Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

*** 9-Jul-17 World View -- Iraqi forces are just 'tens of meters' away from retaking Mosul from ISIS

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Iraqi forces are just 'tens of meters' away from retaking Mosul from ISIS
  
• Recapturing Mosul from ISIS leaves the future of Iraq in question
  

****
**** Iraqi forces are just 'tens of meters' away from retaking Mosul from ISIS
****


Displaced Iraqi people flee from fighting between Iraqi forces and ISIS in the Old City of Mosul on Friday (Reuters)

After six months of bloody fighting, Iraqi military commanders now say
that their forces are "tens of meters" away from recapturing the city
of Mosul from the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or
Daesh), which shocked the world by capturing the city in 2014 almost
overnight, and took control of almost one-third of all of Iraq.

The US military is confirming that "an announcement is imminent. I
don't want to speculate if it's today or tomorrow but I think it's
going to be very soon."

However, there are still things that can go wrong. ISIS is
claiming that it will "fight to the death" in the city. They're
trying to do as much damage as possible by shooting civilians
in the street, blowing up buildings, and laying IEDs to kill
Iraqi soldiers.

As a diversionary attack on Friday, ISIS militants attacked Imam
Gharbi village, a village south of Mosul, killing several people
including two journalists.

There are still hundreds of ISIS militants remaining in Mosul,
squeezed into a shrinking rectangle no more than 300 by 500 meters
beside the Tigris river. It's estimated that more than 10,000
civilians remained trapped in the same region, many of whom are being
used by ISIS as human shields. RFE/RL and Reuters and NRT TV (Kurdistan) and Daily Mail (London)

****
**** Recapturing Mosul from ISIS leaves the future of Iraq in question
****

ISIS is expected to be driven out of Mosul, its Iraq stronghold,
within the next few days, and out of Raqqa, its Syria stronghold,
within the next few weeks. However, it doesn't mean the end of ISIS's
influence, nor does it mean that Iraq is going to return to
"normalcy."

Mosul itself remains a humanitarian disaster, with little food or
water. From a city of two million people, thousands have been killed
and almost a million have been displaced, many living in camps outside
the city. It will be years before they can all return to their homes,
as almost every building in the city has been damaged or completely
destroyed. The United Nations predicts it will cost more than $1
billion to repair basic infrastructure in Mosul.

After being driven out of Mosul, ISIS will be forced into mainly
rural desert areas west and south of the city where tens of
thousands live. From there, militants can launch terror attacks
on targets across Iraq. Many of these ISIS militants will be
returning to their homes, where they lived before joining ISIS.

ISIS fighters will still be able to pursue new operations in Iraq,
according to Canadian Armed Forces Brig.-Gen. D.J. Anderson:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We’ve got a good 10-12 months' worth of business
> [ahead of us]. When I consider how much damage we’ve inflicted
> and they’re still operational, they’re still capable of pulling
> off things like some of these attacks we’ve seen internationally.
> [We] have to conclude that we do not yet fully appreciate the
> scale or strength of this phenomenon."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Finally, there are still unfinished business between the various
groups fighting ISIS. The Turks, the Kurds, and the Shia fighters
were excluded from much of the battle of Mosul. Shia militias were
excluded because of fears that they may turn on Sunni civilians living
in Mosul, as they did in other cities recaptured from ISIS. The Kurds
did much of the fighting prior to the entry into Mosul, and now are
talking about an independent Kurdistan. The Turks are still furious
that they were excluded from the Battle of Mosul, since Turkey has a
deep historic connect to Mosul and its people. All these groups were
willing to stand aside as long as they had ISIS as a common enemy.
Whether they'll continue to stand aside remains to be seen. Reuters and Saudi Gazette and Daily Caller and Daily Sabah (Ankara)

Related Articles

• Iraq in major crisis after catastrophic fall of Mosul to ISIS (11-Jun-2014)
  
  
• UN says lengthy Mosul operation leading to major humanitarian disaster (19-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Concerns grow over chaos in Iraq after ISIS is defeated in Mosul (22-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Iraq, ISIS and the West prepare for the Great Battle for Mosul to begin soon (01-Oct-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Iraq, Mosul, Syria, Raqqa,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh
Imam Gharbi village, D.J. Anderson, Turkey

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

(07-07-2017, 05:58 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]In 2003, I was writing my first book on Generational Dynamics, and I
wrote extensive histories of China and Russia, going back centuries.
I didn't say so explicitly at that time, but it was clear to me that
Russia and China were each other's historic enemies and would continue
to be, and that a Russian (Orthodox Christian civilization)
generational crisis war would be against against China (Mongolians)
and Sunni Muslim countries (Islamic civilization), and not against
Europe (Western civilization).

