World War Three?

[DotCommunist]

BUMP

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I was going to start a similar one and its interesting to compare now to 2006 when the thread started

Curious if anyone has changed opinions since 2006

Its late now, will add thoughts tomorrow...

what states are there actively hankering for a scrap? credible, able to back it up states? nobody wants it, the fear of the Bomb etc. There is a lot of brush fires going on, and none of them are good. But actual world war involving major powers against major powers? It just doesn't seem likely atm.

 

[ska invita]

what states are there actively hankering for a scrap? credible, able to back it up states? nobody wants it, the fear of the Bomb etc. There is a lot of brush fires going on, and none of them are good. But actual world war involving major powers against major powers? It just doesn't seem likely atm.

i think phil addressed some of that in this thread already...

ww3 - this time its postmodern

 

[ska invita]

There is a lot of brush fires going on

maybe you're right and thats all it is.... but the way they rage from west africa to afghanistan.... the number of territories at war.... seemingly for different reasons, but I think theyre deeply interconnected

 

[likesfish]

Its not really a war assorted nasty local conflicts plus global terrorists vs the west which mostly goes on as normal.

 

[Nylock]

maybe you're right and thats all it is.... but the way they rage from west africa to afghanistan.... the number of territories at war.... seemingly for different reasons, but I think theyre deeply interconnected

Thing is, the territories are at war within themselves. A rash of what effectively amounts to civil wars, even interconnected ones, does not necessarily make for a world-war scenario. With the obvious exceptions of Iraq & Afghanistan, there haven't really been major incursions by foreign Armies into territories. There's been plenty of sabre-rattling between 'conventional' powers but no actual hostilities have kicked off that end up sucking in allies of the belligerents that inevitably spirals into a global conflagration. imo It's looking dodgy out there, but no worse than the various levels of heightened dodgyness that were exhibited during the latter part of the cold war.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being complacent here, I'm just not seeing a lurch towards an actual world war (with the exception of the west v. Russia over Ukraine/EU/NATO expansion, but the trouble is the west and Russia have always been butting heads so it's hard to work that one out)....

 

[ska invita]

Its not really a war assorted nasty local conflicts plus global terrorists vs the west which mostly goes on as normal.

this is true but i think there is a deeper layer of factors that interconnect the disparate conflicts

if we are saying that to warrant being called a World War it has to follow a template set out by the other 2, then clearly it isnt that, and hopefully that mass allied states vs allied states war will never rear its head again.

But I think it is useful to think of whats happening as a World War - or at least a Something Or Other War, as I think it forces the need to look at the interconnectivity of what is happening and the scale at which its occurring.... Putting together all the uniting factors is not a straightforward thing, but I think is helpful to understanding.

I'll have a go at trying to list they key factors as I see them - nothing groundbreaking here - all which I think feedback into one another and show no sign of being resolved any time soon:

*Islamic fundamentalism / Caliphate building: ISIS the most pronounced form of that at present, but clearly there are groups from west africa to afghanistan on similar missions

*US led Western intervention and proxy wars - Western forces are continuously involved and will continue to be, directly with troops, from the air, and through funding proxies

*The failing and falling of pre-existing dictatorships - the Arab Spring phenomenon has different roots - general poverty and frustration with despotism being a key one, but i think the instability created by the US led invasions also helped create the climate and the resulting post-dictatorship has now opened up the space for more warring

*Redrawing of borders - one effect of the European-centered world wars was the chance to redraw borders...Id expect that its just a matter of time before many of the borders of many African and Middles Eastern states are redrawn

*Resources - oil, water, land grabbing...solar? Lots of competition for them

*Ideology - a dramatically broad range of competing ideologies and expectations of normality

*Terrorism beyond the main theaters - small acts of asymmetric warfare (like in Paris) designed to stoke the fires further

All of that seems to feedback into the other and I cant even begin to imagine an end to it. Maybe World War is the wrong term, but I think whats happening can be helpfully compounded.

