An interesting article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200710/ai_n21100167

ANTINOMIES OF SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON: SOME ANTHROPOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE AMERICAN PUNDIT

Journal of Third World Studies, Fall 2007 by Keles, Fethi
INTRODUCTION

Sweeping generalizations on sociocultural phenomena of the sort made by influential political scientist Samuel Huntington exhibit a proclivity toward representing the globe in terms of analytical categories devised without adequate attention to inter- as well as intra-cultural specificities. Huntington's simplistic and politically-motivated conceptualizations of such notions as culture, globalization, and undue reifications of ethnonyms (challenging Hispanics, bellicose Muslims etc.) distort the reality on the ground. His-probably unconscious- trespasses into what is arguably the most anthropological of all issues studied by anthropologists-kinship-in the context of his search at the macropolitical level for perennial roots of collective violence are even more questionable. With his hypothesis that the globe is composed of cultures/civilizations each of which a) is complete unto itself with neatly identifiable borders-imaginary or otherwise- and b) legitimizes amicable relations with others only on the basis of civilizational same- or similar-kindness, the political scientist poses himself as a globalization theorist, culture theorist, and kinship theorist simultaneously.

[…]

CONCLUSION

This paper suggested that very broad generalizations on such concepts as globalization, identity, culture, and civilization run the risk of presenting the lay as well as the informed reader a distorted version of sociocultural reality as it is actually lived all around the globe by tangible human beings in concrete contexts. The work of political scientist Samuel Huntington thus far has been a prime example of such risk-running behavior: Gross misrepresentations in his latest writings of various aspects of Hispanic presence in the United States suggest only an old-fashioned notion of the world. Ethnographic evidence casts a serious doubt on his reasons for considering the Hispanic immigration to the U.S. perilous for the future of American national identity which he assumes to be represented, and represented only, by WASP values. His assumption of a one-way process of enculturation is problematic. He wants incoming populations to adjust themselves according to the 'creed', while expecting the creed to remain rigidly unchanged while times continue to change.
Huntington's characterization of the post-Cold War globe as made up of a number of different civilizations neatly separable from one another is countered by anthropological evidence given above, as well. Edward Said puts it most elegantly: "What culture today-whether Japanese, Arab, European, Korean, Chinese, or Indian-has not had long, intimate, and extraordinarily rich contacts with other cultures?"32 Not only is Huntington indifferent to the complex nature of the multicultural world, but also he disregards intra-cultural or -civilizational variation as well. Neither the Hispanics nor Muslims can escape that fate in his writings: Regardless of their internal differences, each group is presented as if it constituted a monolith.
This paper further sought to show that the anthropological eye is particularly well-suited to heal the analytical wounds opened by such broadbrush treatment of sociocultural phenomena as Huntington's. With its effort to understand peoples of the world as they understand themselves, its cautious, bottom-up approach in making generalizations about surface level similarities - between and within Western and non-Western cultures alike-, its attention to cross-cutting cultural connections, its endless search for local manifestations of globalization, identity politics, culture, assimilation, and other phenomena, anthropology is sure to contribute to a more accurate assessment of issues of global scope. Only after he starts paying attention to detail, of the sort provided by anthropology, may Huntington have the chance of transforming his approach from a constantly risk-running sort to relatively risk-averse one. Absent such an attention, there will be little reason to excuse him for not including a single foreign language reference (a detail finely noted by anthropologist Hugh Gusterson) in his densely footnoted, some three-hundred-page apocalyptic book of, and with, clashes.