The identification of China with "Mongolians" is about as outre as would be the identification of Russia with "Mongolians".  The Mongols were central Asian; they were the perennial enemies of China.  Yes, they did take over China once, but they took over Russia at the same time.  The dynasty they established in China, as usual with "barbarian" dynasties who took control of China, eventually became Sinicized and lost its foreign character, and has in the centuries since been succeeded by several additional dynasties which had nothing to do with the Mongols.

It's not clear to me if the Mongols still exist as a geopolitical force today.  If they did, they'd be associated with Mongolia and Kazakhstan not with China.  Vestiges of the old adversarial relationship between the Mongols and the Chinese do still exist today in the conflicts in Xinjiang between the Uighurs and the ethnic Han.

Conflation of China with "Mongolians" would explain a lot about the questionable parts of your theorizing.

(07-09-2017, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> The identification of China with "Mongolians" is about as outre as
> would be the identification of Russia with "Mongolians". The
> Mongols were central Asian; they were the perennial enemies of
> China. Yes, they did take over China once, but they took over
> Russia at the same time. The dynasty they established in China,
> as usual with "barbarian" dynasties who took control of China,
> eventually became Sinicized and lost its foreign character, and
> has in the centuries since been succeeded by several additional
> dynasties which had nothing to do with the Mongols.

> It's not clear to me if the Mongols still exist as a geopolitical
> force today. If they did, they'd be associated with Mongolia and
> Kazakhstan not with China. Vestiges of the old adversarial
> relationship between the Mongols and the Chinese do still exist
> today in the conflicts in Xinjiang between the Uighurs and the
> ethnic Han.

The 1206 victory of the Mongols over the Han Chinese still has
enormous impact on Chinese thinking today.

** 6-Dec-10 News -- Mongol invasion of China in 1206 has impact today
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e101206

Han Chinese adopted much from Mongol culture, and many aspects of the
two cultures merged -- culturally, not ethnically.

After the Mongols conquered the Han Chinese, they went on to attack
the Russians. The Russian culture has definitely NOT merged with the
Mongol/Chinese culture. For example, the Chinese adopted the Mongols'
agricultural tax system and a four-tiered system for bureaucratic
preference, while the Russians did not do anything of the sort. So
your silly "outré" comment is completely incompetent.

(07-09-2017, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Conflation of China with "Mongolians" would explain a lot about
> the questionable parts of your theorizing.

You're becoming increasingly hysterical.

(07-09-2017, 10:30 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]Han Chinese adopted much from Mongol culture, and many aspects of the
two cultures merged -- culturally, not ethnically.

After the Mongols conquered the Han Chinese, they went on to attack
the Russians.  The Russian culture has definitely NOT merged with the
Mongol/Chinese culture.  For example, the Chinese adopted the Mongols'
agricultural tax system and a four-tiered system for bureaucratic
preference, while the Russians did not do anything of the sort.  

Both the Chinese agricultural system and the Four-tiered bureaucratic system by far predate the mongol conquest and go all the way back to the shang and zhou dynasties of the 2nd and 1st millenniums BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_occupations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system

(07-09-2017, 10:42 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> Both the Chinese agricultural system and the Four-tiered
> bureaucratic system by far predate the mongol conquest and go all
> the way back to the shang and zhou dynasties of the 2nd and 1st
> millenniums BC.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_occupations
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system

The wikipedia articles don't really contradict the claims by Stearns
that I quoted in my 2010 article. It may be, for example, that the
Mongol rulers adopted the ancient agricultural system and the
Four-tiered bureaucratic system, and actually seriously implemented
them as policies for the first time. This may be something that needs
further research.

