Rating: 
Summary: No Pollyana views, here--hardhitting realism
Review: Since September 11, we've all been bombarded with opinions from armchair quarterbacks, myopic intellectuals, Pollyanna liberals, deskbound philosophers, sound bite journalists, and various unqualified people expounding from their limited world view while assuming only they have the right answers. Thinking people have tended to disregard all such opinions, because none of them hold up under close examination.What we've been looking for is something that explains what happened--and where we're headed--from a perspective that doesn't serve an ideological agenda. And we've been looking for that because an ideological agenda is what those terrorists had on that day--more of the same is not an answer. The answer we really want is, "What's next?" We want to see what's ahead for us. Lee Harris helps us look ahead by first looking back. He takes us through the various stages of civilization and shows us how each rose to prominence and what drove it one to survive as long as it did. For example, Sparta enjoyed 500 years in which it was never conquered, never had a civil war, and was never ruled by a tyrant. Even the United States cannot boast of such things--the USA has been around for less than half that time, had a very bloody Civil War, and is today ruled by a slew of law-breaking tyrants in government agencies (as was documented in Senator Roth's 12 televised hearings on the IRS). What gave Sparta such an amazing track record? After explaining the source of Sparta's success, Harris moves forward through history. Along the way, he examines subsequent Western civilizations from the Roman Empire to nineteenth century Poland. It is on this journey that we see, for example, why the United States changed from a loose alliance of states to a nation with a strong central government. And we see why Poland failed to do so and what the consequences were. It's fascinating to watch Harris unfold events to expose the cultural foundations behind them, including how Hitler and Mussolini rose to power. The book is far from being a dry history lesson, or really a history lesson at all. It's an education in how and why world events happen. Harris provides that education by providing the reader with a factual foundation then making the reader think. Having such an education will help you understand where we are headed and why. It will help you understand what the USA must do, in its role as the world's Samurai. The USA wields a mighty sword, while also adhering to a code of behavior that people of other nations expect us to continue to uphold simply because of who we are. Harris explains what that code is, how it came to be, and why it is in the best interests of the USA to continue to uphold it. The USA, despite its relatively short history, Civil War in its 9th decade, and present infestation of tyrants, is still the world's great hope. And not just because it has more military might and more wealth than any other nation in history. The nation is a microcosm of the world's cultures--the great melting pot--and the implications of that are profound. How much responsibility to the rest of the world comes with that? Answer the question for yourself, after reading this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Welcome to reality.
Review: The author eloquently and concisely states the causality of the present conflict with our enemies and the actions of our erstwhile allies before, during, and after Operation Iraqi Freedom in a more abstract fashion. Never before has anyone concisely written why we have an enemy, what we must do, and why we must win and preserve civilization. Along the way, he debunks fantasy ideologies, deconstructs modern cosmopolitanism in contrast to the Hellenic Greek philosophy of cosmopolitanism. The author utilizes the Hegelian dialectic to further demonstrate the total lack of substance within "new age" philosophies of "relativism" and "subjectivism" as well. He even shows a bit of canny wit by coining some worthy catch phrases when referring to the antics of "anti-liberalism" western liberals (quite a dichotomy lies just within that phrase as well), such as "serial nihilism" for example.
If you've ever wondered exactly what is wrong with modern liberal academia that have rejected classical liberalism in the name of "progressive thought", reading this book should provide many answers to that questions.
In his summation the author also lays out in plain and simple terms what is needed to allow the progression of western civilization, and the benefits world wide that result from the adoption and adaptation of western ideals world wide. However, considering the amount of hostility towards western ideals from western academia at large, holding out hope for such a spontaneous ideological reversal may well be a fantasy ideology of its own.
To summarize, if you believe in classical liberalism as a beneficial ideology, buy this book, read it, give it to friends & family or tell them about it, do what you must, but make sure the word about this book gets out. If you don't believe in classical liberalism as a beneficial ideology, reading this book is probably your last hope. If you read it, and it doesn't raise any doubts about modern liberals and their fantasy ideologies, then denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Rating:
Summary: A thoughtful study of threats to civilization
Review: The author put plenty of thought into this book. I think it is worth reading just to get started on thinking about some of these issues oneself.
