Views > September 28, 2006

Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII

Scare-tactic allusions to war allow Bush to push an extremist agenda.

By Gregory D. Foster

“Route-step, march” is a permissive military command that directs a marching formation to continue without a set cadence. So, “route-step” also is a common term of disparagement for sloppiness and indiscipline—an apt characterization, as it happens, for America’s current response to world affairs. We little people, absent more vigilance and skepticism, are in danger of being route-stepped into World War III by our rulers and their ideological acolytes.

If “World War III” sounds hyperbolic and alarmist, that’s because it is. Precisely for that reason, it is the prevailing lingua franca of the Bush administration and those on the right who seek to solidify their hold on power by cowing the public.

President Bush himself, who has unwaveringly stuck to calling the hunt for terrorists the Global War on Terror, has recently taken up the claim that we now face World War III. But the most outspoken proponent of this thesis is former U.S. House Speaker and putative presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich. In public appearances, interviews and newspaper commentaries, he has made the World War III mantra the centerpiece of a Churchillian patois designed to burnish his qualifications as a prospective commander in chief.

Speaking in apocalyptic terms of losing millions of Americans to weapons of mass murder, Gingrich would have us believe that all of the criminality, militarism and terrorism in the world—from North Korean missile firings, to Middle East violence, to Iraq and Afghanistan, to alleged terror plotters in Canada and England—is connected in some unified whole of civilizational conflagration. The only reasonable response is an all-out effort to achieve total victory.

Of course, proclaiming that we are at war, especially world war, strengthens the president’s hand as commander-in-chief and his claims to concentrated power; rationalizes continued gluttonous defense spending and restrictions on civil liberties and dissent; puts Congress, the media and an opposition party devoid of all credibility on national security matters on the permanent defensive; and instills fear in an electorate thereby more willing to forsake popular sovereignty for Big Brother protection.

Moreover, to invoke World War III is to evoke World War II, the last great, nationally unifying, Manichean, total war against regnant evil personified by Hitler. To be able to compare an enemy figurehead like Osama bin Laden to Hitler, characterize one’s adversaries as fascist (Islamo-fascist), and accuse one’s critics of being historically illiterate appeasers (in the manner of Neville Chamberlain), is to create a cosmic symmetry of fearful acquiescence.

As Gingrich has been the White House’s de facto rhetorical proxy at home, Israel has been America’s continuing military proxy in the Middle East—a provocateur extraordinaire whose recent military campaign in Lebanon well served the Bush administration’s hopes for turning the rhetoric of world war into reality. There is a long-held, deeply internalized misconception among much of Washington’s policy elite that Israel is supremely competent at dealing with terrorism. Exploiting this misconception, Israel acted as it invariably does (and as its Washington soulmates invariably do): politically, tactically and militarily, devoid of strategic comprehension, sensitivity or insight. The result was a debacle that multiplied the strategically debilitating effects of America’s Iraq debacle.

Political expediency, not strategic desiderata, clearly motivated both Israel’s actions inside Lebanon and the Bush administration’s countenancing of those actions. Otherwise, both parties would have sought to:

• Strengthen Lebanon’s government, rather than irreparably weaken it by destroying large segments of the country’s infrastructure.
• Exploit the inherent disunity of international terrorism rather than give its disparate perpetrators grounds for common cause.
• Win the hearts and minds of people whose loyalties have now turned to Hezbollah and like-minded groups.
• Contribute to regional and global demilitarization through a measured, discriminating use of force that assiduously discriminated between combatants and non-combatants.

Clearly, two things characterize the Bush administration’s approach to international affairs. First, the high politics of statecraft have given way to the low politics of partisan jockeying. Second, the strategic exercise of power has been overwhelmed by the tactical use of force—to the extent that our foreign policy has been completely militarized. The inevitable result, absent a countervailing exercise of democratic prerogative by the American people, will be the Third World War those now in power have set us up for.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Who is Greg Foster, and why he is writing parody and comedy on ITT?

  First we are instructed that “our rulers and their ideological acolytes” (I think he is referring to our elected officials) are “route step” types (sloppy and undisciplined), but then he notes that President Bush has “unwaveringly” stuck to calling the hunt for terrorists the Global War on Terror.  Foster might have noted that President Bush has also “unwaveringly” fought the terrorists. 

  The contradiction between Foster’s imputation of sloppy and undisciplined behavior to President Bush and his Administration contrasts neatly with President Bush’s actual unwavering actions.  Funny, huh?

  And then there is this little gem:

  Of course, proclaiming that we are at war, especially world war, strengthens the president’s hand as commander-in-chief and his claims to concentrated power ...

  Ummm, well!  At war or not, the President is the Commander-in-Chief and, as such, does have concentrated power; it is spelled out in the Constitution, a document with which Foster may not be familiar.

