[Image courtesy: Indian Express]
The fall of the USSR, as a superpower, ended global war as we knew it. The overwhelming superiority that the United States commands, and continues to, in terms of conventional and nuclear capabilities make it impossible for nation-states to engage it directly in the field of battle. The age-old imperative for armed conflict, the conquering of rich lands and capturing natural resources, is no longer realizable in the world of the coalition of the willing, as Saddam Hussein found out in 1991. This, and the nature of the modern economy where wealth lies no longer comes from the ground, save for oil, makes industrial espionage and cyber-attacks directed at large corporations, a more strategic pathway for grabbing the resources of others, than charging forward with armies of horses and swords.
So, on the face of it, we should be seeing a period of physical peace, with conflict migrating largely to cyberspace, with nation-states and criminal gangs as actors.
And yet we are, and I use the words with full realization of their import, in the middle of a Third World War. The theater of this war is global, as World Wars are by definition, from Nigeria to Bali, from Sudan to Paris, from the USA to Australia, from India to Spain. The life of every citizen is in danger, whether it be in the lounge of an airport or out in your favorite restaurant, tending sheep in the mountains of Afghanistan or walking to a school in Nigeria. And while we do not see casualties on the scale a Hiroshima or a Leningrad or a Dresden, The Third World War, more than makes up for that by virtue of its longevity and inscrutability, subverting as it does every assumption history has taught us about wars. And the reason why the one with lesser power, if we go by traditional metrics of military might, is winning is because America and the world at large chooses to fight the war in a way that they have been used to.
With tragic consequences.
For this is not your grandpa’s war.
For one, the enemy has no centralized command and control, no cut off the head of the serpent, no Hitler’s bunker to storm. Which means you kill Bin Laden and you get Baghdadi, and if you kill him out will pop some other exotic name. ISIS may be reduced to a rump, and so may be the Taliban, but that does not lower the intensity of the global Jihad, because ISIS or whatever acronym is popular at the time, is never really in control of the war. World War 3 is franchised, in the way soda conglomerates are, where you have franchisees, bottling and distributing, and then sticking the label at the end to become the brand. ISIS or Al-Qaeda are primarily that, a fancy sticker with a good marketing budget, and of the global Jihad organizations, ISIS understands this the most. Which is why their videos of decapitations and stoning and burning and throwing off tall buildings are so professionally produced, they are developing their brand in a way that corporations, and forgive the pun, would kill for. In contrast, Al-Qaeda is still grainy VHS tapes and old men droning on incoherently, the Blackberry to ISIS’s iPhone.
Second there is an almost invisible line between combatants and non-combatants. One side does not wear an uniform, one side does not live in garrisons, one side does not march in formation. Targeting them through conventional warfare, as is done in Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq, causes high collateral damage of non-combatants, which then provides the other side a narrative of victimhood which they can leverage to recruit and expand their war. Trying to pre-empt strikes using pro-active policing and restrictions on flow of people across borders leads to charges of targeting and profiling, which again strengthens the victimhood narrative. Killing the radical Islamist post-terror-strike also ends up as a victory for the other side, because unlike conventional forces, the tactics of the radical Islamists do not include an escape plan. They fight to die, and therein is their victory. Or so the messaging says. Despite all this, The West keeps fighting the war of the 1940s, spending billions on conventional warfare, the so-called “shock and awe” demonstration of overwhelming military might, and that only aggrandizes the defense industry and their political backers, while being largely ineffective for the war at hand.
Third, the motivation of the enemy is amorphous and varied. Yes there is a vaguely articulated aim to establish an Islamic caliphate or the liberation of Palestine, but that does not explain an attack in Paris or in Dhaka or why well-educated privileged men from Europe are running off to Syria. For some, the global Jihad is a way to live out fantasies they cannot in a civilized world, to murder, maim and rape with impunity, under the comforting cocoon of an ideology. Kind of like the movie “Purge”, except it’s every day. For others, rich urban young men, it is simply a way of becoming famous, the quickest way to attain world-wide notoriety, even though it comes at the cost of death. The more violent and lurid the executions, the greater the social media capital. And for a few, its lashing out at supposed Western evils, like promiscuity, where the underlying pathology, if we care to go through their social media postings, is not getting enough of the evil themselves.
The path to global Jihad is many and it is this diversity that makes it impossible to solve or root out, at a fundamental level. You cannot regime-change it. You cannot hearts-and-minds it. You cannot buy, kill or hug your way out of it. To make a pop culture analogy, the war is being fought as if the opponent is the greedy Penguin, who operates on conventional perceptions of gain and loss. Except it is the Joker, and no one, definitely not he himself, knows why he does what he does, except to “see the world burn”.