 

[coley]

*Redrawing of borders - one effect of the European-centered world wars was the chance to redraw borders...Id expect that its just a matter of time before many of the borders of many African and Middles Eastern states are redrawn
Putin seems to be keen on the idea of redrawing borders, and while a few months ago I think he would have balked at the idea of direct confrontation with NATO, however these days I'm not to sure.
Given his obsession with Russia's place in the world and a liking for populist policies and a need to direct the Russian populace away from the imminent disaster that appears to be the Russian economy I suspect he is capable of pushing his luck re; the Ukraine.

 

[ska invita]

4am drunken post deleted for prosperity

 

[phildwyer]

this is true but i think there is a deeper layer of factors that interconnect the disparate conflicts

if we are saying that to warrant being called a World War it has to follow a template set out by the other 2, then clearly it isnt that, and hopefully that mass allied states vs allied states war will never rear its head again.

But I think it is useful to think of whats happening as a World War - or at least a Something Or Other War, as I think it forces the need to look at the interconnectivity of what is happening and the scale at which its occurring.... Putting together all the uniting factors is not a straightforward thing, but I think is helpful to understanding.

I'll have a go at trying to list they key factors as I see them - nothing groundbreaking here - all which I think feedback into one another and show no sign of being resolved any time soon:

*Islamic fundamentalism / Caliphate building: ISIS the most pronounced form of that at present, but clearly there are groups from west africa to afghanistan on similar missions

*US led Western intervention and proxy wars - Western forces are continuously involved and will continue to be, directly with troops, from the air, and through funding proxies

*The failing and falling of pre-existing dictatorships - the Arab Spring phenomenon has different roots - general poverty and frustration with despotism being a key one, but i think the instability created by the US led invasions also helped create the climate and the resulting post-dictatorship has now opened up the space for more warring

*Redrawing of borders - one effect of the European-centered world wars was the chance to redraw borders...Id expect that its just a matter of time before many of the borders of many African and Middles Eastern states are redrawn

*Resources - oil, water, land grabbing...solar? Lots of competition for them

*Ideology - a dramatically broad range of competing ideologies and expectations of normality

*Terrorism beyond the main theaters - small acts of asymmetric warfare (like in Paris) designed to stoke the fires further

All of that seems to feedback into the other and I cant even begin to imagine an end to it. Maybe World War is the wrong term, but I think whats happening can be helpfully compounded.

Good post. But I suggest that all the factors you mention here can be condensed into a single word: imperialism.

The problem with the world today is that the West is behaving in an imperialist manner towards the Muslim world.

No permanent solution is possible while the West continues to act as an imperialist power.

 

[ska invita]

Good post. But I suggest that all the factors you mention here can be condensed into a single word: imperialism.

The problem with the world today is that the West is behaving in an imperialist manner towards the Muslim world.

No permanent solution is possible while the West continues to act as an imperialist power.

agree that western intervention (military/financial/political etc) has been at the root of kicking things off, propping up and generally fucking things up in a variety of ways, but i think to just put it all down to imperialism down plays (if not ignores) the agency of millions of people who live in northern africa/the middle east/asia

Cant argue with "No permanent solution is possible while the West continues to act as an imperialist power".

I would love to know how much of what is happening now is going according to the plans of the US/UK strategic planners
Like Bernie quoted

Meanwhile, George Will says:
Foreign policy "realists" considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved. source

how deliberate is the extent of the destabilising? no one can know for sure

 

[phildwyer]

how deliberate is the extent of the destabilising? no one can know for sure

True.

But it was pretty obvious that massive destablization would be the result of the kind of brutal, clod-hopping intervention the West has undertaken since 2001. It was surely obvious that removing Gaddafi summarily would hurl Libya into chaos. Getting involved in the Syrian civil war guaranteed its continuation. There was no plan to replace Saddam with any viable alternative. Etc.

Now, either the West is governed by idiots, or this destablization is deliberate.

I don't think our rulers are idiots.

So we must ask: cui bono? Is there anyone who might stand to benefit from the massive destablization of the Islamic world?

