Loose Talk of WWIII

Think, seriously, about using it for the entire world to hear. And think about saying that publicly when you are the leader of the most heavily armed thermonuclear nation that has ever existed on the earth.

George W. Bush did that late last year. In doing so, he showed the whole world his personal view of mankind.

World War III would, by definition, bring the whole world crashing down. Obviously it would involve nuclear weapons if it were to be a third world war; maybe the United States would survive, maybe it wouldn’t. Even if it survived, it would differ greatly from the nation as it is now known.

Everything would change throughout the earth. There would be new, or no governments in every corner of the world. One presumes there would be a winning nation – probably America – if it’s possible to consider any outcome victorious, and assuredly there would be lots of ruined countries in need of leadership – probably America among them. In truth, America will likely win any nuclear war hands down. It would ostensibly rule whatever remained, if anything of value or merit remained anywhere.

World War III - it is not a phrase anyone should insert into a conversation without deep consideration, much forethought, cold calculation, and a knowledge that there will be dire consequences from the mere mention of the possibility. More importantly, anyone discussing World War III must be ready to spell out what they expect on the day after such a holocaust. Not to consider these consequences is to deem the world forfeited; hand over the new world to another leader or another system of governance.

One is talking about the reordering of the human species. When done, World War III may truly mean Armageddon. Books have been written on the subject; the so-called ‘End Times.’ Religious zealots and some others see Bush as part of this literature, following the dictates of end-of-the-world thinking.

But it is immaterial whether Bush does or does not follow such apocalyptic precepts. What is vitally important is that Bush’s language and philosophy tend to point toward war as the answer to the world’s woes. And it is always the first answer.

Normal, reasonable people naturally assume that introducing World War III as a subject, a potential reality in modern diplomacy, would require great care and reserve. Bush did this a bit differently. At a White House press conference, Bush spoke of getting nuclear weapons permanently out of reach of Iranian hands.

Otherwise, he concluded, everybody risks World War III.

He just dropped the phrase into his conversation during a press conference. Bush does not hold many press conferences. In the Bush Administration’s insular view, people in the press do a lousy job of carrying presidential messages; they all have their own definition of “news” and always seem to make things complicated. Bush wants his message clear and simple so the audience can absorb it in exactly the form the president wants. It was unmistakable that Bush wanted the American people and others in the world to realize that he – most powerful person extant – is struggling to avert World War III. What guts!

US President George W Bush also referred to the "war on terror" as "World War III" during a television interview in 2006.

Mr. Bush told the CNBC television network the revolt of passengers on the hijacked flight 93 on September 11, 2001, was the "first counter-attack to World War III." He said he agreed with David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who is quoted in a 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal saying that the act was "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war - World War III."

In that instance, however, the reference to World War III was clearly a figure of speech. Bush’s most recent use was more realistic; it involved suggestions of an actual world war resulting from Iran’s knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons.

He also said he and Russian President Vladimir Putin disagree on lots of things but did have some fundamentals they still share.

"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 (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said.

This was back in October, back before the National Intelligence Estimate had handed down its finding that Iran had, in fact, stopped its nuclear bomb work four years ago. This finding was from the government’s own sources.

Sixteen intelligence agencies said with one voice that Iran had stopped making nuclear materials for at least four years. Of course this should have hit the president square in the face, and muffled his Cold War mongering. But in fact, in what seems to be a consistent and predictable response to unwanted or conflicting information, this just hardened Bush’s already determined stance.

He quickly retorted that this fresh intelligence changes nothing.

OK, it confirmed that Iran actually had been developing a nuclear weapons program as late as five years ago.

Aha!

So there was some dangerous activity as little as five years ago, Bush observed, which meant he was essentially on the money in his early comments, therefore he would not be changing his tactics – not one bit.

Iran, Iraq and North Korea continue as the three enemies of democracy in Bush’s world view. Never mind that Iraq is ruined, Iran is doing exactly what America wants, and North Korea is a pariah that if not entirely neutered is at least isolated.

What Bush is doing is irresponsibly rattling his sword.

He has a year to rush into still another tragedy, or possibly blunder into the World War III he is so fond of discussing.

The hard reality is that until he leaves office, and probably for some time afterwards, his policies will keep this nation poised for World War III. This may be the darkest element in what history will surely record as the blackest presidency is American history.

2/08