1. Summarize the author’s thesis and main arguments in your own words. Do NOT just copy and paste from the article.
2. Is the theorist persuasive? Explain why or why not.
3. Explain how the theorist describes threat(s), challenge(s), and opportunity(ies).
4. How does the theory relate to the future operational environment?
1. Summarize the author’s thesis and main arguments in your own words. Do NOT just copy and paste from the article.
Samuel Huntington argument on future conflicts spawning from cultural frictions versus those of civilizations is accurate. His emphasis on the world becoming smaller and the conflict between the Western
Samuel Huntington argues that in the future conflicts will spawn due to cultural frictions rather than those of civilizations. In other words, civilizations will lose their influence on igniting wars; instead cultural inputs will pressure the civilization to engage in war. As he describes, civilization is the combination of multiple cultures and in modern times these combined cultures form what we know as nation states or even continents. He essentially surmises that in the past wars were conducted between ethnic factions or groups of people in one geographical region versus those another region and that civilization warring against each other is more of modern phenomenon. One could argue that for the majority of the 19th and 20th centuries, wars were the escalations between civilizations driven by the rise and coming to age of the nation states. Nation states forced opposing cultures to become “citizens” within an imaginary boundary on a map. Furthermore, whether the cultures within their state wanted to or not, they were compelled to fight for the politica...
... middle of paper ...
...h the unrest and clashes between the French citizens and ever growing Muslim population. The Muslim migrants have brought their ways of life and even Shiria law with. What’s more perplexing in France’s last election 93% of Muslim voting population participated and effectively influenced the outcome [*]. It’s rather startling that an alien culture is now taking over an indigenous culture without officially firing a shot.
As nation states, the U.S. and France have always allied. However, in light of the war between cultures it may not be a far stretch to envision a campaign against France especially if the country’s cultures clash. Ergo the complexity of strategy at national levels, if France nationals start attacking U.S. foreign interest, how does the U.S. respond without escalating into war with France or even pulling Europe back into a world war?
One of the biggest questions plaguing most political theorist is what will be the source for future conflict in this increasingly globalized world. Samuel Huntington a prominent political scientist in the U.S tried to answer this question in 1996 when he published the “Clash of Civilizations” which discusses the primary source of future global conflicts. In it he mentions religion and cultural differences as being the main source of conflict in the post cold war world. In evaluating Huntington’s
by the noted Harvard professor of political science, Samuel P. In the summer 1993 edition of the journal Foreign Affairs, Huntington argued that world politics was entering a new phase after the end of the Cold War, and that tensions between civilizations, as the highest cultural groupings of people, would dominate the global scene. He explains the article’s thesis in these words. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological
The basic question, without reference to the here and now, has been asked throughout the ages. As Elliot Cohen observes in his book, Supreme Command , it goes as far back as 168bc when speaker Consul Lucius Aemilius addressed his audience on the resumption of war with Macedonia: “I am not, fellow-citizens, one who believes that no advice may be given to leaders... Generals should receive advice, in the first place from the experts who are both specially skilled in military matters and have learned
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations
Japan throughout the 20th century and onward, which began with traditional drawings and comics that dealt with political, social, and historical themes. However, what separates anime from the rest is that the anime included a huge portion of Japanese culture within it. In every series that aired, they include special holidays like Natsu Matsuri—summer festival, tea ceremony, traditional clothing such as kimono, etc. One could, from watching anime, notice the characters’ behavior are different and food
to shame. After election, they close ranks. The winner thanks the voters and likewise the loser too thanks the voters without enmity between the winner and the loser. There is no street demonstration by the losers. The winner starts working for the future of their beloved country. That is heavenly beautiful, and that is democracy in America and other Western world, for which the Muslim world should indeed emulate them. What is good from the West, the Muslims can adopt them, period. Muslim unity