News from AFRICOM (Stuttgart)

US drops Africa military HQ plan

The US military has decided to keep the headquarters of its new Africa Command in Germany, after only one African nation, Liberia, offered to host it.
Most African countries have been wary of plans to base the command, Africom, on the continent.
Africom's commander, Gen William Ward, said there were no plans to create large US garrisons on the continent.
The military command was created last year to unite responsibilities shared by three other US regional commands.
The US plan had been misunderstood by some African countries, Gen Ward told the BBC.
The key aim of Africom was to build the capacity of African countries for security and peacekeeping, he said.
African doubts
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua announced in November that he would not allow his country to host an Africom base and that he was also opposed to any such bases in West Africa.
South Africa and Libya have also voiced strong reservations.
Only Liberia, which has historic links to the US, has offered to host it.
There has been concern that Africom is really an attempt to protect US oil and mineral interests in Africa, amid growing competition for resources from Asian economies, says the BBC's Alex Last in the Nigerian capital Abuja.
Then there are fears about the continent being drawn into the US war on terror, our correspondent ads.
Gen Ward said Africom was not about militarisation but consolidating existing operations under one single command, while helping Africans with military training and supporting peacekeeping and aid operations. (BBC)

There is an invisible boundary between francophone Africa and anglophone Africa. Communication is poor, and direct contacts are rare. One can observe this very well by a quick look at the media. There is not much on Kenia in francophone TV or papers; and there is not much on Chad in US, or British news. So here is a reach across the border with news from francophone Africa:

COMOROS

Comoro Government Says Ready to Invade Rebel Island

In the Comoros Islands, the union government says it is ready to invade Anjouan and over throw embattled President Mohamed Bacar, whose presidency the government describes as illegal.

This comes after President Ahmed Abdallah Mohamed Sambi vowed to take military action against Bacar saying the African Union proposed sanctions against Bacar’s government and ministers have failed.
The Africa union imposed sanctions on Anjouan, one of three islands in the Indian Ocean archipelago, after its leader, Mohamed Bacar, defied the government by holding a local election in June, which he is alleged to have rigged.
But Bacar says he is ready to dialogue with the union government to resolve the political impasse. Ahmed Gaffar is the Comoros Island foreign minister. From the capital, Moroni he tells reporter Peter Clottey that the military option is inevitable.
“One month ago, the president made a declaration to the nation telling the people that we are ready we have been waiting for a long time for the African Union decision. We have had so many meetings from South Africa to Addis Ababa, may be we had 10 or 12 meetings about this crisis.
So, the president now decided that we must take this problem to be out problem and try to get an internal solution. So, he decided that the army must be ready to go to Anjouan… there were many measures against the illegal authorities of Anjouan. So the population is very tired here and we are trying now to see how we can find a solution for those of us here in the Comoros,” Gaffar said.
He said all attempts to peacefully resolve the political crisis in Anjouan have been rejected by embattled President Bacar.
“We think that we have tried all options the last one was the International Organization of Francophone countries. They spent three weeks there holding discussions with Bacar and told him that it was enough and that it was time for him to accept a fresh elections in Anjouan, but he (Bacar) refused again. So, we know that Bacar would never accept and allow a free election to be held in Anjouan. And the African Union and the international community do not want us to use the military option against Anjouan. So we think now that the government must take up this responsibility,” he pointed out.
Gaffar said the union government would not negotiate with President Bacar.
“But negotiations for what? Because we know that Bacar is not ready for any discussion… even the international community knows that Bacar is not interested in any discussions. And how can we hold negotiations with some one who is illegal?” Gaffar asked.
Meanwhile President Sambi reportedly said The Union of Comoros does not want any more meetings or international conferences on the Anjouan crisis. (VOA NEWS)

ISN Security Watch 6 February 2008

Pakistan: Tightening the noose

Opening too many fronts to perpetuate his dictatorship, Musharraf disastrously loses focus on the so-called war on terror as extremists strike across the country unchecked.
Commentary by Naveed Ahmad in Islamabad for ISN Security Watch (06/02/08)


