(a book I read a some time ago;  I'm republishing the email that I sent around trying to cajole my friends/co-workers into reading it)

• until recently the bulk of the conflicts in most parts of the world -- particularly in the West -- happened within civilization boundaries (for ex., france vs. germany...  N. vs. S. Vietnam...  US vs. Canada -- just kidding)
• however, within the past few decades, most conflicts are now inter-civilizational (Islam vs. the West;  Hindu vs. Islam; Sinic vs. West)
• the notable exception to this trend has been the Islamic world where both intra-civilizational conflicts (e.g. Iran vs. Iraq;  Sunni vs. Shiite; everyone vs. the Kurds) and inter-civilizational conflicts have exploded in the past 20-odd years;    something like 50% of all world armed conflicts since WWII have involved at least one islamic state.  
• very interesting point -- handoff from "pax brittainica" to "pax americana" after WWII was comparatively conflict free b/t US and UK b/c both parties were the same civilization;  previous handoffs were confrontational within a civilization -- UK vs. Spain in 1600s; 
• there's a very good chapter that gives a quick intro to what Huntington considers the "essential elements" of western civilization;  for ex., :
• dark ages + renaissance (prior to these events, the West and Orthodox were a single "roman/classical" civilization)
• Greek / Roman experience (in part led to a deep belief in the nation / govt / 'bureaucracy' that doesn't exist to same degree in Islam, for ex.,)
• limited govt / individual rights (despite general belief in govt, there's also comparatively strict dictates about what the govt can / can't do to the citizenry)

• absolute height of relative western power was a few years after WWII -- at that point in history, leaders of US + UK (and a few others) had almost absolute ability to draw national borders for other countries, appoint leaders, etc.  "Opposition" towards application of power came principally from within (e.g. internal protestors) or from other civilization members (e.g. Britain vs. France in dividing up African & SE Asian colonies)     Now, in relative terms, other nations/civilizations have caught up and have far more "political capital" on the world scene;    
• many civil wars/insurrection in recent years have been oriented around civilizational membership (for ex.,  is Bosnia "orthodox" or "islamic"?   Is indonesia Sinic or Islamic?)
• civilization membership also causes interesting dynamics for "up and coming" states.  Stick in one civilization and run it vs. move to a wealthier civilization:
• should Turkey assert itself in the Western world (current course), Orthodox world, or become a leader of the Islamic world (b/c of it's much better per-capita GNP, political system,etc. vs. other countries there like Saudi Arabia);  acceptance by West of Turkey has been problematic though
• is Australia a Western country or SE Asian?   Many in australia want to "defect" to the Sinic world but likelihood of acceptance seems low (similar to Turkey situation)?  
• is Mexico "defecting" from the S. / Latin American block by trying to join NAFTA?
• should russia become anchor state in orthodox civ or should it try to join the West?
• how is the large and very prosperous ex-pat chinese population in SE Asia affecting their politics?
• S. Africa has potential to be the leader of the sub-saharan civilization but in some ways is looking more towards the West

---