 

[ska invita]

on iraq I think its quite possible that they really believed it would all be over quickly and a smooth transition could take place - I think Iraq was pure incompetence/ignorance. Either they ignored the warnings from their own departments or they secretly welcome the carnage. Both are very possible

 

[BandWagon]

on iraq I think its quite possible that they really believed it would all be over quickly and a smooth transition could take place - I think Iraq was pure incompetence/ignorance. Either they ignored the warnings from their own departments or they secretly welcome the carnage. Both are very possible

The decision to disband the army instead of just changing the leadership was stupid, and letting the Pentagon handle the aftermath instead of the state dept was ditto. Probably just stupid mistakes rather than deliberate.

 

[ska invita]

The decision to disband the army instead of just changing the leadership was stupid, and letting the Pentagon handle the aftermath instead of the state dept was ditto. Probably just stupid mistakes rather than deliberate.

sounds reasonable and agree, but their advisors did also warn that the region would be dramatically destabilised as a result of toppling Hussein - I cant recall the exact link now, but its been posted on the boards in the past

 

[phildwyer]

Either they ignored the warnings from their own departments or they secretly welcome the carnage. Both are very possible

Why wouldn't they welcome the carnage?

I think we can safely discount any humanitarian motives. So why exactly would the West have a problem with reducing the Middle East to impotent chaos? It allows us to steal their oil, and prevents them from threatening our allies.

 

[ska invita]

60 million displaced people in the world last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33178035
Number displaced worldwide hits record high - UN report
"The report says that at least 15 conflicts have erupted or reignited in the past five years, including eight in Africa and three in the Middle East.
This led to 59.5 million displaced people by the end of 2014, of whom 38.2 million were displaced in their own country, by internal conflict. Wars in Ukraine, Nigeria and South Sudan swelled the figures last year, the UNHCR said."

what a tragedy

 

[Greebo]

60 million displaced people in the world last year <snip>what a tragedy

Agreed, particularly when Pakistan and Turkey take in most of them, in spite of how richer countries whinge about having to welcome far too many asylum seekers etc.

 

[ska invita]

Agreed, particularly when Pakistan and Turkey take in most of them, in spite of how richer countries whinge about having to welcome far too many asylum seekers etc.

yeah my close friend lives in istanbul - iirc about 1.6million people from syria refugees in turkey - huge amounts istanbul, basically living on the street

 

[Greebo]

yeah my close friend lives in istanbul - iirc about 1.6million people from syria refugees in turkey - huge amounts istanbul, basically living on the street

And if living like that's better or safer than what they ran from... *shudders*

 

[ska invita]

Why wouldn't they welcome the carnage?

I think we can safely discount any humanitarian motives. So why exactly would the West have a problem with reducing the Middle East to impotent chaos? It allows us to steal their oil, and prevents them from threatening our allies.

finally gotten around to reading Shock Doctrine - knew what it was about before reading it, and had no argument with the general hypothesis, but after reading it its hard to think it was anything other than deliberate - and continues to be deliberate

 

[dylanredefined]

Why wouldn't they welcome the carnage?

I think we can safely discount any humanitarian motives. So why exactly would the West have a problem with reducing the Middle East to impotent chaos? It allows us to steal their oil, and prevents them from threatening our allies.

Hard to steal oil when the country is in chaos. If insurgents aren't blowing the infrastructure up and kidnapping people. The worksite will continually be
prone to theft or you are going to have to pay off the local hard man etc. I really think they believed democracy and freedom would spring from the rubble and for a couple of months it nearly worked.
We were all set to build bridges and start clearing up the rubbish as there was nothing else for us to do. Then it all went horribly wrong.

 

[frogwoman]

It might have started out as deliberate but its seriously backfired. I dont think anyone knows what to do. The ruling class probably least of all.

 

[Sirena]

Agreed, particularly when Pakistan and Turkey take in most of them, in spite of how richer countries whinge about having to welcome far too many asylum seekers etc.

And Australia - which is hardly pressed for space - keeps them in concentration camps...

 

[phildwyer]

Hard to steal oil when the country is in chaos.

Not at all. Just build walls around the wells and get on with it. Which is exactly what they're doing.