The Bush administration continues to respond positively to the efforts of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his armed forces to root out foreign and local extremists, despite the failures.
While Musharraf's reforms aimed at regulating the curricula and culture of the madrassahs, which provide at least ideological safe havens for militant thinking, have met with some success, his military strategy clearly has failed to contain the extremists.
The most recent showing has been a prolonged and costly military operation in a historically liberal community in the picturesque Swat mountains in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). This valley had fallen hostage to a cleric named Mulla Fazalullah.
Horrific images of the mutilated bodies of Pakistani security personnel even made their way to the online video sharing service YouTube, making a clear statement on Musharraf's success in Bush's war on terror.
Growing numbers of generals and other high-ranking military men are openly protesting the president's failure to contain the militants along the Afghan border and for resorting to bushfire tactics in the abscence of a well-crafted strategy.
The figures speak for themselves. In 2002, there were only two reported suicide attacks, while in 2007 that number rose to 57 suicide attacks that claimed hundreds of lives. One of the worst of these attacks killed opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on 27 December (though it should be mentioned here that according to recent polls, many Pakistanis believe that the government was in some way involved in Bhutto's murder.)
During a 42-day martial law imposed on 3 November, Musharraf sacked a highly popular judiciary and gagged the private TV news channels to clear away bothersome democratic brambles that might have kept him from enjoying another term as president.
Musharraf has announced that elections will be held, but there are doubts as to whether they will be free and fair. And he did step down from his controversial role as army chief, but only after handpicking a loyal successor. Though on paper fundamental rights were restored on 15 December, freedom has not been returned to the illegally sacked judges, the top lawyers who supported them and the media.
While all of this wiles away at the great general's credibility both at home and abroad, in may in the end be the extremists, who had originally helped him prop himself up as the darling of the US war on terror, that will be his undoing.
On the ground, despite the government decision to deploy over 57,000 security personnel at polling stations in the NWFP, only six of the 24 districts have been declared "normal" in advance of 18 February general elections.
The Interior Ministry helplessly warns almost on a daily basis that suicide squads are bracing for more action.
On 4 February, only walking distance from army's general headquarters in Rawalpindi, a suicide bomber allegedly blew up his motorcycle, killing a dozen people including mid-ranking army officers from the medical corps.
The country's oldest and most respected newspaper, Dawn, commented that "terrorism is closing in on our cities."
The latest attack speaks volumes about the challenge Musharraf's successor, General Ashfaq Kayani, faces. Even though chosen by Musharraf himself, Kayani has his own ideas - ideas that are not going unnoticed in Islamabad and elsewhere.
In a subtle manner, Kayani has begun to systematically reverse some of the most significant policies of his predecessor such as prohibiting troops from meeting with politicians and withdrawing active army officers from civilian government institutions.
Kayani has openly stated that the war on terror cannot be won without public support for the troops.
Diplomatic circles are watching such developments with enormous interest as they believe a depoliticized military would be more suited to focus on its professional responsibilities. and general elections are less than two weeks away and the opposition gaining momentum in the wake of Bhutto's murder and the detention of popular judges, and by all accounts, Musharraf should be nervous.
The US-based International Republican Institute, led by presidential candidate Senator John McCain, and other groups have been barred from conducting exit polls ahead of elections for obvious reasons. Opposition parties are unlikely to accept the results of the election, while a sizeable number of ideological parties have opted out of the race in protest. Civil society and opposition politicians agree that polls under Musharraf will be far from free, fair and transparent.
In fact, as the terrorist attacks continue, the army's image and power chips away, the public disillusionment grows at an increasingly rapid pace, Musharraf is busy elsewhere: His biggest fear is winning the elections, and his efforts are now in all probability being diverted not to questions of national security but to questions of how to ensure an electoral victory later this month, by hook or by crook.
If the elections are rigged, it would not be the first time. The question is who will sit back and silently watch this time around? Europe might not, but Washington seems to have already voiced its opinion in the matter: Surely the elections will not be up to international standards, but this will have to be overlooked in the name of the war on terror.
For all intents and purposes, Musharraf has the US' permission to rig the elections, preferably as subtly as possible, so as not to irritate Europe or other impartial observers of democracy too much.

Peter Brooks for The Times: