Francis Fukuyama's thesis, "the End of History"


Leilani Thompkins

          In the thesis, “The End of History”, by Francis Fukuyama, it is apparent that he felt much of the world would soon give in to the western liberal democracy way of living.  In his quote, “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”, he is stating just that, his view of how the world will soon be.  Through my interpretation of his writing I would assume that Fukuyama’s theory was extremely radical. 

            Within his thesis, Fukuyama explains the contrast of his ideas to those ideas of Karl Marx and Hegel.  He praises Hegel for being the first philosopher to speak the language of modern social science.  He somewhat down plays Karl Marx’s views as not being original, but more the expansion of Hegel’s views.  Throughout his writing, the most common confusion is the interpretation of his meaning of history with the meaning of events.  It is to my understanding that he was not referring to history as a whole ending with just a Western liberal democracy, rather over a span of time, history and the events to come will favor in that direction.

            I would have to agree with Fukuyama’s theory that the world will soon come to be predominantly democratic.  From what I have seen many countries have changed already to a democracy and if they have not, the people in a non democratic country seem to want to live in the United States so they may have that freedom and that right that is given to us. 


Theresa Williams

            Francis Fukuyama writes an article and a book arguing that the end of the Cold War is just a sign for the end of human growth in history. Fukuyama’s thesis has three main elements that he argues; an empirical argument, philosophical argument and then a variety of reasons.

            First Fukuyama shows that democracy has grown greatly since the nineteenth century to form most of the government. He also states that democracy “main intellectual alternatives” have become discredited. He saying that the government use to be equal where there where different views on situations, now all there basically is is democracy running the government. Second, Fukuyama viewed history to be made up of two classes, the master and the slave. This thesis didn’t go that far thanks to democracy. Fukuyama wanted the world to go back to slavery times where a person (the master) who owns land would control a certain amount of ‘slaves’. Finally he argues that for many reasons communism isn’t fit to represent democracy. Fukuyama believes that the communist isn’t ready for that type of responsibility, that they can’t handle it.

            Everyone has there opinion about things but Francis Fukuyama’s thesis I’m not quit sure about. First off about the slavery, not only me but I’m sure many people agree that slavery is over and done. Now don’t get me wrong I’m pretty much sure some agree with Fukuyama and see the world that way, but I’m not one of them. I’m not too familiar with communism, but I believe that if you don’t give someone a try or you have no faith in that certain person or thing then nothing will not come out right. Finally democracy taking over.  I agree with that statement democracy has come a long way from what I learned and read, but so have the others. Even though they probably not as advance they still part of the government.


Charles Williams

According to Mr. Francis himself, he wrote a book, and it described the war as The End of History and the Last Man I argued that, if a society wanted to be modern, there was no alternative to a market economy and a democratic political system. Not everyone wanted to be modern, of course, and not everyone could put in place the institutions and policies necessary to make democracy and capitalism work, but no alternative system would yield better results.

While the End of History thus was essentially an argument about modernisation, some people have linked my thesis about the end of history to the foreign policy of President George Bush and American strategic hegemony. But anyone who thinks that my ideas constitute the intellectual foundation for the Bush administration's policies has not been paying attention to what I have been saying since 1992 about democracy and development. President Bush initially justified intervention in Iraq on the grounds of Saddam's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, the regime's alleged links to al-Qaida, as well as Iraq's violation of human rights and lack of democracy. As the first two justifications crumbled in the wake of the 2003 invasion, the administration increasingly emphasised the importance of democracy, both in Iraq and in the broader Middle East, as a rationale for what it was doing. Bush argued that the desire for freedom and democracy were universal and not culture-bound, and that America would be dedicated to the support of democratic movements "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Supporters of the war saw their views confirmed in the ink-stained fingers of Iraqi voters who queued up to vote in the various elections held between January and December 2005, in the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and in the Afghan presidential and parliamentary elections. Inspiring and hopeful as these events were, the road to liberal democracy in the Middle East is likely to be extremely disappointing in the near to medium term, and the Bush administration's efforts to build a regional policy around it are heading toward abject failure. To be sure, the desire to live in a modern society and to be free of tyranny is universal, or nearly so. This is demonstrated by the efforts of millions of people each year to move from the developing to the developed world, where they hope to find the political stability, job opportunities, health care, and education that they lack at home. But this is different from saying that there is a universal desire to live in a liberal society - that is, a political order characterised by a sphere of individual rights and the rule of law. The desire to live in a liberal democracy is, indeed, something acquired over time, often as a byproduct of successful modernisation.

