http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html

If one really makes an effort to discover first rate critiques of the neo-imperialism of Mr. Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’, the wise reader might opt for such thinkers as Edward Said and his devastating ‘Clash of Definitions’ in his essay collection ‘Reflections on Exile and Other Essays’. Or one might read Amaryta Sen whose ‘ Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny’ is ­­­­­­­­­­­­ the most through going dissection of Mr. Huntington’s arguments, yet to date.  Even if one favors a more ‘mainstream approach,’ the useful volume   ‘The Clash of Civilizations? The Debate (  A Foreign Affairs Reader) would be a much preferred starting point.  It might be argued that Cockeyed Platonist (CP) is not the best thinker to evaluate Mr. Huntington’s neo-imperialism, masquerading as highbrow comparative cultural criticism: although both Huntington and CP love the great overarching  abstraction, as a key element  in their forms of argument.  While CP genuflects to the work and memory of the ‘great’ Huntington, his criticism lacks the depth, strength and political honesty displayed by both Said and Sen. The question might be asked as: How can a document that led the way for misguided policies and policy makers, be quoted as a document containing anything resembling wisdom and or as a guide to any reasonable political action, predicated on reliable data? This question and many others remain unanswered.