And finally, in today’s world, victory lies in perception. It was the Vietnam War that first brought this home, that you could win on the ground and yet lose, if the other side seizes the messaging high-ground. This is where the forces of global Jihad have chalked up their greatest victory. While every act of brutality they commit increases their support-base, which is why they spend so much time on publicizing them through slickly shot videos, every act of violence they endure and the collateral damage that such acts inevitably bring about also, and here is where the paradox is, strengthen their narrative of victimhood. In other words, they cut both ways. Their opponents however are hamstrung by having to appear to stand on the moral high ground. That is why they have to lie to go to war, and use rendition to perform torture, and use elaborate structures of secrecy to hide that which happens in every war, the indiscriminate killing of innocents. Except that the subterfuge is invariably caught, and they end up looking bad, and, yes, you guessed it, it helps the PR department of their enemy. Now this is some shit that General MacArthur and Eisenhower never had to deal with.
If all this sound dire, it is. The Third World War is a war without end, and like diabetes and genital herpes it cannot be cured but only controlled, and that too at great personal sacrifice, like eating vegetables or, in this case, through restrictions on civil liberties.
This is, of course, that stage of the article where I am supposed to propose a solution, or at least one that hasn’t been tried or you the reader haven’t thought of, but I cannot.
All I can do is to ask for those reading it to be thankful to be alive tonight. And to take heart that, unless you are in Syria or Iraq or right next to the Boko Haram, that you are more likely to die from a heart attack or from a side-impact collision than World War 3.
That, I am afraid, is about all the positivity I can offer.
[Update: My next two books, Sultan of Delhi Ascension and Mahabharata Murders, are releasing October and December, 2016]
The Greatbong Blog & Podcast 
Very true. Also the current situations like Donald Trump, Brexit will make the matter even worse.
Great read! Although you didn’t touch upon one important point – how does Islam play a role here? Why do people who want to see the world burn’ invariably invoke Islam when doing so?
It wasn’t too long ago some people were invoking Bible to kill millions. A few hundred years later, people were using race supremacy as an excuse to kill millions in gas chambers. This was followed by some people killing millions in order to promote egalitarianism. Those who want to watch the world burn use ideology only as an excuse. The only reason capitalism hasn’t spawned death squads is probably because it profits more from people being alive than from being dead.
It’s true. The enemies are invisible in this war and you can’t predict or foresee anything until it happens. I think we should forgo all our freedom and liberty so that administrations can tackle it more easily.
The solution is quite simple, though impossible to implement in india it can be done in USA and Europe. Ban islam like Angola did last year
There is a two step solution which I am afraid I can’t reveal. The first step has already begun … in India and Dubai – I know you wont believe me.
The second step … currently no one knows how to carry it out. But some have surely understood its importance. Be assured that it will be carried out within the next ten years.
Some very capable minds are working on it, day and night.
No, no! Tell the two-step solution…as an Indian living in Dubai, the suspense is killing me.
Nice read, Arnab.
But I’ll say calling it World War 3 is a stretch.
Here’s some numbers for fatality counts from terror attacks since 2000:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/fivefold-increase-terrorism-fatalities-global-index
The total in 15 years comes to less than 250,000. A big number sure, but miniscule compared to the toll of even World War I. Even smaller when seen in proportion to existing world population.
Rather than a war, I suspect Islamic terrorism is becoming part of the “regular unpleasant shit we put up with”, like drug gang killings or the steady death count from psychos going berserk.
I would go with the assertion that an insidious global war is what we are going through. By one count the total number killed by terrorists may be around 250,000. We have to take also the numbers killed by the other side in response; the casualities from the U.S. and the coalation partners. Since 9/11 the numbers killed and maimed include a million in Iraq, a million in Afghan+Pak region, a million in Syria,Lebanon, Palestine, Libya and other parts of Africa. In addition the number of refugees in Europe due to all this, a few millions? Add to this the widespread terror/insecurity created among people all over the world. Sure signs of war as described by Mr. Bong.
Hmmm long story short we need to firstly name our adversaries… Even this article studiously avoids the word Islam.
Thankfully even the western liberal media is starting to call it for what it is now.
To isolate Islam completely is the only solution. Dark future for India though.
I think good Muslims have to start the fight. Fight this whole ideology
I often wonder how someone who has nothing to lose can be fought…..
Of all the comments above, I think Sania’s comment hit the nail on its head.
The chances of individuals without any ties ‘to see the world burn’ is high. If they have something to live for, may be they won’t. Take away their livelihoods, and hope for a better tomorrow, you end up with a devil’s playground.
Oppression breeds resentment. It doesn’t matter if that is caused by Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or some other name.
Not at all. The Dhaka killers were well educated, affluent, had everything to live for. So did Muhammad Atta, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, or for that matter, Osama Bin Laden himself – a scion of a millionaire family.
If oppression breeds resentment, and thereby terrorism, what about aborigines in Australia, native Indians in America, and closer home, Tibetans in China? Tibetans and their culture have been virtually exterminated in their native land, going by this logic they should’ve been violently massacring Han Chinese settlers by now.
