The only quibble i have with this is that they are not 'Western rules', they are universal rules that Western nations were first to attune to meaningfully. Capitalism isnt amazingly successful because powerful nations embrace it, nations become powerful by embracing capitalism. Same with democracy (or self-determination more accurately), it is not one choice of many, it is the most effective and stable manner in which human being can prosper. I'll leave the 'why's' to philosophers and anthropologists, what matters is that these things work, undeniably. And we tinker with them at our peril, which is the main dividing line between liberals and conservatives.

The analogy has weak points. The biggest is that Islam has no central authority, while Japan had its Emperor with almost total authority. Getting the Emperor to agree to the surrender was the key to getting Japan to end the war. And the culture of Japan was far more amenable to modern productive behavior than the victimology ridden inferiority complex driven Islamic world. Even so, the Japanese surrender and behavior was no sure thing. Read Richard Frank's book, "Downfall: The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire." This book is a must read for all those who would use Japanese history as an argument in the GWOT context.

I agree with you even as I disagree. The Pacific War was a war between Japanese civilization and the West and the West won. Japan had no traditions in its civiliazation for democracy, freedom of speech, female self-determination, freedom of religion, etc. Now these are firmly part of Japan and the Japanese way of life. But it is important to remember that we Americans forced this upon them. They did not ask for it or accept it voluntarily. It took a long occupation and intimate US involvement in Japanese government, business and society.

The US war against Japanese civilization did not destroy it but rather changed it utterly from its former incarnation. To say WWII was only a war against autarchy and not a war against civilization is not to say much when in fact the autarchy, the feudalism and the militarism on which it rested were outgrowths of that civilization.

Peter Koren: The biggest is that Islam has no central authority, while Japan had its Emperor with almost total authority.

I wouldn't call that the biggest difference, because the god-ruler of Japan was more god than ruler. Japan was actually run by Bushido bosses in a system that has been called "military anarchism". I would call it "classless feudalism" - very similar to Nazism in that respect.

One of the very strong similarities between Japan and the Dar al-Islam ideal is the total absence of any kind of objective legal code. Good or evil is judged by ancient honor codes and by reference to religious/nationalist abstractions. Any hothead with a weapon can be judge, jury, and executioner.

In both systems authority has to be heavily supported by armed force or it is nothing. Japanese officers often defied or even killed their superiors for crimes against "honor", and frequently got away with it. There was no such thing as "the mantle of authority" - you needed bodyguards instead. In the years between WWI and WWII, dozens of Japanese ministers were murdered, including six prime ministers.

The big difference between Japanese and Muslim culture is that Japan was open to foreign ideas, especially science and technology (but not democracy or humanism). Marxism was very popular in pre-war Japan, with its wild dreams of industrial utopia. After the war, the major attraction of Marxism in the far east was the idea that it was a crash course in industrialization that would help countries catch up to Japan.

Those who speak in term of "Western Values" seem to forget that those values (Rant: democracy, freedom of speech, female self-determination, freedom of religion, etc.) did not exist in the West until modern times. These values are the product of the Englightment.

Europe in the Middle Ages was as xenophobic and reactionary (I argue that it was more so) as the Middle East. The world in the past all shares the same reactionary values. The world today need to reject those reactionary values to adopt modern value. The West just happened to lead the way.

Whatever the conflict, it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended it. Presumably al Qaeda and its enablers dream of doing the same to us.

Depicting WWII as "a war between autocratic and democratic factions, as was the Cold War" is too glib, and I'm shocked that the majority didn't chuckle at the thought.

1. Granted that the Axis were fascist totalitarians, but the Allies were a mixed bag. The Soviets or the Kuomingtang Chinese, let alone Mao's Communists, were not interested in democracy. Which of course led to...

2. The Cold War's primes were arrayed as depicted, but this ignores the fact that the US proceeded to support various totalitarians all around the world for a half century. Occasionally we deposed democrats aligned with the Soviets (Iran in 1956). Contrariwise, the Soviet support of Nasser's Egypt can be interpreted as progressive, compared to the Farouk monarchy.

3. Essentially this analysis confuses causes with effects. The net effect of the last sixty years was to more widely distribute democracy or republicanism around the globe. But neither conflict was caused by the desire to preserve or destroy democratic forms of government.

"3. Essentially this analysis confuses causes with effects. The net effect of the last sixty years was to more widely distribute democracy or republicanism around the globe. But neither conflict was caused by the desire to preserve or destroy democratic forms of government. "

Now that is at least equally as glib. While there is no question the US on too many occasions has sided with 'my enemies enemy', to suggest that preserving democracy (at least in the West as a whole) was not still the ultimate bedrock is absurd.
For that matter it is entirely argueable that had the Communists not made it their stated goal to end democracy and spread their idealogy to the corners of the earth, it might have survived (at least in a Chineseesque state). The fact that the Soviets directly challenged the West rallied the core democratic nations and ultimately that challenge was met and defeated on variety of fields.
But all of this fails to reach the heart of the question. All of human history can be traced to the struggle for power. Fascism, socialism, islamo fascism, nazism are all just different disguises for the same goal, power. The fundamental feature of Western Democracy and human rights is its ability to diffuse power before it can reach a critical mass where it seeks dominion. Look at power like a nuclear reaction, inevitable and self-replicating, while democracy is the control rod.

Of course there was a "clash of civilizations" between the US and Japan in WWII. Ours won, and the very able and intelligent Japanese have become a part of our civilization.

I don't see this as an either-or question. Do we have a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West? I think so. Is this an example of the inherent friction between autocracies and democracies? I think this too. The problem with Islam is that it is unique in terms of widely practiced religions in that in incorporates as an inseparable part of that religion a political ideology which IS autocratic.

One of the previous posters stated that "Islam has no central authority." In the present day it does not, but this runs contrary to Islamic doctrine, in which the Caliph (derived from 'Kallifah,' meaning the 'successor' of the Prophet Mohammed) was the absolute ruler of the Muslim world. There was no concept of nations. The Caliph ruled all lands which were in Muslim control. At certain points in history the Caliph became a figurehead for other ambitious individuals or groups, much like what happened to the Emperors of Japan. The Caliphate ended when Ataturk came to power in Turkey, who abolished it. The fact that Usama Ben-Ladin and his followers wish to restore the Caliphate is not some bit of nostalgic thinking. It is an attempt to restore the structural integrity of Islam which is mandated by Allah.

And there lies the problem. Islam is fundamentally and inherently incompatible with Western notions of democracy and freedom. You may have considerable numbers of Muslims who tend to ignore many of the tenets of Islam, much as many people in the West tend to ignore the teachings of Christianity while professing to be its followers. But the autocratic ideology will always be there in Islam unless someone comes out with a severely redacted version of the Koran and the hadiths. Its a dark seed which can sprout at any time.

I think the very worst thing that Western cultures can do is to allow Muslims to immigrate. We are just importing time bombs into our civilizations, and the ultimate price will be paid in blood.

I have attached the link to my post from a couple weeks ago: "Huntington, vindicated," in which I posit that Huntington's thesis in a modified form is able to incorporate Palmer's idea, and thus yours. It is "political cultures," rather than civilisations themselves, that clash.

Would be interested in your critique.

Let's rephrase that:

"And there lies the problem. Judaism is fundamentally and inherently incompatible with Western notions of democracy and freedom. You may have considerable numbers of Jews who tend to ignore many of the tenets of Judaism, much as many people in the West tend to ignore the teachings of Christianity while professing to be its followers. But the autocratic ideology will always be there in Judaism unless someone comes out with a severely redacted version of the Old Testament. Its a dark seed which can sprout at any time.

I think the very worst thing that Western cultures can do is to allow Jews to immigrate. We are just importing time bombs into our civilizations, and the ultimate price will be paid in blood."

See the problem? Note that if I had posted the above in all seriousness, Joe would likely have banned me, and for good reason.

See the problem? Note that if I had posted the above in all seriousness, Joe would likely have banned me, and for good reason.

I didn't know Judaism had a mandated political model which came from its holy scriptures. I don't claim to be an expert on the world's religions, but I don't think that Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism mandates what kind of government people should live under. Islam does. This is a big qualitative difference.