Boomers are subjecting the western world to human rights tyranny and globalist tyranny. Note how selfish boombers in the 1990s saw the serbs about to break through the defenses of the muslim enclaves in bosnia, they were salivating at the prospect of plunder of would be undefended muslims especially when the serbs knew that those particular muslims had rejected what little greatness existed in modern islam and embraced globalistic decadence and degeneracy. The natural order of things was about to assert itself and the bosnian muslims were about to reap the consequence of betraying and subverting the natural state of human relations when the selfish and disgusting boomer intervened in order the subject to whole region to globalist and cultural Marxist tyranny. Then after 9/11 the boomer refused to abandon the globalistic decadence they've wallowed in during the previous decade and suppressed and subjected xers and millies to tyranny when they realized those generations would reverse the inept policies that boomers liked and that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur in the first place.

(07-09-2017, 08:03 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]Boomers are subjecting the western world to human rights tyranny and globalist tyranny. Note how selfish boombers in the 1990s saw the serbs about to break through the defenses of the muslim enclaves in bosnia, they were salivating at the prospect of plunder of would be undefended muslims especially when the serbs knew that those particular muslims had rejected what little greatness existed in modern islam and embraced globalistic decadence and degeneracy. The natural order of things was about to assert itself and the bosnian muslims were about to reap the consequence of betraying and subverting the natural state of human relations when the selfish and disgusting boomer intervened in order the subject to whole region to globalist and cultural Marxist tyranny. Then after 9/11 the boomer refused to abandon the globalistic decadence they've wallowed in during the previous decade and suppressed and subjected xers and millies to tyranny when they realized those generations would reverse the inept policies that boomers liked and that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur in the first place.

Wow! Are you running for political office?

(07-09-2017, 08:08 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2017, 08:03 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Boomers are subjecting the western world to human rights tyranny and globalist tyranny. Note how selfish boombers in the 1990s saw the serbs about to break through the defenses of the muslim enclaves in bosnia, they were salivating at the prospect of plunder of would be undefended muslims especially when the serbs knew that those particular muslims had rejected what little greatness existed in modern islam and embraced globalistic decadence and degeneracy. The natural order of things was about to assert itself and the bosnian muslims were about to reap the consequence of betraying and subverting the natural state of human relations when the selfish and disgusting boomer intervened in order the subject to whole region to globalist and cultural Marxist tyranny. Then after 9/11 the boomer refused to abandon the globalistic decadence they've wallowed in during the previous decade and suppressed and subjected xers and millies to tyranny when they realized those generations would reverse the inept policies that boomers liked and that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur in the first place.

Wow!  Are you running for political office?

Imagine how different the world would have been if the boomers immediately after 9/11 accepted that their incompetence and ineptitude allowed the attacks to occur and corrected their mistakes and allowed xers and millies to rise through the ranks based on performance. The snowball effects would have been dramatic. We would have bolstered the military to cold war levels, there would not have been a continued fear of terrorism because we would have at the very least profiled muslims if not outright banned muslims from entering the US. We would have had a peace treaty with North Korea because we would have accepted their request for a treaty back in the early 2000s and they would have been deterred by US capabiliities. Both Russia and China would have considered us a partner and a possible ally rather than an obstacle to their ambitions and/or a threat to their internal integrity. We wouldn't have had the TSA frisking old women and little girls for bombs because muslims would have been profiled. The negative effects of the boomers selfishness is obvious.

*** 10-Jul-17 World View -- Trump administration considers promoting Iran 'regime change'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Split grows between Iran's president Rouhani and hardliners
  
• Trump administration considers promoting Iran 'regime change'
  

****
**** Split grows between Iran's president Rouhani and hardliners
****


Iran's IRGC generals salute Supreme Leader Khamenei

When Hassan Rouhani was reelected in Iran's presidential election on
May 19, he clobbered his major opponent. Rouhani won 57% of the vote
in a large turnout, a huge margin against 38% for hardline cleric
Ebrahim Raissi, who was the favored candidate of Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.

Rouhani's victory came from overwhelming support of young people, who
came out in large numbers because of opposition to the hardline
restrictions on dress, free speech, and gender relations.

Iran is in a generational Awakening era (like America in the 1960s),
when there's a "generation gap" between the generations of traumatized
survivors of the previous generational crisis war (WW II for America,
the 1979 Great Islamic Revolution for Iran) and those in the
generations growing up after the war, with no personal appreciation of
the horrors of that war.