Moreover, the desire to live in a modern liberal democracy does not translate necessarily into an ability to actually do so. The Bush administration seems to have assumed in its approach to post-Saddam Iraq that both democracy and a market economy were default conditions to which societies would revert once oppressive tyranny was removed, rather than a series of complex, interdependent institutions that had to be painstakingly built over time. Long before you have a liberal democracy, you have to have a functioning state (something that never disappeared in Germany or Japan after they were defeated in the second world war). This is something that cannot be taken for granted in countries like Iraq. The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organisation. Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.

Finally, I never linked the global emergence of democracy to American agency, and particularly not to the exercise of American military power. Democratic transitions need to be driven by societies that want democracy, and since the latter requires institutions, it is usually a fairly long and drawn out process. Outside powers like the US can often help in this process by the example they set as politically and economically successful societies. They can also provide funding, advice, technical assistance, and yes, occasionally military force to help the process along. But coercive regime change was never the key to democratic transition.


Marvina Snell-Tall

The End of History, published in the international affairs journal The National Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues the controversial thesis that the end of the Cold War signals the end of the progression of human history. Fukuyama's basic argument is divided into two parts. The first is an empirical argument. It deals with the notion of "History" as opposed to history. The first case states that history is simply the happening of events, and the second case declares that history refers to the teleological dimension to history. He states that capitalism is ultimately the only viable economic system in the modern world given that he is writing at then of the Cold War and that all states must ultimately adopt free market capitalism. This thesis conflicts strongly with Karl Marx's version of the end of history. Marx believed them to be the cause of the evolution of "all hitherto existing society." He believed this state of classlessness to be inevitable though he did not venture to guess how long it would take for it to come about, and named it communism. Fukuyama's thesis, coming at the end of the Cold War the fact that "peace" seems to be breaking out in many regions of the world. Most of these analyses lack any larger conceptual framework for distinguishing between what is essential and what is contingent or accidental in world history, and are predictably superficial. First, Fukuyama points out that since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, democracy, which started off as being merely one amongst many systems of government, has grown until nowadays the majority of governments in the world are termed "democratic". He also points out that democracy's main intellectual alternatives which he takes to be various forms of dictatorship have become discredited. Second, there is a philosophical argument, taken from G.W.F. Hegel. Very briefly, Fukuyama sees history as consisting of the dialectic between two classes: the Master and the Slave. In his thesis the Master and antithesis Slave must meet in a synthesis, in which both manage to live in peace together. This can only happen in a democracy. Finally, Fukuyama also argues that for a variety of reasons radical socialism or communism is likely to be incompatible with modern representative democracy. Therefore, in the future, democracies are overwhelmingly likely to contain markets of some sort, and most are likely to be capitalist or social democratic. Fukuyama’s book does not mean that the natural cycle of birth, life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapers reporting them would cease to be published. It meant, rather, that there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions had been settled.


Melanie Dixon

I did not find this article as interesting as “The Clash of Civilizations”.   What I got from this article is that the world’s leading philosopher have been predicting by the end of the world as we know it since the French Revolution of 1806.  Since that time also, many political ideologies have developed like Marxism, Communism, Fascism and Marxist-Leninism.  After World War I and II, many of these ideologies remain constant; two mainly, Communism and Marxist-Leninism.  Similar to the article “The Clash of Civilizations”, the main clash will be of the nations and their social and political views, mainly China and Russia with the Western world.  Many countries are now being wooed by Western ideals and values in economics.  But Russia and China are still steadfast in spite of the changes going on in the world around them.  What the writer did not touch base with was the fact that these ideologies are also having an influence on some sects in the Western culture, namely in the United States.  Yes, some sects believe in fascism and communism while living in the United States. 

I find it amazing how Japan and China have found a way to tap into the Western economic race and prospered, yet remain holding on to their culture and religion.  Another issue he tapped into was the military build up of China and Russia and North Korea.  I find it peculiar how we, the United States, have pinned the wrong “axis of evil”  We need to pay more attention to Russia, China and North Korea and maybe even Japan and Saudi Arabia.  These countries at the “end of the world” will have prospered economically, maintained their religion, protected their culture and retained their political ideologies of Communism, Marxist-Leninism and Fascism and remain pure states.


Maria Cash



Valine Epps



Christopher Twitty



Destiny Young



Samuel Huntington's thesis, "the Clash of Civilizations"

Melanie Dixon

I.                    The Next Pattern of Conflict

 Mr. Huntington predicts that world politics will enter a new phase that ultimately dictate the end of history.  While yet nations will have their attentions on ideology and economics, the focus of the actual conflict will be the differences in culture and civilizations. He cites past conflicts such as the French Revolution and the World Wars as an example of conflicts among groups that had cultural differences took place.  The Cold War was about conflict between two national superpowers based on potential military might.