Harris starts out with a terrific point. Namely that Victor Davis Hanson and Noam Chomsky, who are at roughly opposite ends of the political spectrum, agree that the attacks of 9/11 were an act of war, designed "to further some kind of political objective." Harris explains that 9/11 was actually more an enactment of a "fantasy ideology" than some Clausewitzian act of war. That's interesting. His point is that there was no military follow-up nor military goals, nor the military wherewithal to back up such acts. But that begs a question. What if people simply did reasonable things, such as settling for no more than their fair share. Would we consider that to be acting out their fantasies as well?
The next point is that we're facing an unstable situation: those who fight us are not actually viable entities in the sense of being able to deal with and survive any uncompromising attack by internal or external enemies. That means that they may be facing a big surprise if anyone, including us, ever decides to or needs to fight them seriously. And we may be facing an equally nasty surprise if they get their hands on nuclear weapons and launch a rogue strike on us.
After that is a discussion about ruthlessness. No society can be based simply on rule by a ruthless gang. As a matter of fact, such a gang can't even create a society: at most it can take over a society. Therefore, Harris argues, gangs not only should be driven from the face of the Earth but are inherently incapable of ruling in the long run. They are on the wrong side of history. So, why should we support them? The author explains that we shouldn't. It may be expedient, but certainly not moral to contain ruthless gangs rather than remove them. And "there may be good conservative reasons for preserving a wicked status quo, but there are no liberal progressive ones."
Harris then discusses tolerance. He makes the point that "compromise" with error simply means that you need to keep re-inventing the right answer. And that while individual liberty is very important, if it surpasses all else it will eventually destroy all social order, which is the very thing that allows us to live in peace with one another in the first place.
The author also warns us about "sham multiculturalism," in which we abandon the individual and make each person the property of their culture, and applaud when that culture gives them almost no freedom at all.
Harris concludes that America ought not become an Empire of any kind, let alone an arrogant one. But that we need to reserve the option of acting unilaterally and at our own discretion, if we must do so, "not to subvert the rules of international liberalism but to uphold them." He warns that ruthless gangs must not be allowed to decide the direction of the future development of mankind. And that today, the most obvious ruthless gangs may change in nature at any time.
I see that a few reviewers tried to label this book as an unthinking defence of American power. Those reviewers must have missed almost all of what the author said. As I said, I think this book is thought-provoking and worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Enemies and How to Protect Civilization
Review: The author writes with authority, and his words ring true.
Reading some of the below reviews of this book proves the truth stated in this book. "Civilization" as the Western mind understands the word and the concept is vulnerable to those ruthlessly opposed to it's inherent "tolerance". Civilization's admiration of tolerance above all else results in many people incapable of comprehending the unimaginable/utterly ruthless.
Judging from reviews of this book even the most well reasoned and cogent arguments will not serve to peel away blinders from the willfully blind.
The arguments presented on all society's duty to find ways to imbue significance and meaning into the lives of its young men are alone worth the price of the book. This argument includes the observation that the only two types of human relationships that spontaneously occur are the relationships of family and boy's gangs. Every political entity on earth should know this and ensure that there are mechanisms in place to civilize young, single males.
Rating: 
Summary: Argument for Pax Americana
Review: The book starts off well enough with an interesting psychological theory behind the attack on September 11th but the book starts to really wander in the middle chapters and falls to pieces at the end.
Author Harris seemed to be building his case for American Global Hegemony in a rather roundabout way but the crux of the argument is that Western Civilization is superior to all others and for the sake of our future must be spread throughout. Our superior western ways started with the Spartans and culminated with Protestantism. Gee, I wonder what religion Lee Harris is?
