The Second Cold War
By Mike Purzycki

It is common in certain political circles to refer to the struggle of the United States and its allies against Islamism as "World War IV." This label has gained added currency with the recent publication of Norman Podhoretz's book of that name. But not only does this term misrepresent the nature of the struggle in which America finds itself; it also distorts history by implying that the Cold War was World War III. If Americans are to understand the struggle they are fighting today, a better label is required for it.

Military force, and the willingness to use it, is clearly a necessary component of any successful strategy for defeating violent Islamic fundamentalism, as it was in the defeat of Soviet communism. But military might by itself is not sufficient for victory in today's struggle, just as the West's advantage in the arms race with the Soviet bloc was only one factor in the fall of the Iron Curtain. To put today's anti-totalitarian fight in the same category as World War I and World War II is to imply that Islamism is primarily a military enemy that is to be beaten simply by killing its adherents. The truth is that the conflict with Islamism has more in common with the Cold War than either of the World Wars, seeing as it is an ideological struggle with multiple dimensions. Thus it would be much more appropriate to refer to this conflict as the Second Cold War.

Like the twentieth-century fight against international communism, the twenty-first-century fight against international jihad will take place primarily on diplomatic, economic, moral, and political terms. Traditional wars will still be fought, but they will be exceptions to the rule. The side that wins the Second Cold War will be the side that best explains to the world why it deserves to win, why the way of life for which it fights is better than the alternative presented by the enemy. Unfortunately, thus far the West is losing this most important battle of the war.

If the free nations of the world are to prevail over this deadly threat to their long-term security, there is much work for them to do. The United States must reclaim its lost moral authority, first and foremost by closing down Guantanamo Bay and ending the practice of extraordinary rendition. The nations of Western Europe must better integrate their large Muslim populations into their societies; the current situation of de facto segregation breeds suspicion, anger, and openness to jihad among European Muslims. The next American administration must be more pragmatic about engaging the Islamic world; for example, no matter how many times Al-Jazeera broadcasts Osama bin Laden's messages, the White House should send representatives to speak on that station, one that Muslims actually watch. Finally, and most importantly of all, freedom-loving people across the globe must study the Islamists, learn what makes them angry, and have open debates about how to defeat them, without any fear of being politically incorrect or being called "soft on terror." When these things, and more, are achieved, victory in the Second Cold War will be within the free world's grasp.