Why it’s NOT World War III — yet

Newt Gingrich can barely contain his glee as he unfurls the newest GOP political strategy — pointing to all of the problems the US government has caused and calling it “World War III”. I’m reminded of an old saying in the military for describing proceeding with questionable initiatives: “Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes.”

Newt is full of crap. The World Wars were conflicts between the major powers of that era. I believe this situation could easily become World War three — but it would require the fighting entry of at least one major power in opposition to the US government for that term to be applied accurately.

Russia and China aren’t going to do a heck of a lot unless they get in a situation where they believe they have little other choice. There go the prime candidates. They know Bush is spoiling for a fight.

The EU is, well, there. India is arguably US-aligned. A confederation of Latin American nations under Mexican, Brazilian or Argentinian leadership might qualify as a great power, I suppose — but I don’t see that taking shape very soon. There’s an anti-US government drift in Latin American politics, but nothing of those proportions.

The Israelis rolling tanks doesn’t magically transform a “War on Terror”, that the American public is gradually coming to see as a farce, into “World War III” overnight — the wet dreams of Republican strategists notwithstanding.

I’ll call it WW III when the neocons succeed in provoking (or backing into a corner) the Russians and/or the Chinese. Prior to that point, I see baby boomers with an urge to be like Daddy and have their very OWN “Great War”. The premature use of the term is hype and a twisted example of wishful thinking on the part of a cynical political class.

As Paul Craig Roberts puts it: “We’re being set up…”