4. Explain each of Samuel Huntington's 8 cultural paradigms. What does this model for culture and civilization around the world have to do with terrorism? What are the implications for law enforcement if terrorism has deeper roots -- namely, rooted in a clash of civilizations? Also, what are the implications for American foreign policy in terms of our efforts to thwart terrorism?
First, the post-Cold War reorganization of nations causes conflicts between and among the resulting civilizations left after national fracturing. Second, the continued promotion by the West of quasi-Western values and political philosophy on the rest of the world antagonizes non-Western civilizations. Third, the deterioration of economic, military, and political power of the West facilitates increased resistance of other nations, such as in the Far and Middle Eastern societies (i.e. China and Islamic countries) to follow the international order established by the West in previous eras and to combine their interests against the West. Fourth, the massive Islamic population explosion dramatically increases the potential for instability and fundamentalist radicalization of a younger population. Fifth, the so-called "bloody borders" of Islam that are a function the population growth and the volatile proximity of conflicting societies in the Middle and far East. Sixth, the potential collaboration of China and radical Islam, by virtue of the doctrine that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" because both societies are equally threatened by the global exertion of Western authority and values. Seventh, the mixed interests of so-called "swing civilizations" such as Russia, Japan, and India who may side with anti-Western societies for their own best interests relative to those nations in close proximity to them who are in direct conflict with the West. Eighth, the widespread potential collaboration of the entire global Islamic community whose total population dwarfs those of the West and whose values are threatened by Western global domination.
The obvious implications for Western law enforcement and American foreign policy in connection with counterterrorism is that the approach emphasizing rational discourse and mutual consideration promoted by President Obama is much more conducive to reducing the threat than the approach relied upon by the Bush administration that only succeeded in antagonizing the worldwide community and further isolating the U.S. from those nations and regions whose interests conflict with those of this country.
5. Describe the anarchist and socialist movements of the 19th Century. Which activists within those movements were most pivotal in defining terrorism as we know it today? Also, in your own opinion, how should modern America deal with fomenters of political violence when they do so while in exile and through writing and speaking? Should America "go after" such people given the observation from history that other exiled thinkers/revolutionaries have had great influence over events, sometimes with violent and long-standing consequences?
In the 19th century, anarchists promoted the creation of cooperative societies without centralized governments, which they hoped to achieve through violent socialist revolutionary movements against the established national governments. Anti-globalists are distinguishable from anarchists, primarily because their methods do not include violent opposition. Karl Marx (with Friedrich Engels) inspired the Communist revolution in Russia in 1917 and had the most profound influence of all 19th century revolutionaries because the Communist Revolution dictated, or at least greatly helped to shape, the course of geopolitics for the rest of the 20th century and beyond.
Other influential 19th century anarchists and socialists include Johann Most, a German-American who advocated revolution in Freiheit, a New Jersey-based newspaper; Emma Goldman, the Russian-American socialist who initially left the U.S. after the Bolshevik Revolution but eventually returned disillusioned with communism; the French anarchist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon who opposed violence and promoted the idea that national governments should be unnecessary for modern civilization; German radical
Karl Heinzen, who promoted political assassinations and sought sanctuary in U.S. in1848 after a failed revolutions; and the Russian revolutionist, Mikhail Bakunin.
In general, the U.S. is not opposed to the communication of radical ideas, particularly outside the country. Even within the U.S., principles of free speech protect radical propaganda as long as it does not constitute actual promotion of violent overthrow of the government. Any attempt on the part of the U.S. To squelch the mere expression of political rhetoric abroad would only exacerbate international hostility toward this country and demonstrate hypocrisy, given American ideals of free speech and the right of self-expression in this…