Clash of Civilizations

Boston Globe ^

[True Capitalist]

CAMBRIDGE - Samuel Huntington is poised to become a best-selling author for a book he published in 1996, but he's deeply ambivalent about his sudden fame.

Almost overnight, ''The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order'' has become one of the most influential books of the new wartime era. In it, the Harvard political scientist predicts that 21st-century global conflict will not occur between nation-states such as the United States and Russia, but rather between civilizations defined by shared values, cultures, and religions.

[True Capitalist]

The Bush propoganda that this is about democratic/free civilized countries against terrorists is effective rhetoric to rally support here and in the UK, but it doesn't aptly describe our alliance which is made up of the opium dealing Northern Alliance and the far from democratic/free/civilized countries in the Muslim world. In the Middle-east, perhaps Bush's phrase "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists," is more appropriate...we just have to crush the Taliban & bin Laden to show the Muslim states in the alliance it's better to be with us than engaged in a clash of civilizations.

[randog]

But, but.......I thought we could learn soooooo much from other cultures? What happened to embracing diversity?

[tim politicus]

Great post. Great book. Has anyone here read "The Fourth Turning"?

[gcruse]

 Bush's phrase "you're with us, or you're
with the terrorists," is more appropriate..

Compared to my comment earlier today:

The litmus  test should  not be, "Are you with us or against us?"
It should be,  "Are you for terrorism or against it?"
Then let the hypocrisy fall where it may.

4 posted on 11/7/01 12:12 PM Pacific by gcruse

The problem with our question is that the coalition
must, therefore, exclude the Arab world and include
Israel.  This is the only war I can think of where you
choose your enemies based on what their friends think.

 

[medved]

In it, the Harvard political scientist predicts that 21st-century global conflict will not occur between nation-states such as the United States and Russia, but rather between civilizations defined by shared values, cultures, and religions....

The problem is that calling islam a "civilization" is a bit more of a stretch than I can deal with. I'd have an easier time thinking of voodoo or rastifari as a "civilization". In fact, I've never really seen or read about the voodooers or rastas crashing airplanes into buildings or trying to poison innocent people.

[Savage Beast]

Exactly. America's enemies and potential enemies respect one thing--and only one thing--American military superiority. The U.S. has it. And the U.S. had better keep it. Right now, American military superiority is the only thing preventing a world-wide nuclear conflagration.

[True Capitalist]

"The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective"

Niccolo Machiavelli

[x]

There was a lot of discussion of that book here as recently as a few months ago. This could be the beginning of the sort of Troubles Howe and Strauss predicted. I think they are on to something, though one doesn't have to accept their attitude about what is happening. They want some war or crisis to bring us together, and that's a dangerous thing to wish for. But they make it clear that they don't know what the outcome of the crisis will be or when it will come. Maybe the real crisis is yet to come, but I suspect it will grow out of what's happening now.

About Huntington: I certainly hope this isn't the "Clash of Civilizations." If it is, it could be a very long war -- perhaps a generation long. It would be very complicated, bloody and even more expensive than other wars. It would be nice if we could confine or contain the war, rather than letting it become a long crusade against Islam.

[Savage Beast]

Grazie molto.

[tim politicus]

My understanding of Huntingtion isn't that any one single event is really a demonstration of the ‘Clash of Civilizaitons’, but that these ‘clashes’ are more like the ongoing stresses generated at the geological boundaries of the great techtonic plates upon which the continents ride.

I think in their view, every now and then, a great socio-political earthquake occurs, after which a new equilibrium is established. But the ongoing issue endures.

What I find fascinating is that an attempt at removing the vagury of the mere ‘every now and then’ is made by the investigations of Howe and Strauss.

While Huntington is dealing with macro socio-politcal conflict from a basically spacial perspective, Strauss and Howe do so from a pretty strictly temporal one. With both combined, perhaps an actual Cartesian grid of some sort could be assembled. And the strudy of history could begin to proceed on a more analytical plane. Or what do you think?

[exnavy]

Diversity shmiversity!!!!!

[RightWhale]

With both combined, perhaps an actual Cartesian grid of some sort could be assembled

This might be a productive effort. We currently occupy a spatial spheroid and we treat time as one-dimensional. Lately western culture has been moving generally westward and has nearly completed a circuit of the earth. Call it western because it is moving westward; it's not like earth is flat and has a west and an east, although it was once treated so. Once the subasian continent has been thoroughly westernized the wave of culture will probably continue moving westward. Who knows what form it will have taken by the time it comes around to America again. As long as we are thinking in multiple dimensions, let's add in an outward vector, away from earth. How will western culture digest settlements on other planets and stations in between planets, and how will this affect the wave of culture on earth. Time in the sense of historical sequence will continue to be a factor, but time is also an economic and political variable. Would a new 9th civilization involving earth and space in 3 dimensions also possibly sweep back to earth from space.

[philosofy123]

Diversity or culture engineering pushed through by the liberals caused our economy about one trillion dollars. I hope Ted Kennedy, and the Clintons are happy!

[FITZ]

''I fear that while Sept. 11 united the West, the response to Sept. 11 will unite the Muslim world.''

It might not unite the entire Muslim world since some of the Muslim countries consist of people like the Persians who also had Islam forced on them. I think the Arab Muslim world is united against the US and other Western countries but Islam is an Arab religion suitable for those backward people, but others like the Turks have enough left of their previous beliefs that makes them more moderate.

[philosofy123]

You got it right. I may even dare to say even the Nazi did not crash planes into buildings. basically because there was no 72 virgins waiting for them at heaven!!

[kingh99]

You probably don't want to read this. http://www.stratfor.com/home/0111092300.htm Imagine having to stage an extended battle from the decks of a fleet of carriers where the avg flight to target time round trip is about 4 hours. Imagine living on those carriers in between being thrust into life or death struggles during expeditionary incursions. This is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Conversely, there is no easy land access to the south if the North is the base. And the cost to support any base via air only will be staggering. We are looking at the end of days if we have to tear our way through a sea of bodies in Pakistan in the port routes west of Karachi. But that's the only way in. If we do not have friends on God's earth then we are going to have to make them. And that means we are going to have to make them understand we are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people if required.

Watch India and Musharref himself. He may have to turn his guns on the southern rebels in Pakistan to give us a beachhead. Musharref is in a very tight spot.

[wimpycat]

Exactly. America's enemies and potential enemies respect one thing--and only one thing--American military superiority. The U.S. has it. And the U.S. had better keep it. Right now, American military superiority is the only thing preventing a world-wide nuclear conflagration.

Hear, hear! Our enemy with the medaevil mindset only understands force. Only brute force (or the threat of it) is respected in that part of the world. How else can you get through to people who fire guns into the air at weddings? (My Palestinian friends in college told me it wasn't at all unusual for someone to get killed by falling bullets at a wedding!--and yet they keep doing it!)

[wimpycat]

Musharref is walking a tightrope, that's for sure. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, however. He knows his (and Pakistan's) best chance for any type of advancement in the world rests with throwing his lot in with the Americans. He may sink or swim with the Americans, but he knows he'll surely sink with the Taliban.

I don't know what kind of leader he is, although he came to power in a military coup. In other words, he may be a mean S.O.B. for all we know. But right now, he's OUR S.O.B.! Just like the Northern Alliance. Who knows if they're any better than the Taliban? But they're OUR S.O.B.'s for the moment. I just hope we've made it quite clear to them that they need to watch what they do once they've secured Mazar-i-Sharif. It won't do us any good at all if they go in there raping and pillaging.

[Governor StrangeReno]

yes but what happens when counterfeit dysfunctional reality bursts into a superior sentient beings box?