Hi
Can the war against ISIS be called a world war? If not, why not? What criteria are needed to call a war a world war? I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
Simply too small.
If you had 20 countries fighting each other, millions of soldiers involved and millions being drafted, and the war being *the *primary focus of the world, then maybe, yes.
“A world war is a war involving some of the world’s most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters.”
That’s your answer - “involving” powerful and populous countries is not the same as fighting on foreign countries’ soil.
I think you are meant to understand that as some of the world’s most powerful and populous countries fighting against each other. That is a “world war”. Some of of the world’s most powerful and populous countries ganging up against a relatively small rag-tag band of extremists, operating in a very circumscribed area, whilst carefully avoiding taking on any serious risks to themselves or their own forces, or their allies, is nothing like a “world war”. It is scarcely even really a war at all.
ISIS is just one of many militant Islamic groups taking on world powers such as the US. I’m not saying that the war on ISIS is a “world war”. I simply want to distinguish it from true world war, which unlike previous world wars involved most of the worlds countries and the sacrifice of untold millions of people. Future world wars will be high-tech wars involving technical stealth and highly destructive weapons. They will not be as dependent on manpower as previous world wars.Since militant Islamic groups are now active on every major continent, including the world’s most powerful countries, what criteria are not in place to make it a world war on Islamic militant groups?
davidmich
IMHO a World War requires the participation of major governments. The most ISIS can do is muster a few thousand troops and they are not very well trained in infantry tactics. Their biggest weapon would be the IED. Blow up Americans on the roads just like the insurgency did a few years ago. They wouldn’t stand a chance against 30,000 American forces. But, they would transition into a insurgency that would constantly rack up small numbers of Coalition causalities. A repeat of what we faced before.
The world wars involved whole countries. They didn’t just involve its (comparatively) few employees who freely chose military work as their occupation. Americans will be perfectly free to ignore this war if they want. There won’t be rationing, there won’t be a draft, and the vast majority of the economy will not be involved at all.
To repeat, a world war, or even a major (but not “world” war) would, at a minimum, involve major, powerful countries fighting against each other. Nothing remotely like that is happening in the case of the campaigns against ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or any other extremist groups (all of which are small, and have few resources, and none of which are countries, not even small, weak and unimportant ones).
Since there is a recent thread in Great Debates on this, and it is better suited to GD anyway, I’m going to close this and refer further comments to the previous thread.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator