This year marks not only the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq but also the 20th anniversary of the clash of civilizations theory which made it possible. But Samuel P. Huntington was wrong.
A decade has passed since the blood-drenched invasion of Iraq began, unleashing a wave of destruction not seen in that part of the world since at least the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in the mid-13th century.
Unsurprisingly, the 10th anniversary has prompted immense media attention, in the United States and Europe, as well as in Iraq itself and the broader Middle East. In light of the carnage that has ensued following that fateful decision to invade, a lot of the public debate has focused on whether the war was justified and worthwhile.
The cheerleaders of the war argue that the invasion was just, the subsequent carnage was an unfortunate but collateral consequence of a benign act of goodwill, and that errors were made in the execution of the campaign but the principle was essentially sound.
Critics, like myself, see the wholesale destruction of Iraq and the chaos besetting it -- which was chillingly illustrated by the deadly car bombings which rocked Baghdad on the 10th anniversary -- as clear proof that U.S.-led intervention was not only unjustified but flawed.
In order to understand why, we need to rewind another 10 years, back to another important anniversary which has largely fallen under the media's radar. Through some fluke of history, the theory which largely justified the Iraq war and provided it with its ideological underpinning was formulated exactly a decade earlier.
In an incredibly influential essay published 20 years ago in Foreign Affairs, the late Samuel P. Huntington first outlined his clash of civilizations theory, which he later elaborated on and fleshed out in a book published in 1996.
Huntington argued that "the fundamental source of conflict" in the post-Cold War era would be not ideological or economic but "cultural". "The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future," the Harvard professor argued.
Huntington divided the world into some half a dozen major civilizational groups which, he posited, would clash at two levels: local "fault line conflicts" where civilizations overlap and "core state conflicts" between the major states of different civilizations.
On the 20th anniversary of this controversial theory and given how influential it has been and remains, it is useful to analyze whether or not Huntington was right. Has a clash of civilizations emerged, as Huntington predicted, over the past two decades?
Supporters of Huntington's hypothesis answer with an unequivocal "yes". They point to the inhumane atrocities committed in the United States by Islamic extremists on 11 September 2001, the subsequent clash with al Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the rise of Islamist parties during the "Arab Spring" as confirmation that a clash is underway.
Critics, like the scholar Noam Chomsky, have maintained that the clash of civilizations is simply the symptom of an empire, i.e. Pax Americana, in search of another justification for its imperial aspirations after the Cold War paradigm fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
The late Edward Said, the renowned author of Orientalism, saw in Huntington's theory an extension of the pseudo-scientific Orientalist scholarship which had been used for at least a couple of centuries to justify European and Western hegemony. In an essay entitled The Clash of Ignorances¸ published shortly after 9/11, Said argued that Huntington ignored "the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization" and "the fact that the major contest in most modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture".
Personally, I find that, though the idea, in one form or another, of a clash of civilizations is as old as the hills -- examples include the historical notions of jihads and crusades, not to mention the idea of "civilization" versus "barbarity" espoused by most dominant powers throughout the centuries -- this does not make it any more valid or true.
Far more often than not, what has been dressed up as a clash of values is really just a clash of interests parading as something less selfish than it actually is. Although culture and ideology can, on rare occasions, lead to conflict, for the most part, societies enter into conflicts due to clashes of interests.
And in such a context, proximity is traditionally a far greater cause of friction than culture. That is why conflicts within self-identified cultural or civilizational groups are often greater than those between them. Over the centuries, Christians and Muslims have gone to war and killed more of their coreligionists than each other, as the carnage of two world wars in Europe shows all too clearly.
That would explain, for instance, why the United States decided to invade Saddam Hussein's secular Iraq, even though it was a sworn enemy of al Qaeda and jihadist Islam, yet is bosom buddies with Saudi Arabia, the hotbed of reactionary Wahhabism, which it exports around the region and the world, and the home of most of the hijackers who took part in the September 11 attacks.
And alliances which cut across supposed civilizational lines have an ancient pedigree. Examples include the Arabs allying themselves with the British and the French against the Turks, or the Ottomans fighting alongside the Germans in World War I against the British, French and Russians. In fact, throughout its centuries as a major power, the Ottoman Empire's alliances shifted between various Christian European states, including France, Poland, as well as the Protestant Reformation against the Catholic House of Habsburg.
Moreover, Huntington's hypothesis is further undermined by what I like to call the "mash of civilizations". Each so-called civilization is actually a volatile, constantly changing hybrid of ideas and cultural influences.
In fact, if we must group civilizations together, then I would place the West and Islam in the same group because they both share common roots in the Abrahamic tradition, not to mention the Greek and Hellenistic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian influences, as well as the modern importance of the Enlightenment, not just for Western reform movements but also for secularising and modernising movements in the Middle East. I would go so far as to say that Europe and the Middle East, especially the Mediterranean countries, have more in common with each other than they do with their co-religionists in Africa and further east in Asia.
So, if there has not been a clash of civilizations, what has emerged since the end of the Cold War?
At one level, there are the brewing clashes of interests between the great powers, as America tries to hold on to its waning global reach, Russia tries to claw back the influence it lost following the implosion of the Soviet Union and China, after years of quiet growth in the background, begins to flex its muscles on the foreign stage, both to advance its emerging "strategic interests" and for prestige.
On another level, cultures have clashed, but not between civilizations, as Huntington believed they would, but within them. This clash within civilizations is currently playing itself out most visibly in the Middle East.
In addition to the sectarian monster unleashed by the anarchy in Iraq, the revolutionary wave that has swept through the region has brought to the fore, and into sharp relief, the major fault lines and clashes within each society and, to a lesser extent, between them. There are the conflicts between the secular and religious, between majorities and minorities, between women and men, between the young and old, between modernists and traditionalists, between the haves and have-nots, and so on.
Although less pronounced, at least for the time being, these same internal tensions are being witnessed in the West, as reflected in the rising influence of Christian fundamentalism in the United States and the extreme right in Europe, as well as the large-scale social protests, from years of street battles in Greece to the Occupy Wall Street movement of the "99%".
In Europe, particularly, class conflict is intensifying on the back of the economic crisis triggered by neo-liberal excess, as the poor and middle-classes are forced, through bailouts and austerity, to finance what has effectively become a welfare state for the rich. This is putting in jeopardy not only the much-vaunted European social model but also the EU enterprise itself.
If the European Union is not reinvented along more equitable lines and emerges out of this crisis, instead, much weakened, then it will likely leave a petty-nationalistic sized hole in the European arena which could eventually cause the conflicts currently taking place within individual countries to spill across borders.
In the second decade of the 21st century, a major challenge facing us all is not the clash of civilizations but the clash within civilizations. This internal cultural struggle is largely caused by the growing socio-economic inequalities that have emerged in just about every country in the world.
If these inequities are not addressed effectively, at both the local and global levels, then intolerance will grow and conflicts will continue to consume individual societies, with the danger that they will spill over into other countries, potentially spiraling out of control.