My views on this blog bear some similarities to Huntington's views, but also differ in several crucial ways. Huntington is over simplified, and neutered by the NYT. They never liked his message; too much truth for them.
As I have said before here, he presented, in my view, too much an anti Islamist civilizational analysis, although he did give considerable space to other civilizations and their relationships with the West and with each other, which is often ignored by pundits like the NYT; and paying relatively less attention to much larger dangers from established great power states like Russia (although he does spell out the faultlines there in Eastern Europe and their implications quite effectively), and from aggressively developmental states, such as Japan, China, and the Tigers, and to the economic dimensions of the power transformation under way.
Mine is mainly a criticism of his emphasis: he focusses on bloody Islamic borders while downplaying bloodless but vastly more dangerous economic rivalries everywhere else.
Put in its simplest terms, the US did not become a second class industrial power because of the bloody onslaught of radical Islam, but rather from other bloodless self inflicted causes enabling other civilizations to take over.
You cannot fight your way out of the hole we have dug for ourselves, either by fighting Islam, Russia, or Asia, you can only dig the hole deeper.
They all know that, and have planned accordingly, knowing that we will fight without thinking about that. That is our history, in Korea, Vietnam and SE Asia, Iraq, Khaddafi, Afghanistan, Clinton in Eastern Europe, etc. Trump will fight Islam, and defend Israel, over there, regardless of its stupidity and futility.
Here was my comment, re Huntington, on DK's post of May 30, 2014:
"Professor
Great snapshot.
I still think Huntington is wholly right, not half right, as far as he goes.
One flaw I see in his account, however, is to paint the Muslims as more bloody than other civilizational groups.
Under a long view, I see no warrant for that whatsoever.
all the best
Great snapshot.
I still think Huntington is wholly right, not half right, as far as he goes.
One flaw I see in his account, however, is to paint the Muslims as more bloody than other civilizational groups.
Under a long view, I see no warrant for that whatsoever.
all the best
No comments:
Post a Comment