Samuel P. Huntington’s essay on the Clash of Civilization Review

Samuel P. Huntingtons seek on the Clash of Civilizations finish be summarized as a snapshot of the accepted state of g all overnmental affairs of the world through the lens of western civilization. Throughout the write up the author had made numerous hypotheses that stated dapple landed estate states exit remain a powerful and formidable force in the foreseeable future, it is the non-visible boundaries of civilizations that leave alone shape the future of conflicts and forge affiliate as swell as adversaries. The author has drawn from history in creating his assumption that stream and future conflicts will be founded on the basis of civilizations as remote to kingdoms and emperors.Huntington had stated that with the rise of governments for the people that thewars of the peoples had begun signaling a major variety show in why mankind has waged warfare. As much(prenominal), populations of each respective market-gardening will more than deally form alliances with populati ons from their own civilizations and forge enemies with those they drive no common ground with. The author doesnt take the term to explain the why this phenomena is occurring but chooses to merely gloss over every underlying reasons it may be happing and instead reiterate that it is in fact occurring.Many assumptions are made throughout the paper by evidence of a lack of adequate sources for many hypotheses which would leave the reader to assume that what is verbalize is merely common knowl march. The author glazes over major historical razets which had demonstrated peoples from different cultures and civilizations working unneurotic towards stinting benefit such(prenominal) as the Silk Road.1Persuasion of the TheoristSamuel P. Huntingtons search on the Clash of Civilizations is compelling in historical anecdotes and real world current events. Most of Huntingtons essay need not say anything more then what is already iterate on major media out permits around the world. The essay states what has long been opposed by the far left namely, that people choose to interact, divvy up and form alliances with like peoples. It then, shouldnt come as a surprise that the author needs to say little in order to sway an audience to his surmisal by simply relating real world events such as go democracyalism in Russia2, Greece3 and France.One only has to look at the Anglo sphere of alliances in areas of conflict in the Middle East to find that Huntingtons persuasive argument is a narrative of real world events4. Non-Western nations that hope to transmutation into modern nations form alliances with Western nations but such alliances only hang to further destroy the credibility of the elites within those non-western countries. The elites are observeed simply as puppets of foreign interest.The rise of extremist organizations such as Hezbollah that wealthy person successfully achieved legitimacy through the democratic process of their respective nation states fu rther proves that the will of the people in non-western countries is not to be let into the union so to speak, but to form their indepedent civilizations identity while modernizing their economies and infrastructure. Huntingtons essay was able to be persuasive due to how it cedeed historical discipline in light of real world events but failed to mention historical periods that saw massive growth in stinting trade and transverse pollination of civilizations such as the silk road 6, Incense Road7 or even the lesser known Tea Horse Road 8.Threats, Challenges, and OpportunitiesSamuel P. Huntingtons essay can alternatively be summed up as a panic brief and the challenges it bears provide little fortune for western nations to exploit economic ventures in developing nations. However, Huntingtons essay does provide a prick of light by illuminating the opportunities Western nations have to form and pasture defense, economic and intellectual relationships within their own civilizations 9. Hunting has shown that civilizations that are standardised generally avoid conflicts in national security and economic trade while the reverse seems to only exacerbate the two.This presents a unique opportunity for western nations to carefully examine who they consider as ally and alliance partners while also providing incentives for rethinking our security strategy of disarmament while concurrently attempting to dissuade developing nations from increasing their arsenals. When one begins to look at current events and policies through the lens of civilizations it becomes apparent that many of our previous alliances with those different from us had been doomed from the start as evidence by the low involvement rates of countries from East Asia who only sent token forces for operations in OIF and OEF.One could easily support Huntings warning of working together with unlike civilizations by simply looking at the debacle of the randomness Korea armed forces in Afghanistan and its failure to support US operations while despite US forces that had shed blood on their soil in order in conflicts past10.Analysis of the Future Operational EnvironmentIn reviewing Samuel P. Huntingtons essay on the Clash of Civilizations it is painfully obvious that our previous alliances had been formed on whatsis rather than an introspective look into who we as Americans are and how our supposed allies view our relationships. Do our current noticeable dearth of allies view themselves as western nations, are they simply trying to join the club or are they simply biding their time untilthey can switch alliances to a group that resembles their civilization and values more than we do?It is my opinion base upon token efforts from allies during wartime, combined with an eager willingness to negotiate with terrorist and non-state actors that our current stool of allies are a bigger threat than some of our enemies. If present conflicts dictate what future areas of concern will be, we sh ould form stronger alliances with like tending(p) civilizations that have already proven their dedication to our shared values such as Poland11, Georgia and former East Bloc countries that have interpreted similar stances against terrorism by deeds and not words.Based upon the technological good and intellectual innovation I would argue that the where US forces might deploy is irrelevant compared to who we might deploy with. Potential enemies to western interest will remain non-western countries for the foreseeable future and despite Russias growing nationalism and desire to increase its military strength it will remain an economic defunct nation susceptible to the effects of brain drain12 and disenfranchisement of its middle class.The issues and concerns of redefining our allies along the thread of a common civilization will greatly increase the complexity of logisticals in military operations due to our geographical locations as compared to those of our advesaries. For example , due to past examples of cowardice such as negotiating with terrorist, if the US would remove South Korea as an ally it would have increased logistical challenges in dealing with North Korea and China should tensions continue to escalate.One would be dependable to assume that South Korea would naturally befriend China, a country with a history and civilization similar to its own, which would rule out the possibility of utilize such a former friend as a logistic hub for staging operations. However such friends have only proven to be costly relationships in the long lung which seldom paid dividends for services rendered unto them in their time of need. The Western way of warfare has been one of discipline and the leverage of technology in order to gain tactical superiority over our enemies.As such, we should look to cultivate advanced technologies with nations that share our civilizations culture and use the inwrought technological innovations of these cultures to develop weapons systems that will give us the necessary edge to engage and destroy our enemies. By doingso, western civilization such as the United States of America would not have to get into bed with nation states of civilizations much different than our own whose motives remain unclear and questionable.