Quite a good summary of things actually.

Welcome to the realities of history and now. At least, the USA is a democracy, and governments CAN (and are) be voted 'out'.
This is one very important difference between the Islamic caliphate and the USA.

Understanding world history is as simple as understanding the story of Abraham and Lot, when their herdsmen quarrelled over pasture (Gen 13)

[5 Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together. 7 And quarreling arose between Abram's herdsmen and the herdsmen of Lot.]

Whether its family or tribes or nations.. conflict is about RESOURCES.
If you don't have them, and someone else does, you either seek to cultivate a friendly relationship of trade and diplomacy or you declare war on them.
If it gets too close to the survival issue, war is usually declared anyway !

The UN and the romantically naive and unfounded optimistic idealism about human nature driving much of the Left, will evaporate at the first 'water shortage' or the such like.

Some nations will be like Lot...

"and he saw that the Jordan valley was green and well watered, so he CHOSE that for himself"

While Abraham went elsewhere. Of course, selfishness did not help Lot in the long run, alah Sodom and Gomorah. But many nation-states don't see this as happening to them. They all have their 'NeoCons'.

At its most fundamental level, where you have just TWO people dependant on resources, their cooperation will usually last until survival becomes the issue. At its macro level, nation-states are the same.

Human nature being what it is, there are also pride and greed issues not just simple survival.

HAMAS has just been elected into government, and Armageddon is one step closer. Lot and Abraham are at it again. But this time, Abraham is not 'giving Lot the choice'...he is keeping what he has, and "Lot" is not happy with this

Cameron,

Not sure I understand the 'link' between US neo-Cons and Islamic caliphates. There is a 14 centuries of difference and this creates all the difference.

14 centuries ago, there was no soverenty or borders. The Caliphates, Crusades, Roman and Byzantine were living were war was the norm. Having a strong army was the only guarantee of survival.

Its sad your article points that nothing have changed, the law of the jungle still remains.

Boaz,

Again you jump in with the biblical armagedon and quickly mix religion, history geography and politics.

Armageddon is a self fulfilling prophecy for the lazy and the vicious.
Hamas could have never come to power if neo-cons like yourselves gave the average palestinian a hope to live for and a job opportunity rather than stuffing them up for the last 5 decades.

Give us a break!

Fellow Human, "Not sure I understand the 'link' between US neo-Cons and Islamic caliphates."

It isnt really about neocons and caliphates, more about having an army of conquest that those in power will find ways to use. Mohammad's Army was for uniting the Arabs. once Bakr had achieved that he suddenly had a large and powerful army. No-one wanted to give that power up, so it went on a new conquest - the Persians in Iraq. The army was intended as a state of exception until the Arabs were united, but that exception became a state of permanence.

The US found itself in the same situation. It became a world power in four short years during the state of exception that was WWII. Then another state of exception, the Cold War, followed soon after. In the 1990s there were calls to close bases, bring troop shome, cut military budgets and stop weapons programs. But politicians, regions and communites were dependent on that military money. The US also did not want to give up that massive power or projection and the hegemony that came with it.

So the state of exception became a state of permanence with Iraq. The neocons found a new way to maintain the state of exception, and consequent US military power.

cam

Cameron,

Thanks for clarifying your perspective.
There is little accuracy in your definition of how the early islamic empire functioned. in the Islamic empire, armies where not dedicated (ie army personnel will go back to their normal jobs after a war or a conquest which is similar to military reserve system).
Even a Caliphate is likely to have a job (farmer or sheppard) when they are not at war.

The US follows the example of the Roman empire where the army/ military are dedicated personnel and force and hence the war machine becomes an economical driver (ie the war machine drives the large industries and large industries, in turn, stimulates small industries and business services).

The Roman / Byzantine / Mongols empires are much closer examples.

Peace,

Fellow Human, "in the Islamic empire, armies where not dedicated"

Yes, and the US soldiers dont get to divide the treasure of a land they conquer. I am not arguing about the structure of the army. Just that once a political grouping gains its power through a dominant military during a state of exception, it is politically unable, and unwilling to lose that power. The functions and prestige of state/culture/society become entwined with the military. It doesnt seem to matter if it is a trading society, an agrarian one, or an industrial one.

When people go to war and are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice, it is not plunder, things they know they may not enjoy, which is used to motivate.

The Almighty is invoked, the power which pales the power of the enemy into insignificance "even if I am defeated there is still the hope that my justice will ultimately prevail because God’s will cannot be defeated".

Economic arguments alone forget what it is that moves the soul.

Just because a person can’t live without eating doesn’t mean we live to eat.

If the motivations of faith are opaque to ppl's imagination, just look at history and pay attention to what Muslims say and do, and what the US says and does. (And read this brilliant journalist from the Asia Times;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html)

Essential to the faith in Islam is its eventual world domination, dar al harb must be converted to dar al islam (radically opposed to the Christian seperation of religion/politics.)

Islam has a holy book they believe was delivered to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel and that a copy exists in Heaven.

This ‘holy’ book and its explanatory Sunnahs are some of the most violent and repellent words committed to writing. The Qur’an tells Muslims to follow Mohammed’s example.

Mohammed’s example is to kill the infidel wherever they’re found, to break oaths when it suits them, to murder, rape and pillage in the name of Allah, and ensure that Muslims have political dominion over the world.

Examples of Muslims living out their faith is right before our eyes, in how they behave inside their own countries, and what they do to the so called enemies of Islam.

Why not take people at face value to begin with, why start here with a version of economic determinism.

Listen to the recordings of conversations between JFK then LBJ and McNamara try and find a conspiracy.

If you want to understand what the driving force of history is, pay attention to ultimate things as expressed by religion - the brute fact of death and our response to it