Harris spends time hitting the various neo-conservative bullet points including fawning over Adam Smith and deriding intellectuals for causing all the problems of the 20th century. He labels Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin as intellectuals. I could see Marx and Lenin as intellectuals but Stalin? Maybe I don't read enough neo-conservative literature but I've never seen Hitler and Mussolini described as intellectuals. And what about their equal in bloodshed Mao Tse-Tung? His movement was anti-intellectual. And what the heck is Harris considered in writing a philosophical book on the future of conflict, if not an intellectual?
By the final chapter Harris casts aside his measured demeanor and goes on a Left bashing tirade that would bring a smile to Ann Coulter's face. At no point, until the last chapter, does Harris use the word Left but once the floodgates are open, look out. Those on the Left are unrealistic idealists at best, enemies of the state at worst for they do not recognize that it is the moral duty of the United States to extend our Western philosophies of government and commerce to every corner of the Earth. Since the U.S. has been encouraging Democracy and Capitalism since before any of us were born I assume that Harris is suggesting an Iraqi style accelerated pace whereby we make countries `an offer they cannot refuse'.
Harris argues that there are SOME people who don't BELIEVE that the people in non-Western countries can handle Democracy and he finds that to be racist. This is the same tactic used by George W. Bush. Who are these shadowy people? Are they on the Left or on the Right? They're strawmen created to try and make the president and Lee Harris look caring. In the authors mind, if the United States DOESN'T force the world into a Western Style model we would be treating non-westerners like animals in cages suitable only for viewing. Never mind the fact that many countries around the world would disagree that the United States is apex of morality. A lot of countries are appalled by our rate of incarceration and we're one of the few industrialized countries left that still has the death penalty.
Growing up I was taught that might doesn't make right, Harris disagrees in fact he literally states that `might makes right'. The reason is that might is a byproduct of a well organized society and why shouldn't the most well organized society be the one to spread it's philosophies and structure to the weaker, less organized societies. See, I always thought that the Nazi's were morally wrong because of their contempt for human life but Harris has taught me that the Nazi's were morally wrong only because they lost.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Must Reading
Review: The catastrophic event that has come to be known simply as 9/11 was unique in American history. We had been brutally attacked. But by whom? Not by another country, as we soon discovered. Not by some vile dictator or head-of-state, as we later discovered. So who? Who was the enemy? Then, of course, came the question: Why were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacked in the first place? Why would someone deliberately, maliciously murder thousands of ordinary, innocent people?
"Civilization and Its Enemies" is an attempt by Lee Harris to answer these and other questions. The work is a brilliant analysis of the current geopolitical situation and how it came to be what it is. More significantly, it provides an insight into the historical precipitates and intellectual foundations and foibles which may account for the 9/11 tragedy.
"The subject of this book," says Harris on the opening page, "is forgetfulness." Modern civilization has forgotten how it became civilized in the first place; it isn't knowledgeable of the long period of cultural evolution involved; and it doesn't remember the tremendous amount of labor, cultural and intellectual, that went into the development of civil society. Moreover, modern civilization has forgotten about a category called "the enemy." This concept of the enemy -- someone who is willing to die to kill another -- had been discarded from our moral and political discourse. And that fact, according to Harris, has left modern civilization vulnerable to attack by those who are the enemy of civilized society.
This is an interesting thesis and, at first glance, may appear to be an implausible explanation for the 9/11 tragedy which was, according to the author, an end in itself and not a means to some other political or social end. Many contemporary observers may find this latter statement problematic since we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of warfare as a means to an end. Harris suggests that our ordinary understanding about what wars are and why they are fought is not applicable to the current conflict with terrorism. The nature of the game, so to speak, has changed and so has the enemy, and 9/11 was a manifestation of that change.
So, who is this enemy and what is his intent? How did civilization get itself into this situation where it became so vulnerable to this enemy? What is the historical backdrop? What were the social and cultural influences? Who or what is really responsible? What can modern civilization do, if anything, to protect itself? Harris's discussion of these questions takes the reader on a tour through the development of civilization from antiquity to the present day, forming the framework with which he analyzes our current dilemma and providing a rationale for his conclusions.
