress act to repeal the 22nd Amendment, so that some Democrat or RINO won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Even though victory has been cemented, the wrong leader could still take a sledgehammer to it.

After all, Roosevelt served four terms.

Yeah, but Roosevelt was only physically handicapped.

Perhaps it is cultural: to me WWIII was going to start when the sirens went off and the Russian missiles started falling. As that did not happen, then to me, we never fought WWIII. That is what I grew up with. So I use it for the current war.

SpongeBob writes:

"After all, Roosevelt served four terms."

Yes, but I suspect one of the reasons the 22nd Amendment was passed was to prevent another man from doing the same thing-- serving so many terms as to allow (unwittingly or not) a cult of personality to grow up around him, much as one grew up around FDR. Such cults aren't very good for the health of a republic.

yo' mamma writes:

"Yeah, but Roosevelt was only physically handicapped."

Oh? How do you know that FDR didn't suffer some sort of deterioration in his mental functions in his last months? The cerebral hemorrhage which killed him in April 1945 might have only been the most severe in a long series of them. How else to explain some of the more bizarre decisions he made in the winter and spring of '45?

I think the term you are searching for is not battle, but campaign.

I sent Newt an email about this last night. I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

In the whole WWn debate, since WWI & WII are pretty definitively labeled, I argue that the 7 Years War was "World War Zero"