The Western-Islamic “Clash of Civilizations”: The Inadvertent Contribution of the Bush Presidency

This article argues that policies of the Bush administration since 11 September 2001, have had -- perhaps inadvertently -- the effect of generating facts on the ground that have led to the self-fulfilling realization of realities corresponding to Samuel Huntington\u27s contentious concept of the clash of civilizations in relations between the Western and Islamic “worlds”. One of the significant indicators of this phenomenon has been the counterproductive, self-defeating impact of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq on the war on terror, with all available information, even from the CIA and other U.S. governmental sources, agreeing that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq has actually become more a part of the problem than of the solution. In addition to documenting the perhaps counter-intuitive impact of President Bush\u27s policies on exacerbating the factors making for global terrorism -- and enhancing the motivation of those who are prepared to give up their lives in the execution of acts of catastrophic terrorism -- the article briefly explores policies that could turn this situation around

A Comprehensive Mapping of Conflict and Conflict Resolution: A Three Pillar Approach

Excerpt As I contemplate the rise worldwide in intrastate (in contrast to interstate) conflicts (see, e.g., van Creveld, 1991 and K. Holsti, 1996), leading to Yugoslavian and Rwandan-type situations, I sense the need to do something about them. As Rousseau has said, wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them (cited in Waltz, 1959, p. 232). And quite frankly, there are few, if any, mechanisms worldwide relevant to staving off a future Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the like (see Lund, 1996): witness the unfolding of the violent Albanian-Serbian conflict in Kosovo into a possible, wider Balkan war (see, e.g., Nordland and Watson, 1998; Finn, 1999; Dinmore, 1999a, 1999b)

Virulent Ethnocentrism and Conflict Intractability: Puzzles and Challenges for 3rd Party Intervenors

This article addresses complex identity-based conflicts, such as those associated with the ending of the Cold War (e.g., Bosnia). It suggests that in many identity-based conflicts, historical memories of outrage and victimhood ( chosen traumas ) have persevered across centuries, thereby keeping the conflicting parties in history. The paper examines the role of virulent ethnocentrism in such intractable conflicts. It also examines the role of nature and nurture in embedding the universal tendency for humans to divide their species into them and us within a highly charged emotional context. The paper argues that the complexity of these conflicts has at least four dimensions which challenge the skills and good intentions of third parties: 1. Under stress parties\u27 affective level (limbic brain) tends to override their cognitive level (neocortical brain), thereby enhancing the likelihood of experiencing feeling is believing instead of seeing is believing. Parties may then not be susceptible to the efforts of third parties which often occur at the cognitive level. Such efforts do not necessarily trickle down to the affective level where chosen traumas are buried. 2. Third parties may have to first deal with an original, historical conflict (e.g., Turkey-Armenia, 1915) before they can deal with one of its more recent variations (Azerbaijan-Armenia, 1990s). 3. Analytically, third parties should employ comprehensive approaches to capturing the complexity of historically-/identity-based conflicts. Otherwise their intentions to do no harm may not only fail, but may make matters worse. 4. Effective third party intervention may then call for coordination among multitrack actors performing different roles at the same or at different points in time; in effect, the collaboration and co-evolution of approaches corresponding to otherwise competing paradigms (e.g., Political Realism, Idealism, Marxism, Non-Marxist Radical Thought [NMRT}

Argument reconceived?

Just over 10 years ago, Educational Review published an article 'Reconceiving argument' by Richard Andrews. In the article, Andrews traced some of the changes in the conception of argument that had taken place within educational contexts (primarily within the UK) over the previous few years. An important aim of the authors' article is to consider whether there is any evidence that the (re)conceptualization of argument discussed in Andrews' article has permeated educational theory and practice in the last 10 years. Specifically they will consider his invocation of new metaphors to conceive of the argumentation process as more akin to a dialogic exchange in contrast to adversarial combat. They question whether such a framing diminishes the value of conflict and confrontation in the argumentation process

Inter-State, Intra-State, and Extra-State Wars: A Comprehensive Look at Their Distribution over Time, 1816–1997

Students of world politics disagree about the approaching outlook for war. Are we in the midst of an era of peace with a declining prospect of war, or are we facing a future characterized by increasing “ethnic” conflicts? This puzzle has led scholars to call for a more comprehensive examination of the phenomenon of war. A discussion concerning this need for a new look at war had also arisen within the Correlates of War Project. For more than three decades the Correlates of War Project's database has served the research needs of most of the quantitative world politics community, especially in identifying and trying to account for several classes of war (inter-state, extra-systemic, and civil) throughout the international system since 1816. However, a number of the disagreements in the literature concerning the prospects of war derive from the tendency of many researchers to rely on only one of our data sets (e.g., inter-state war). Here we wish to stimulate a broader view of war by examining the interplay among the three major types of war. Historical developments of the past half-century, and especially since the end of the Cold War, have rendered the original COW war typology increasingly incomplete. Consequently, we developed a modified typology of war and attempted to format the descriptive variables in ways that would facilitate a more comparative and comprehensive analysis of warfare. While the reader should be reassured that Inter-state Wars remain as previously defined, we introduce the term “Intra-state War” in place of our original Civil War category, and the term “Extra-state War” in place of our initial Extra-systemic War category, allowing us to reclassify several such wars. This revised typology coupled with an update of the data allows us to take a fresh look at the question whether, from the perspective of the past two centuries, war is in fact becoming less common. The article concludes with a series of analyses that describe the patterns and trends of all types of war––reflecting the new typology––since the Congress of Vienna. These analyses reflect a disquieting constancy in warfare and hint at patterns of interchangeability or substitutability among the types of war.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71639/1/1468-2478.4701003.pd