 II.                  The Nature of Civilizations

 He cites that during the Cold War, our world was divided into three different worlds by economics.  These three worlds are now divided by civilizations or cultures.  He defines a civilization and gives examples.  He explains that in a nation, there may be several cultures.  Arabs, Westerners and Chinese are civilizations.  They have the same language, history, religion, customs, institutions and self-identification of people.  It is a broad level of identity.  Examples of Asians are the Chinese, Korean and Malaysian.  Arabs are Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan.  Westerners are those from Great Britain, Europe and the United States.  He notes that Westerners regard themselves as primary actors in the world’s economy and believe that they carry a heavy influence on the world.

 III.               Why Civilizations will Clash

 The first reason why these civilizations will clash will be due to their different views on their relationship with God, within the society and government, within their family relationships, rights, liberty and authority.  The second reason is that people of other cultures are becoming more mobile and are traveling and interacting with people of other cultures.  The third reason is that because of socialization and economic modernization, people are becoming more educated.  People’s religious beliefs are getting stronger.  The fourth reason is that the economically powerful West is at the peak of power.  Many other countries want that power and are now striving to get it.  The fifth reason is that the cultural differences cannot merge into another culture and change.  They remain distinct no matter how modern that nation has become.  One must be totally of that particular culture.  Finally, world trade is increasing in other countries which is proving to be very beneficial to the economic status of other countries. The cultures will clash at two levels; geographic territory and military and economic power. They will fight over land and military power and economic prosperity.  Remarkably, the West has had little influence on Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures.  The ultimate players in the final conflict will be the West and other cultures.

 VI.                The Torn Countries

 The writer speaks of Mexico, Russia and Turkey being the torn countries in this clash of civilizations.  This is due partly because their recent histories leaves them ½ part of one culture and ½ part of another.  These countries do not know quite where they fit in on the sides of civilization. 

 IV.                Civilizations Rallying

 He explained that “kin-country” syndrome is groups or states belonging to one civilization, such as all of the Arab nations.  This fault line becomes clear when one speaks of the United States’ aggression in the Middle East.  The “holy war” against the United States is because they Arabs feel that the U.S. is against all Muslims and not just Iraq.  Thus you have the radical Muslims, the Al Queda, a group of people who ban together not along national lines but along culture lines and religion for one cause.

 V.                  The Fault Lines Between Civilizations

 In essence the fault line between civilizations will fall on religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam basically.  What is not new is that these battle boundaries have been drawn for over a thousand years.  Based on an active history of Westerners and Irabs, military interactions is predicted to continue.  These small battles, especially in North African countries, have caused some migration to Southern Europe.  Since 1990, the migration of Arabs and Turkish people have upset Italy, France and Germany.  Racism is ever increasing.  There are fault lines between religions in Africa, the Muslim and Hindu, between China and America, and Japan and America and Muslims and Serbs.

 VI.                The West Verses the Rest

 Apart from Japan, the West faces no economic challenge compared to other countries.  It dominates all international economic institutions.  The United States, Europe and Great Britain are indeed superpowers.  At the same time this section of the world has become quite arrogant with their ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free market and the separation of church and state and not to mention the technological advances of the military.

 VII.             The Confucian- Islamic Connection

 The West and the Confucian-Islamic states focus heavily on the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their ability to use them.   The Confucian-Islamic nations express a strong desire and interest in using them and the West is busy trying to deter them.  But the West is developing the same type of weapons.  This is on a path that cannot be stopped.  The interest in these weapons has migrated from Asian to the Middle East.  Most countries and civilizations believe that an arsenal of these weapons and knowledge of them is necessary in order to defeat any nation of the West especially the United States.

 I found Mr. Huntington’s essay to be very profound in that he attempts to predict the state of this world in the near future.  I wish more ministers could read this article to help people understand the condition this world is in.  I agree that soon, it will no longer be a war between nations of people but between cultures of people.  In Iraq, for example, the West has used its capitalist greed and military power to overthrow a government instead of attacking a leader of terrorism who for the past 10 years, continues to hide from world society.  The West submitted troops supposedly to police a state only to leave it in further confusion that it had before it killed its leader.  The Islamic culture is one to be respected in its native land.  It is not the West’s job to thwart its influence on other countries in a sneaky effort to overtake the country’s economic livlihood, oil and natural gas.  I find it ironic that while the West is focusing so much attention of the Islamic countries build up or experimentation of nuclear and chemical weapons that it has failed to notice the economic and military technological buildup of the same in China.  Let the Bush Administration threaten sanctions against China and see what happens.  While the United States is spending years “policing” Iraq, the other Islamic nations will begin to think along cultural lines, not national.  They will soon band together and realize that the West came to overtake their economy to make profit for itself.  They will find a way to save Iraq from Western dominance and ultimate run the west out of Iraq and Afganistan.  I hope the next Executive Administration of the United States will realize it too and pull out the military buildup before it’s too late.  The West cannot continue to go to other countries, steal from them and tell them how to run their government and change their culture.