I think this “oppression” narrative has been deliberately concocted by discredited and dispossessed leftists, now clinging on to the straws of militant Islam like a drowning man – this is the only way to achieve power once again, for power is what they want. Whether this power flows from the barrel of Islamic terrorists’ guns is immaterial. This is the last resort, they lost the intellectual and ideological battle long ago. Clearly a transparent effort to rationalize and provide post-facto justification.
In some old movie, I had seen a fight scene between the “hero” and the “villain”. In due course of the fight, the villain loses his sword and stands empty handed in front of the hero still in possession of the sword. Then the hero voluntarily gives up his sword and engages the villain in a hand-to-hand combat. He does this to “come down” to the villain’s level and defeat him at whatever level he is currently at. If he had stayed one level up and killed his with the sword, then the victory would not have been done. Recall victory or defeat are relative terms with respect to the peers. So if the peers (judges) think that the battle was not balanced to begin with, they will not accept the outcome.
This is probably the problem in Iraq, Syria etc. US army cannot come down to their level, use the limited weapons that they use and still defeat them. As long as the local population (peers) see the imbalance in technology, they will continue to feel sympathetic, unfortunately the battle will continue. The use of drones, air-powers and advanced instruments only help in killing more people, but also generate sympathy and further recruitment process.
A great article is one which gives the reader a proper context/perspective on things which he may have already read about. That is what this article did for me. Especially the comparison with life style disease Diabetes and food restrictions was excellent.
Great article, Arnab. Very succinct analysis.
I also wanted to add to Gaurav’s point which is that the 9/11 attackers really should’ve discredited the poverty-stricken, uneducated terrorist narrative. Also, this popular narrative of victimhood manages to not address the many, many groups who’ve been oppressed throughout history (Jews in Germany, or here home in America, you don’t see second or third generation Japanese or Vietnamese American citizens going on a murderous rampage despite historical grievances) – and yet don’t lash out at the general population.
There is an extremely simple way to defeat terrorism. Stop selling them ammunition. Unfortunately, jab tak is duniya me paisa hai, log chutiye bante rahenge.
I know I am completely off topic here, but had to point out a common misconception taken for a fact in the blog.
“…The Third World War is a war without end, and like diabetes and genital herpes it cannot be cured but only controlled,…”
Though it is a popular knowledge (even among doctors) that diabetes cannot be cured, it is not correct. Diabetes is a dietary disease that can be reversed. I am no doctor and so don’t take my word. Do your own research. Some links are given to start the journey.
Some links for reference:
Some names for more reading: Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, Peter Attia
No it cannot be cured. A cure is when the disease goes away. Insulin resistance is a function of body weight among other things. So if you reduce body weight the symptoms ( high BG) go away but the underlying disease remains. Gain weight and it comes back again. Rather than linking to quake channels on Youtube, why dont you read this? (http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/tc/type-2-diabetes-can-you-cure-it-topic-overview)
I completely get your initial reaction as I was there few years ago. Just to be specific, I am talking about Type 2 diabetes and not Type 1, which I think you got it.
It took lot of research and time for me to get to where I am today (sadly the knowledge is not mainstream yet because lot of the research came in the last 5 years or so, but floating around in ‘quack’ sites 😉 ). I would humbly suggest to just question your certainty a little bit and do your own research (webmd will not suffice 🙂 ; added few more links for reference).
The blood sugar and the BP are symptoms and not the cause. People take medications to maintain the symptoms under normal ranges but while the cause (diabetes) gets worse. A hemoglobin A1C is more definitive to check if someone is not diabetic, pre-diabetic or diabetic. (https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/diagnostic-tests/a1c-test-diabetes/Pages/index.aspx).
Your logic of gain weight again diabetes comes back is not always true, but then I am hoping you are acknowledging that one does not have diabetes when the lower weight is maintained (again weight is an symptom that can be easily observed, but the main driver is insulin sensitivity).
I don’t mean to argue with you, but wanted to share something I learnt the hard way (I was pre-diabetic, not anymore).
New York Times:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/hope-for-reversing-type-2-diabetes/
60 minutes piece:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-study-weight-loss-surgery-may-cure-diabetes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWCoPQvIKvI (diabetes is reversed in days even before weight loss starts; I am not recommending weight loss surgeries, but placing it as proof that diabetes can be reversed and weight is just a symptom; the same effects of the surgeries can be had by diet changes (having more foods with low glycemic index and glycemic loads) and fasting (or intermittent fasting (IF)) into one’s lifestyle which will improve the insulin sensitivity)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/weight-loss-surgery-may-reverse-diabetes/
The first youtube link is wrong and it was incorrectly copied. Just realized. My bad. Please delete it. I was intending to add this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcLoaVNQ3rc