Do you see the problem?

TJ -- the problem is that Islam encompasses a total system of politics and religion all mixed together.

It is possible for even the most Orthodox of Jews, such as the Lubavitchers, to live in complete peace with their neighbors since they reject the outside world, live internally, and don't concern themselves with the politics of the infidel, nor do they dream of conquering the infidel and bringing their rule to the infidel.

This is not the case with Islam which has explicitly embedded within the faith the need for a single unitary state ruled by "God's Shadow on Earth" the Caliph over eventually, every single human being on earth.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism nor Judiasm have this component. The political call for a world empire ruled by a single man acting as God's deputy.

The PRACTICAL problems found in Europe is that Muslim citizens reject the notion of citizenship as primary, and instead view themselves as part of the World-Wide Ummah first, then family members, then last (if at all) say Britons. The 7/7 Bombers were from this group. Dangerous to say the least, because of the overt political dimension.

Inward focused groups like Koresh or Aum Shin Rykio can be dangerous, but their ability to appeal to a widespread, world-wide set of people and embody abstract ideals of politics absent a charismatic leader is pretty low. Without Aum's leader the group essentially ceases to exist.

Mark Buehner- Within the bandwidth limits of this forum, my third bullet might be glib, but you didn't address why you are disagreeing with the conclusion. I cited commonly known examples of how the Soviets or Americans used allies in the Cold War in manners contradictory to their prevailing political philosophy, which denies the preeminence of that consideration as the basis for foreign policy. Churchill's bon mots about making a favorable mention of the Devil in Parliament if Lucifer opposed Hitler is cut from the same cloth. Then you essentially agree with me in stating "All of human history can be traced to the struggle for power." But then you extoll democratic forms as the natural constraint for power, which is extremely debatable in most of the world which sees the democratic US republic as being quite unconstrained.

>>I didn't know Judaism had a mandated political model which came from its holy scriptures.

Let's just say that if all Jews started implementing Old Testament law wherever they went, things would get very interesting.

An example of kind of excitement in action is this quote from Shamir:

“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any body of laws in the world: ‘Ye shall blot them out to the last man.’”

This from a man who was later elected Prime Minister of Israel.

Does this mean that Israelis (or Jews in general) are a threat to Western Civilization? I would have to say no.

Let's just say that if all Jews started implementing Old Testament law wherever they went, things would get very interesting.

Maybe, maybe not. The Karaites supposedly peaked at 40% of the Jewish population without havoc, and Karaism has long since been defunct as a mainstream movement. Maybe the interesting question is, "Why did Rabbinic Judaism, with its trapeze-artist hermeneutics, become the dominant strain of Judaism, while similar strains of Islam are marginal at best?"

Tom,

Alliances with bad regimes was for the West a tactical imperative in order to reap strategic gain.

The bedrock of American Foreign policy was always self determination. It is one of the reasons we did not help the Brits maintain Empire.

OTOH alliances among thug regimes tends to be strategic.

I think American Foreign policy was wise. First Hitler, then Stalin, then Arabia.

T.J.,

Your ignorance of Jewish history is showing.

There has always been an oral law alonside the written one. A kind of common law tradition.

Re-interpretation of Jewish law as written has been an ongoing process.

What confuses people is that from time to time various fundamentalist regimes have arisen to exclude all other sources of law except the written law. You know the bit: we are in trouble (politically, economically, spiritually) because we no longer practice the old time religion. This seems to be a feature of every religion that gains material power.

One such movement to extremism pissed the Romans who sacked Jerusalem to put an end to such foolishness. It worked.

Perhaps we ought to consider putting Mecca and Medinah to the sword as a way to clear the cultural baggage. Or else Islam could reform on its own.

M. Simon- I'd agree with your points and I largely agreed with the top level; I was just saying in the original post of mine that a crucial step in his argument was not properly stated using historical facts. In the end, political forms are a means to an end, which is as Buehner stated it "power", or more precisely national power to follow its interests. Now one of those interests might be progressive political forms. But it is just one among many.