  “Gluttonous defense spending”: Ummm, where is that to be found?  Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is an order of magnitude less than spending on the Dimocrats’ Vietnam debacle and has ever so much greater results and prospects. 

  “(R)estrictions on civil liberties and dissent”: Ummm, and where is that to be found?  The dissent around here is pretty silly, but it is not lacking in expression.  So what are we talking about?  Or is this just one more of the foolish things leftists say to make political points, and hope no one analyzes the comment too closely?

  “(P)uts Congress, the media and an opposition party devoid of all credibility on national security matters on the permanent defensive”: Congress, no, just some members of the Congress.  And “the media and an opposition party” are “devoid of all credibility on national security matters” because of their own actions; it has nothing to do with President Bush.  Does Foster have an editor?  This whole statement is nonsensical, on several levels.

  “Israel has been America’s continuing military proxy in the Middle East”: You mean like Hizb’allah is Iran’s “continuing military proxy in the Middle East”?  And since Israel regularly stomps the Islamofascists’ butts every time they attack Israel, you might think Hizb’allah would learn to avoid attacking their peaceful neighbors. 

  Clearly, two things characterize the Bush administration’s approach to international affairs. First, the high politics of statecraft have given way to the low politics of partisan jockeying. Second, the strategic exercise of power has been overwhelmed by the tactical use of force—to the extent that our foreign policy has been completely militarized. The inevitable result, absent a countervailing exercise of democratic prerogative by the American people, will be the Third World War those now in power have set us up for.

  Polysyllabic incoherence.

  Posted by scorp on Sep 28, 2006 at 10:17 PM

  What Foster says in parody, I say with utmost sincerity.

  This is a Manichean war, of good vs evil. It does span countries and continents. It is a fight of democracy, of might for right, against the tyrannies of fascist totalitarian beliefs, of might makes right.

  It is starting with Islamic fundamentalists, but there are other tyrannies out there, becoming emboldened by recent events. Secular Arabic autocrats, African strongmen, Chinese nationalists. European appeasers.

  Yeah, this is indeed the first stage of WWIII. Just as Spain and Ethiopia were the opening shots of fascism in WWII. Spain and Ethiopia were not a part of the later, larger conflagration, but that is where it started.

  I guess the good professor never heard of, or merely ignores, Santayana.

  Where is the Churchill of our age?

  Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 29, 2006 at 5:24 AM

  I won’t disagree with Scorp’s characterization of Vietnam as Dimocrat debacle, but that does not justify the Bush administration’s current actions in Iraq. The US tried to spread Democracy to Vietnam and failed (killing millions in the process), tried to spread Democracy to the Philippines and failed (killing hundreds of thousand in the process), tried the same in Cuba and that didn’t go so well.

  True democracy must be a people’s movement; it cannot be imposed upon the people and unfortunately the people of Iraq cannot hear our case for democracy over the rattling sabers.

  So if a free and democratic Iraq is the best way to ensure our safety at home what good will full scale military assaults and talk of WWIII do for us?

  Posted by curmudgeon on Sep 29, 2006 at 7:28 AM

  As a people’s movement, does true democracy happen spontaneously?

  Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 29, 2006 at 3:20 PM

  Curmudgeon -

  Do you go by Cur, or is your name Mud?

  In a brief post, you have made numerous mischaracterizations and factual errors.  Democracy was not imposed on Germany and Japan after WWII?  What are they now, fascist and military dictatorships, the same as before WWII?

  All you can hear is a few rattling sabers, you didn’t by chance notice the millions of purple fingers?  I realize the NYT and the leftist media want you to concentrate on the rattling sabers, but do you have to be so obtuse about it?

  There were about twenty democracies in the world at the start of the Twentieth Century.  Now there are well over one hundred nations with some degree of democracy, including the Philippines, one of your examples.  Some of these new democracies were imposed by the USA and other democracies, and all the rest were inspired and assisted by Western democracies, such as the newly free nations of Eastern Europe.  As a result of this flowering of democracy, the world is a more peaceful and prosperous place. 

  The totalitarian anti-democracies, including the Islamic states, are the source, directly and indirectly, of the genocide and conflict in the world: Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea.  The sooner these states are promoted to democracy, the better off the entire world will be.  The cost may be great, but not near as great as ignoring the problems.

  ... what good will full scale military assaults and talk of WWIII do for us?

  Beats me.  Ask Foster, he is the one pushing the idea.  The Bush effort is quite restrained (probably too restrained), but it has led to brilliant results at an extremely low cost.

  Posted by scorp on Sep 29, 2006 at 5:39 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 72 posts.

Member Login

Also by Gregory D. Foster

• General Failure
  An enduring crisis in civil-military relations threatens America's future
• Route-Stepping? Our Way to WWIII
  Scare-tactic allusions to war allow Bush to push an extremist agenda.