One of the most interesting of his discussions has to do with what Harris calls "fantasy ideology" and the related "transformative belief." He also points out the difference between abstract reasoning and concrete reasoning and discusses the "fanaticism" of abstract thought, important elements in the presentation of his argument. His concept of fantasy ideology is familiar to me because, while I use a different term to describe the phenomenon, it appears to be a subcategory of what I have called "intellectual insanity" in my own writings. Modern intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this type of thinking, which eventually leads them into the irrational abyss of moral and cultural relativism, epistemological subjectivism, metaphysical idealism, politicism, and scientism.
Harris does more, of course, than just provide us with the historical background and intellectual underpinnings which have led to our present situation. He deals with the practical matter of our current conflict with "the enemy," giving us his prescriptions about how we should meet and confront the problem in the very real context within which we have to deal with it. Many intellectuals, especially those in the academic enterprise, will recoil at some of his suggestions.
But the problem we face today, the author says, is this: "The ideals that our intellectuals have been instilling in us are utopian ideals, designed for men and women who know no enemy and who do not need to take precautions against him." These utopian ideals are dangerous because they are out of touch with the situation as it really is. The new enemy of civilization does not play his "war" game according to the rules we are used to; indeed, as far as he is concerned there are no rules at all. Our intellectuals and those who influence our social and political policies must come to realize this. Our old categories of thought and analysis will no longer suffice. And this brings Harris to what may be his most controversial conclusion as far as the academic intellectuals are concerned.
Only the United States can play the sovereign in today's world. And if the use of force is necessary to defend civilization, then America will have to use it. At the same time Harris realizes the responsibilities involved in this type of action and points out the necessity, and dilemma, of being ruthless in the defense of civilization while not succumbing to ruthlessness itself. However, because it has produced, over a long period of time and through many sociopolitical conflicts, a practical design for solving and settling problems without resorting to massive ruthlessness, the United States is the only nation which can do the job required if civilization is to be defended and the enemy defeated.
This is an important book that every American citizen should read. It should be required reading for our college and university students who are so desperately in need of intellectual guidance through the realities of the current geopolitical conflict which puts civilization itself in jeopardy. My only criticism of the book is that Harris needs to recognize there are some intellectuals around who don't subscribe to utopian fantasies and the fanaticism of abstract thought. I like to think I'm one of them.
Rating: 
Summary: DON'T BUY
Review: The title of this book disguises the fact that it is not a scholarly work and is heavy on opinion. There are no foot notes or end notes and the Author does not support his case with any primary or secondary references.
I do not recommend this book for any serious student of Military Science, Political Science or Military History
Terry Tucker, US Army, SGM Ret; Adjunct Professor Military Science/History
Rating:
Summary: Interesting essays on the great American Empire
Review: These are well written essays that will have readers debate several of the prime conclusions (America is the last bastion for civilization to fend off the barbarians and America hid in the sand as if it had no enemies until the 9/11 wake up call). CIVILIZATION AND ITS ENEMIES postulates that recent presidents especially the enemy of the state Clinton failed to understand that the world was and is an unsafe place with many villains ready to destroy "civilization"; 9/11 warned us that the barbarians had crossed the Rubicon. If you accept that the Cold War was nonexistent and that Reagan, Bush the father and Clinton never sent troops to Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia than this book is easier to follow even with its bias towards America as the last hope to save civilization (The Ugly American Syndrome). The discussions on Greece, Plato, Rome, and Dune are very interesting. On the other hand the Al Qaeda snippets describe the enemy, but fail to balance the picture of kids receiving three-square meals, a place to sleep, an education, and a reason to live while civilization makes oil deals. One sided as an Emperor Bush cheerleader, Lee Harris raises several interesting questions on what is civilization, what is its future, and indirectly who knew and failed to act before 9/11 as he draws generalizations that lead to those in the middle and to the left wondering who was Nero's scribe? Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: Neo-Primitivism
