Samuel P. Huntingdon wrote two of the more important books of your correspondent’s intellectual development (such as it is), “The Soldier and the State,” and “The Clash of Civilizations“, both of which were far ahead of their times and remarkably prescient.
In the first, the Harvard political scientist said, per Robert Kaplan, that:
America’s liberal society… required the protection of a professional military establishment steeped in conservative realism. In order to keep the peace, military leaders had to take for granted—and anticipate—the “irrationality, weakness, and evil in human nature.” Liberals were good at reform, not at national security. “Magnificently varied and creative when limited to domestic issues,” Huntington wrote, “liberalism faltered when applied to foreign policy and defense.”
Foreign policy, he explained, is not about the relationship among individuals living under the rule of law but about the relationship among states and other groups operating in a largely lawless realm. The Soldier and the State concluded with a rousing defense of West Point, which, Huntington wrote, “embodies the military ideal at its best … a bit of Sparta in the midst of Babylon.”
In the second, the professor – initially denied tenure at Harvard after Soldier for his pol-mil heterodoxy (the military are only to be understood as reactionary swine, after all) – argued that Islam has “bloody borders”, a concept that numerous apologists refuted with, “yes, buts” that sought to obfuscate without convincingly doing so because, well: Islam has bloody borders.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations … Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in the modern world…
Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation (sic) whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.
This of course was anathema to the “we are the world” crowd, cross-matrixed with the “why can’t we be friends” cohort.
Huntingdon – a lifetime Democrat and old school liberal – stepped into the clearing at the end of the path on Wednesday at age 81, silencing a voice that spoke uncomfortable and impolitic truths.
His clarity and insight will be much missed.
(The world) is a dangerous place, in which large numbers of people resent our wealth, power, and culture, and vigorously oppose our efforts to persuade or coerce them to accept our values of human rights, democracy, and capitalism. In this world America must learn to distinguish among our true friends who will be with us and we with them through thick and thin; opportunistic allies with whom we have some but not all interests in common; strategic partner-competitors with whom we have a mixed relationship; antagonists who are rivals but with whom negotiation is possible; and unrelenting enemies who will try to destroy us unless we destroy them first.
This Ensign’s ProDev reading list just got two books longer. . .
A good man with a pen. “The Soldier and the State” was required reading at the NWC in the early 1970′s and was still on the list of required reading in 1992. His “Clash of Civilizations” was, as I recall, recommended reading at the NWC in the 90′s but all the progressive professors tended to try to ignore it and its implications.
Not one hint was devoted to exploring the idea of “getting to know your enemy” in all this instruction. Does this invite a central proposition of the left? By getting to know our enemy do we make an enemy?
No, Curtis.
Getting to know your enemy would be to require them to remove their rose-tinted glasses and view the world as it actually is, rather than as they wish it to be.
It’s all well and good to dream, but someone has to get up early and brew the coffee before heading off to actually earn a living.
It’s just possible that getting to know your “friends” you may discover you actually have an enemy.
Suddenly it seems I am reading a lot more clear thinking on the internet about the true nature of terrorism: the true nature of islam.
Huntington also had some interesting thoughts about who we are, our national identity, in his last book:
“Who Are We? The Challenges of American National Identity,” was published in 2004 and tackled immigration. That volume also attracted criticisms of his assertion that low levels of assimilation by Hispanic immigrants could cleave the country in two.
Sherlock has a good point too: so many opinions are changing, getting a makeover for an up-to-date world. It will, indeed be interesting to see what 2009 brings in the way of enlightenment, especially for “The One” who lost his power on Oahu recently.
Perhaps of more relevance to the crowd that opines/vents/discusses/cusses here, was Huntington’s 1962 work : “The Common Defense” which was a study of military funding, budgeting and wpns procurement within the political matrix. An even more detailed study in depth and scope covering the same ground and still relevant for it’s insights is the work of Edward A. Kolodziej, Ohio State Univ. Press, 1966: “The Uncommon Defense:Defense and Congress 1945-1963.”
The greatest quote from the latter work which sticks in my mind is of an Administration official in the late 50s-early 60s, complaining in disgust of the problem of how much to tell Congress about the Pentagon’s secret weapons systems under development: “Congress!” he said, “When ya tell ‘em nothin’, they go fishin’; ya tell ‘em everything and they go crazy!”
“plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”
PS: What I particularly liked about old Sam was that he never trimmed his philosophical/academic sails to the PC winds.
Not to spoil a good conspiracy theory, but if Huntington was initially turned down for tenure at Harvard, its because nearly 100% of people hired as tenure-track, untenured faculty at Harvard are turned down–Harvard believes that only the only people worth tenuring are those poached from other universities–I know many former Harvard faculty who were instantly picked up at other ivys–being turned down at Harvard is neither a badge of victory or emblem of defeat; it is merely expected (though of course, everyone convinces themself that they will be the “one” to make it through).
Greetings:
I caught up with “The Clash” earlier this year and ended up reading it twice. I was impressed by how much of his 1996 analysis had come to pass, not just the Islamaniacs but also the Russians and the Chinese. His thesis of culture and/or religion as the basic and most important organizational allegiance is profound.
Throughout the recently past campaign, I kept waiting for someone to ask now President-elect Obama if he had read it and what he thought of the analysis.
As a political scientist, I can tell you that Huntington was a first rate scholar, and one that few up and comers will match. I regret I never met him, much less had seminar with him.
Thanks for the write-up. Well done.
Anybody else find it humorous that we write of “hispanics” as if Cubans, Mexicans, Spaniards, and anybody speaking Spanish as their primary language are a concise group with common interests, but we live in a country that until recently prized individualism and independence?
Americaneocon, I have to admit to a certain chuckle, as an engineer, to your mention of being a political scientist, given my observation above and the state of the electorate.
Doesn’t science require the test be repeatable and consistent?
Seems that politics is one area where the predictions are made, the experiment run, and the science part is in explaining why the predictions were wrong and how the result happened.
All that said, let me add an endorsement for Huntington. He and P.J. O’Rourke are in a special place at the top left of my bookshelves. Which, given there’s roughly 50′ of them in my living room, might give you an idea of the importance I place on books. Theirs deserve reading. And re-reading.
– Max
My comments to everyone since 9/11 that we are now engaged in a “War of Civilizations” between Islam and the West. Only one side will survive. No one wants to hear that kind of analysis and prediction.
Bill,
You are not the only one making that comment. I am right there, too. Since the other side is playing to win and we are not, the outcome for our side is bleak.
Bill/ASM
Would have to agree but would add – we are playing to win but with rules that the other side doesn’t observe. I don’t think the American public can truly conceive of a Muslim society where the locals tear up a side walk and replace it with fresh concrete because a careless US sailor tossed a Coke can out of a bus window on the way to the US compound ( that was not a pleasant conversation with the DA). Seems Coke had a large stake of Jewish ownership and only Pepsi was allowed in the country. “Fanatical” doesn’t do them justice.
Sparta in the midst of Babylon??
i must have missed the kohl-rimmed eyed beauties hanging out by the gardens…
Max, you are correct about “Political Science.” I’m not sure where the term originated, but I’;m sure someone thought they could acquire the cachet of science if they used the term. Political philosophy would be a much better, certainly more descriptive, term.
As an Engineer myself, I’ve seen to many people of the real sciences that have whored themselves out for political reasons. Anthropogenic Global Warming is one good example.
Quartermaster, if you’re ever in the neighborhood I’m pouring the first round.
It’s -20 outside right now. Where indeed is this global warming I’ve been hearing of?
– Max
I have no trouble with the term or science of Political Science. After all, Huntingdon’s life was based on applying reason to the natural state of politics, culture and environment. Unlike economists who endlessly advance theories based on all parties behaving as rational actors, Huntingdon and other PolSci types have looked at the deep structure and underlying causes and primal urges that drive civilization. He did a masterful job. The author of Guns Germs and Steel also did a masterful job of forensic political science. It is not regarded as a hard science but many have gone that down that path and used statistics to prove theses and advance arguments and theories that would otherwise have lain fallow.