This is one of the best columns I've read in awhile. I completely agree that we are winning and the only thing that can beat us is ourselves (as the old football cliche goes). When WWII started, there were less than 15 democracies in the world. We keep playing the game that got us here and the steamroller of history crushes the losers sympathetic to 9/11. If we get off course and start subverting the basic ideas that got us this far, there's a damn good chance we throw our advantage away. ___________________________________________ Going Our Way By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN President Bush made a strong case at the U.N. for why the world community should not allow Iraq to go on flouting U.N. weapons inspections. But what struck me most about the scene was how intently the U.N. delegates were waiting for, and listening to, the president's speech. We should listen to their listening — because it is telling us some important things about our world. First, for all the noise out there about rising anti-Americanism, America remains the unrivaled leader of the world — the big power, which makes its share of mistakes, but without which nothing good happens. But, second, while our leadership requires American valor, it is ultimately based on American values. That is, what gives America its unprecedented power and influence today is the fact that, more than at any time in history, the world has come to accept the Western values of peace, democracy and free markets — around which American society is organized. That is the truly significant trend in the world today — not terrorism or anti-Americanism. Third, while terrorists like Osama and rogues like Saddam can unleash lethal events against us, they do not represent an alternative trend with any global appeal. Indeed, the reason the terrorists unleash huge events like 9/11 is precisely because they have no mass following and must substitute sound and fury for compelling ideas, enduring achievements and popular support. Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China not only represented powerful alternatives to U.S. leadership in their day but also powerful, and popular, alternative ideologies to peace, democracy and free markets. With Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's downfalls in the last century, there is no longer any serious military or ideological rival to these ideas. That global trend is enormously favorable to us — but its sustainability depends on America's health and the wisdom with which it leads this world, particularly now. I wish I could say I had thought of all these concepts on my own. But I didn't. They come from reading an important and compelling new book, "The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy and Free Markets in the Twenty-first Century," by Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins and the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Mandelbaum's thesis is that all the powerful ideological rivals to America and its democratic allies have been vanquished and that three big ideas now dominate global politics: The first is peace as a way of organizing international relations. By that he means the core idea that has finally stabilized a fractious Europe, namely arms control — the notion that armies should be configured primarily for defense, with a high degree of transparency so everyone knows what everyone else is doing. The second idea that has triumphed is the notion that free markets are the best way for nations to grow from poverty to prosperity. And the third is that democracy is the ideal form of political organization. "To be sure, these ideas are not practiced everywhere," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "but they are far more powerful and attractive than any other ideas and have no serious rivals today. Bin Laden and Saddam pose a threat to the personal safety of people living in our world, but they do not pose the kind of existential threat that Hitler, Stalin or Mao did. Neither man controls a major country with large, attractive ideas." And that brings us to today. It is crucial that as we confront Iraq, or other terrorist events, that we do it in a way that reinforces the positive global trends already in our favor. "That means," Mr. Mandelbaum said, "dealing with Iraq with as many allies as possible, with as broad an international endorsement as possible, so that confronting Iraq is seen as enforcing what are now widely accepted norms — rather than the policy of one particular country. We must act vis-à-vis Iraq in a way that persuades people that this is an international imperative, not an American preference." Never forget: We are winning. The terrorists and the rogues do not have the power to dislodge our world, or reverse the broad positive trends. Only we, the trendsetters, can do that — by acting in ways that would upset the trend toward peace, disrupt global markets and put the democracies at odds with one another. Do that, and we really would create a dangerous world — a world where the best Western ideals would be mismanaged and the country most important for sustaining those ideals — America — despised, weakened or discredited.
Here is basically the opposite argument., which I think makes a lot of sense. Since his book was written in 1997, he looks like a prophet right now.
Interesting no one has blasted you yet. "Islam's Bloody Borders?" I quoted extensively from the book in the 'If we are not at war with Islam, why not?' thread. I agree with his description of the world, but not his advocacy of what to do next.
They are both ideological quandries. One draws boundries based on religious ideology and moral efficacy. The other draws boundries based on political ideology and ethical efficacy. I'm not sure you can draw one conclusion or another given the nature of who we are today. I also don't think it is as clear cut as all of this. In some countries, the free market has produced startling poverty and human rights abuses while producing untold prospertiy in others. In some countries, religion is cruel while others peaceful. Neither model seems to be ideal.
I'm not advocating war in this thread like you did in your thread. I'm just saying that as much as we would like to believe, the world is not "Planet America". There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the United States throughout the world. I think that the book reviewer states it clearly when he says "In short, Huntington’s dread of Islam comes at times precariously close to unbridled antipathy." I don't feel the same way about Islam, but I think a lot of the info summarized by the review is still legit.
Not sure what kind of line you're trying to walk. Huntington isn't a proponent of my action advocacy either. But I think his view of the conflicts and coming conflicts is spot on. If you don't then not sure why you would post his views, even in review form. If you do, then the many of the objections to my thread apply equally to yours. Mainly those that claim there is NOT a conflict between Islam and other civilizations.
I was refering to Islam as a culture, not our foreign policy in regards to Islam. I don't have any dislike of the culture. Disparate ideologies don't have to equal conflict. They only HAVE to if you are a hell bent imperialist. The main idea in my response, is that the ideologies of the world are not democratic free-market cultures vs. everything else like the posted article indicates and Americans would like to believe. Only 2 of the 13 paragraphs that I quoted addressed Islam specifically. There are a lot of cultural criticisms of the US around the world. Most people in the world don't want to be American. That includes Europeans and Asians.
I've learned about Huntington and his 8 civilizations in a terrorism class I took. How we continued to ignore the growing lines of definition that are arising in all of them. I didn't take it too seriously then. The class was so morbid with all the depressing facts.... I guess I will pick up that book, but I seem to have a knack for choosing depressing yet very insightful books to read.