Seeing enemies everywhere

The ever-understated Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich said in an interview Saturday that Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city, " Gingrich said.

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly and to the administration from his seat on the Defense Policy Board about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, last week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III.

He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

He said European leaders and some in the Bush administration who are urging a restrained response from Israel are falling short of what needs to be done "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."

Once that's accepted, he said, "Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out, and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to resupply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."

Gingrich was in the area for fundraisers for Congressman Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, 2nd District GOP challenger Doug Roulstone, and the state Republican party.

There is a political element to his talk of World War III. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is, "OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

Gingrich is not some fringe politician. He's a "respected" leader of the Republican Party -- at least judging by the frequency of his appearances on the Sunday idiot shows. And he's calling for total, perpetual war in order to save his Party's leadership of Congress.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Update: That guy who writes for Vanity Fair notes that Gingrich is the reasonable one at the banquet, as illustrated by the inadequacy of his numbering, and adds

I think one of the reasons our world warriors are so eager to hang a new Roman numeral on the current turmoil is because it enables the U.S. to work off a a clean won-loss slate. Our winning record in world wars is immaculate. Now there are those carpers and nitpickers who will say the US took its sweet time entering the First World War, never suffering the monstrous casualties of the European countries involved, and has hogged much of the credit for defeating Nazi Germany that rightfully belongs to the Russians, but in the popular imagination, the US and freedom unambiguously triumphed, and in the Cold War too. If you throw Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq into the mix, you get a much more muddled picture, which is why the pundits of steely resolve prefer to stick to the big chalkboard.

[...]

Gingrich of course is thinking tactically--he probably flosses tactically, imagining the most ingenious angle a vanguard thinker like himself should employ in a flossing opportunity--but there's also a strong component of nostalgia in this world war talk. You see in the writings of Victor Davis Hanson, the constant references to Neville Chamberlain and Patton, the primping of Blair and Bush for the role of Churchillian stalwart. It's as if Gingrich, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and the whole gang have fallen for their own romantic bluster and fantasize that the Winds of War are going to sweep them through History like Robert Mitchum in Herman Wouk's epic, where they will feel the spray of the North Atlantic, the stinging sands of North Africa, and enjoy the passionate embrace of a USO entertainer after a heavy night in the canteen. They want to believe that inspired and educated with the right words--their words--Americans will once again rise and meet the mortal challenge. Let the learning curve begin, advises Jonah Goldberg, taking a break from playing with his action figures: "...the advantage of calling all this World War Three is that it's easier to understand and takes less explanation. Most people don't think of the Cold War as a war so much as an effort to avoid one."

And, of course, it permits them to hang various signs on the backs of Democrats -- from "Neville Chamberlain" on John Kerry's to "Camp Follower" on Joe Lieberman's.

On another note, though, I know that all good keyboard kommandos must perpetually look forward and leave thoughts of bigger historical trends and realities to us liberal naval gazers. But for all this talk of the sweep of history, WWII, our triumph in the Cold War, and their pessimistic assessment for Civilization in the face of Islamofascist Imperialists, none of these stay-at-home Ernie Pyles are willing to venture, "how did we get to this horrendous crossroads?" or, "who's in charge?"