Leilani Thompkins

            Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of how the primary form of conflict following the Cold War, would be the clashing of cultural and religious views, was nothing less than brilliant.  Although I do not agree with some of the points made in his theory, I would have to say that I enjoyed his way of thinking. 

            In part one of his thesis, the next pattern of conflict, he states that “conflict in the new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic”.  I would agree with this view because we are no longer fighting to gain land or to achieve something from another country that will financially benefit our country anymore.  He relates this point to when there were kings, emperors, and absolute monarchs.  During that time, the people in power were fighting to expand their bureaucracies, their armies, and most importantly the territory they ruled.  Now the wars fought are between nations.

            Huntington also describes his definition of civilization, being “the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species”.  I agree with this definition, however later in his thesis when he breaks down the world into eight civilizations, I can’t help but feel that he didn’t take enough in consideration for the characterizations.  He distinguished the differences of each mostly by religion.  This is not an accurate way of separating the world.  Granted, there usually is a dominate religion within a country, however that doesn’t mean that everyone in that “civilization” believes in the chosen religion.  For example, in his Muslim World he did not take in consideration the religious and ethnic lines and how the Kurds, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis, and Indonesians have extremely different world views.

            I also find it interesting that many people compare what has happened in modern day to what he predicted in 1993, especially with the war against Iraq.  It has been said that many Westerners as well as radical Islamists have welcomed Huntington’s theory, and this could be the reason why both sides have reacted the way have.  I find this very amusing!  I surely would hope that one mans theses would not be the sole base of today’s actions.  But there again, it is very impressive to see some of Huntington’s views, written almost fifteen years ago come to present day happenings.


Theresa Williams

            Samuel Huntington started out by gathering information on the theories about the behavior of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Samuel Huntington’s thesis argued that the world was going back to normal, but the future conflicts will start between ‘civilizations’. He argued that all conflicts would revolve around cultural and religious views. He divided the world into seven groups depending on the culture of the place. The seven groups are Western, Latin American, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu and Slavic-Orthodox. He argued that at micro level there will be conflict between borders of civilizations because the end of ‘ideological confrontation between liberal democracy and communism’. At macro level he suggested that the conflicts will be between states of different civilizations fighting for both military and economic power and also to take control of international institutions. Huntington also argues that the widespread of the Western’s civilizations beliefs and political systems are unworldly. He said if it continues it would only make enemies with other civilizations.

              Samuel Huntington’s thesis makes sense to a certain point, but I don’t agree with it. He said that because of people have different beliefs and culture, that it would cause problems. Now that might be true to a certain point but I don’t think that it would actually start something major every single time. I think people understand that there culture or beliefs isn’t the only one in the world, there are many different ones. The only reason I think a conflict would start is if they were disrespected or something to that nature. He also said that Western civilizations are powering the other civilizations. Like before that might be true to a certain point, but I strongly believe one civilization cannot power six other civilization. Maybe it can power one or two but not all. The way I think Huntington sees the world as a big war waiting to happen and every civilization will be involved. Huntington’s thesis I think is a little over the top. I mean, every country, state, etc. has their problems but I don’t think it would carry on to a point where eventually everyone is involved. It’s a good thesis but little exaggerated.  



Marvina Snell-Tall

The noted author Samuel Huntington who penned,“ The Clash of Civilizations” this piece has Huntington's thesis outlines a future where the "great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural." In an interview with David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report. Gergen asked the author, “Why do you believe that in the 21st century clashes will be between or among civilizations?” He replied, “Because the world has evolved and, in particular, western civilization has evolved, and those clashes that you mentioned were all within western civilization.” Civilizations evolve over time, and most scholars of civilization, including people like Carol Quigley, argue that they go through periods of warring states, and eventually evolve into a universal state. The West hasn't reached its universal state as yet, although its close to it, but it certainly has evolved out of its warring state phase, which it was in for a couple of centuries.” Huntington‘s thesis states that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. He opens chapter one of the book with a meeting of Russian and American scholars that took place in the auditorium of a government building in Moscow. In the early, 1990s the US and RUSSIA were two of the most powerful countries on earth. Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. Second, the world is becoming a smaller place. The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasings; these increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations. Third, the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities. They also weaken the nation state as a source of identity. Fourth, the growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.