Review: This book is a demonstrative example of the intellectual neo-primitivism that now pervades modern American "culture." The author attempts to mount a defense of war as the fundamental organizing principle of civilization based on a criterion in which even Bushmen would qualify as being civilized in the Western sense. The author's perspective is reducible, to paraphrase Descartes, to: I kill therefore I exist, in the manner of Hobbes. "Why do they hate us?" he asks. "Because we are the enemy," is the circular logic with which he answers this important question, and which is, astonishingly, the deepest conclusion that he is able to reach. The contrary is true, they do not hate "us" because we are the enemy, we are the enemy because they hate us. This conclusion merely gives the illusion that something has been explained when in fact it has not. It is important that we not look too deeply. The proposition, like so many throughout the book, is the result of a combination of both intellectual dishonesty and incapacity. It is impossible to understand the mind of international terrorism, he asserts, because this enemy "sees a different reality" than we do, exactly as Montezuma was not able to understand Cortes, which is the example he adduces. Hence any attempt to understand the terrorist is liberal fuzzimindedness at best and appeasement at worse. It is precisely this kind of deliberate blindness that will guarantee the coming chaos. The solution then, is what comes out of the barrel of a gun, if only the liberal weaklings would understand this. In other words, terrorism is simply uncaused evil arising out of nothing, which places us back in the universe of Manichean religious fundamentalism. In over 200 pages the author manages to convince us that he is not up the task and that his reactionary fundamentalism is but a form of neo-primitivism which is precisely "the next stage of history" we are presently entering into. Neo-primitivism has no answer to the world's problems except the principle of force because it fails to understand the world that has been created by its own rootless dynamism. In this author, neo-primitivism claiming to be "philosophy," has indeed found a willing psychophant wanting in acumen.
Rating:
Summary: may change the way you think
Review: This book is a rare combination of common sense, depth of thought, breadth of knowledge, originality, and analytical and logical sophistication. Harris writes well, and at times humorously, but (with the possible exception of the first chapter), this is not a predigested easy read. The first chapter offers a stimulating interpretation of the motivation of the perpetrators of 9/11; the attack was less a means to an end (e.g., strike terror in the US population as a means to cause US withdrawal from the Middle East) , than a theatrical demonstration, for the benefit of other Muslims, that Allah favors the triumph of Islam and the fall of the Great Satan. "Fantasy ideologies" are able to thrive because of the decline of political realism in states whose existence and wealth has not been earned by their own effort, but are (ironically) protected by the current international order. The central theme of the book, however, is the concept of the enemy: why enemies must be overcome in the founding of a civil society as well in its maintenance, why rational self-interest cannot explain the origin of social order (contrary to Hobbes and many others), and why the category of the enemy itself tends to be forgotten or dismissed by successful societies. Such societies also forget the ruthlessness that was historically required to achieve their success and which, Harris argues, is also required for their continuing survival. By the same token, the enculturation of a non-rational, intuitive sense of shame and a similarly instinctive sense of trust are necessary for the suppression of internal violence, hence the survival, of all societies, including liberal ones. Harris defends and carries out what I would call a naturalistic approach to social and political theory, which gives priority to careful study, analysis, and interpretation of actually existing societies and their origins. The opposite approach, developing an abstract ideal concept and comparing existing societies to it, inevitably finds the real world to be hopelessly defective. Starting with abstractions can be dangerous, too, since it obscures what has been accomplished up to the present and therefore what we stand to lose, fails to recognize and even disparages essential elements of social survival, and diverts attention from what might actually be accomplished in the future. Harris addresses problems from multiple angles, e.g., a counterintuitive historical analysis of the contribution of ancient Spartan society to Western freedom, convincing arguments against European political theorists from Rousseau to Marx, discussion of the role the Protestant conscience played in providing a social infrastructure for modern Western society, a defense of objective criteria in the comparison of cultures and what different cultures might learn from one another in a more hardnosed approach to multiculturalism, and a critique of the abstraction bias that is a built-in threat to the plausibility of academic thought. One of the real pleasures of this book is the sense of being in the company of an author who has set out to tackle weighty matters with integrity, thoughfulness, humility, and commitment. Harris' recommended cure for intellectualist biases includes confrontation with reality and with competing ideas. I think he has been quite successful in both. Marvin Cohen
|