Destiny Young

            I believe Samuel Huntington’s thesis on “Clash of Civilizations” is about humankind and the source of international conflict.  People are different from each other by religion, history, language, and tradition.  He talks about how the world is returning to a civilization dominated where future conflicts would originate from clashes between “civilizations.”  He said “ the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Samuel divided the world’s culture into seven current civilizations, Western, Latin America, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, and Slavic Orthodox.  He argues at the end between liberal democracy and communism will see future conflict occurring along the borders between civilization at a “micro level.” This is mostly what I got from the thesis, I tried to get more out of it, but I think I hit some of the main points on what he was talking about. I know its not 400 words but I tried to keep it short.


Charles Williams

According to on, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ by Samuel Huntington’s thesis is that global politics has entered a new phase. According to Huntington, previous phases of global conflict were dominated by princes, nation states, and ideologies, respectively. All of these conflicts were within Western civilization. However, with the end of the Cold War, Huntington argues, non-Western civilizations "join the West as movers and shapers of history." Conflict in this new phase of world politics, according to Huntington, will center on clashes between civilizations, which he defines as "the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species." This thesis relates directly to Western relations with Islamic civilization in the Middle East.

Huntington offers many persuasive arguments to defend his thesis. Differences between civilizations, he says, are basic and fundamental. For example, differences in political ideology can be resolved; this is not often the case regarding differences in religion and culture, two important characteristics that differentiate civilizations. This argument helps explain America’s problems installing democracy in Iraq. Western civilization emphasizes secularism and political democracy. Many Muslims, however, do not believe in separation of church and state and want to live under Islamic law. We can view this conflict, therefore, as one between civilizations.

Globalization intensifies this problem because it has decreased the world’s size. In a small world, differences are more visible. As the world modernizes, many communities begin to lose their local identities, and religious fundamentalism steps in to fill the void. Religious fundamentalism unites people across national boundaries, and this is particularly evident with Arabs in the Islamic world, who often see American interventions in the Middle East as attacks on Islam itself instead of attacks on a single state.

As further proof that civilizations are clashing, Huntington cites economic regionalism. He argues that "economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization." The Economic Cooperation Organization, which includes non-Arab Muslim countries like Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, provides an example. These nations joined together largely because the believed that the European Community would not accept them. Other regional economic organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Common Market prove that countries with similar cultures are more likely to succeed in economic cooperation.

Huntington argues persuasively that conflict on the "fault line" of Western and Islamic civilizations has occurred for 1,300 years. He defends this assertion by citing Muslim intrusions into Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, the Crusades, and a host of other historical conflicts between the West and Islam. This conflict, he says, will worsen. As proof, he cites the fact that many Arabs were proud of Saddam Hussein for fighting the West in the Gulf War and were angered and humiliated by the American military presence in the Middle East after the war.

"Kin-country syndrome," Huntington’s term for civilizations uniting across national boundaries, helps prove his thesis. During the Gulf War, as mentioned above, many Arabs cheered Saddam Hussein. Despite a strong rivalry between Iraq and Iran, Iran’s religious leader encouraged Muslims to pursue a Holy War against the West. By 1993, domestic pressure had forced all of the coalition’s Islamic nations, with the exception of Kuwait, to bow out.

Huntington supports his thesis by citing Muslim accusations of a Western "double standard." Muslims throughout the Islamic world criticize the West for not intervening to protect Bosnian Muslims from Serbs and for failing to punish Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. He argues that this proves his thesis because, when civilizations are in conflict, double standards should be expected. It should come as no surprise that the West utilized force against Iraq but fails to force its kin countries to behave.

This article helps explain America’s lack of success in Iraq. America’s occupation has failed because American leaders have failed to understand the fact that fundamental differences between civilizations exist. Islamic civilization and Western civilization differ drastically in their views on the relationship between church and state, men and women, freedom, and authority. In his conclusion, Huntington calls for Western leaders to "develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations…" American Iraqi policy has largely ignored this advice, and continuing the occupation and/or invading Iran could provoke a catastrophic clash of civilizations that would kill thousands. To avert this, America must withdraw from the Middle East and allow Arab governments to run their own affairs.


Maria Cash



Valine Epps



Christopher Twitty