The people in Iran's young post-war generations are now in their 30s,
they are generally pro-Western and pro-American, and they have nothing
in particular against Israel. They do, however, share their parents'
vitriolic hatred for Saudi Arabia. The younger generations support
moderates like Rouhani, and the moderates become more powerful as
their supporters in the younger generations grow older, and more reach
voting age. The older generations support the hardliner geezers like
Khamenei, and the hardliners become weaker as the older generations
retire and die off.

So it should be no surprise that Khamenei and the other hardliners,
including Iran/s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) are panicking
and becoming increasingly desperate, as they see their power slipping
away. Rouhani's overwhelming victory on May 19 was certain to trigger
this panic, as well as desperate reprisals.

The relationship between Rouhani and the IRGC has become increasingly
tense in the last couple of weeks. Rouhani has openly challenged the
IRGC's outsized role in Iran's economy, and has attempted to limit the
IRGC's economic and political influence.

The hardliners have struck back in the last few days. Khamenei has
been comparing Rouhani to Bani Sadr, who was president of Iran in
1980-81, and was impeached by parliament. A prominent hardliner said,
"Those who seek to weaken Iran’s security and the IRGC are enemies of
the people." Judiciary Spokesman Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei, a
hardliner, views Rouhani in apocalyptic terms:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Today, the destruction of the Basij [domestic
> security force] ... and the Judiciary has intensified. Looking
> back at past experience, a fitna [sedition, civil strife] is
> ahead."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

All of this happened in the last couple of weeks. It's fairly certain
that the rhetoric will become increasingly vitriolic, as the hardliner
geezers become increasingly panicky, as they realize that they're
losing power to the younger generations and the moderates.

Every generational Awakening era ends with a climax that resolves the
"generation gap" with a victory of either the older or the younger
generations. In America, the climax was Richard Nixon's forced
resignation in 1974.

For that reason, Ejei's prediction of sedition and civil strife is
interesting. Rouhani's democratic victory suggests that the Awakening
era climax will end peacefully, probably with the death or resignation
of Supreme Leader Khamenei. If there is violence, it will probably
come from the hardliners and the IRGC, though I expect any such
violence to fizzle fairly quickly. AEI Iran News (3-July) and AEI Iran News (6-July) and Al Arabiya (Riyadh) and Arab News (Riyadh)

Related Articles

• Iran's younger generations propel Rouhani to decisive presidential win (21-May-2017)
  
  
• As Iran's election approaches, generational conflict becomes vicious (06-Feb-2016)
  
  
• Theological split in Iran widens as opposition protests continue (09-Nov-2009)
  
  
• Tens of thousands protest in Tehran after Rafsanjani says Iran is 'in crisis' (18-Jul-2009)
  

****
**** Trump administration considers promoting Iran 'regime change'
****

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who speaks regularly with White House
officials about foreign policy, said last month:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The policy of the United States should be regime
> change in Iran. I don’t see how anyone can say America can be
> safe as long as you have in power a theocratic
> despotism."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the following in
answer to a question during testimony to Congress:

> [indent]<QUOTE>Our policy towards Iran is to push back on [its
> regional] hegemony, contain their ability to develop, obviously,
> nuclear weapons, and to work towards support of those elements
> inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that
> government. ... Those elements are there certainly, as we
> know."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

These two remarks, among others, have generated suspicion and outrage
among some mainstream media commentators. Some say that this is
another example of president Donald Trump's "boneheaded" or "chaotic"
foreign policy, while others suggest that Trump is planning a coup or
invasion of Iran.

As I've written in the past,
I've
worked in the past with Steve Bannon, one of Trump's closest advisors.
Bannon is extremely familiar with Generational Dynamics and the work
I've done, and I believe that Trump and Bannon are guided by
Generational Dynamics principles and findings. In fact, I become more
and more convinced of this every day, as Trump's foreign policy makes
perfect sense to me from the point of view of Generational Dynamics.
This is in contrast to Obama's foreign policy, when never made any
sense to me at all.

Bannon and Trump are very well aware that "regime change" is coming
with 100% certainty, as an Awakening era climax. Tillerson's remarks
are consistent with that view, and presumably represent the views of
Trump and Bannon. Tillerson was vague about his intentions for regime
change, but I interpret his remarks to mean something on the level of
"meddling" to encourage an awakening climax to occur sooner.

Cotton's remarks, on the other hand, do not make any sense at all.
America is under no threat from the hardliners in Iran. As I've
written many times, the hardliners use daily anti-American and
anti-Western mainly for domestic consumption, without any intention of
attacking anyone in the West, including Israel. If and when Iran
attacks, it will be against Saudi Arabia.

So if we assume that Tillerson's remarks are administration policy,
then what can be done to speed up the Awakening era climax, and
encourage regime change? In my opinion, nothing. Some major event
within Iran, such as the sudden death of Khamenei, might trigger the
climax. (Or, it might not, if Khamenei is replaced by another
hardliner.) I don't believe that "meddling" in Iran's affairs will do
much good, but it probably won't do any real harm. However, anything
more substantial, such as a coup, could badly backfire. Washington Post and Politico (25-June) and Just Security (26-June) and Asia Times

Related Articles

• Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw Poland evokes the Clash of Civilizations (07-Jul-2017)
  
  
• President Trump's inauguration speech links today's America to the 1930s (21-Jan-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Iran, Seyed Ali Khamenei, Hassan Rouhani,
Ebrahim Raissi, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC,
Bani Sadr, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejei,
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Rex Tillerson, Tom Cotton

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

More Propaganda by disgusting boomer ideologues. For boomers it's good to have iranian young people to have complete power in the government but somehow evil for American and European young people to have any say whatsoever toward government policy. Are you boomers afraid that Xers and Millies would not regard the existence of the west as incompatible with the existence of any totalitarian government anywhere in the world. Don't boomers remember that the spanish and portuguese conquistadors had fairly good relations with both the Ming emperor and the Japanese shoguns. Spanish silver in that era, infused the Asian currencies of the day. Later when the British conquered India they had much better relations with the Muslims in British India than with the Hindus. The hostility toward the west only occurred later when first democratic cold warriors and later globalistic boomers tried to force globalism down their throats and tried to pressure them into abandoning key elements of their culture. Muslims do understand force, and they had much more respect for the original crusaders and treated them as regular prisoners of war, compare this with how islamists treat pows today: Because today's westerners under boomer leadership have embraced globalism, the Islamist regards any captured westerner a someone who would spread globalism to Muslims unless the westerner is executed by the Islamist at some point. Boomer globalism therefore has not only wrecked the west but destroyed its relations to a large extent with other civilizations.

(07-09-2017, 11:20 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> More Propaganda by disgusting boomer ideologues. For boomers it's
> good to have iranian young people to have complete power in the
> government but somehow evil for American and European young people
> to have any say whatsoever toward government policy. Are you
> boomers afraid that Xers and Millies would not regard the
> existence of the west as incompatible with the existence of any
> totalitarian government anywhere in the world. Don't boomers
> remember that the spanish and portuguese conquistadors had fairly
> good relations with both the Ming emperor and the Japanese
> shoguns. Spanish silver in that era, infused the Asian currencies
> of the day. Later when the British conquered India they had much
> better relations with the Muslims in British India than with the
> Hindus. The hostility toward the west only occurred later when
> first democratic cold warriors and later globalistic boomers tried
> to force globalism down their throats and tried to pressure them
> into abandoning key elements of their culture. Muslims do
> understand force, and they had much more respect for the original
> crusaders and treated them as regular prisoners of war, compare
> this with how islamists treat pows today: Because today's
> westerners under boomer leadership have embraced globalism, the
> Islamist regards any captured westerner a someone who would spread
> globalism to Muslims unless the westerner is executed by the
> Islamist at some point. Boomer globalism therefore has not only
> wrecked the west but destroyed its relations to a large extent
> with other civilizations.

Have you forgotten that Iran's young people are in the same Prophet
generation as America's Boomers? And that therefore the traits and
behaviors that you loathe as the disgusting epitome of evil in Boomers
are the same traits and behaviors that you love and adore in Iran's
young generations. You must have a lot of trouble dealing with your
schizophrenic emotions.

Assuming that you survive the war, wait till you're a little older,
and you begin to realize how much you're hated and loathed by younger
people.

(07-10-2017, 07:02 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-09-2017, 11:20 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]>   More Propaganda by disgusting boomer ideologues. For boomers it's
>   good to have iranian young people to have complete power in the
>   government but somehow evil for American and European young people
>   to have any say whatsoever toward government policy. Are you
>   boomers afraid that Xers and Millies would not regard the
>   existence of the west as incompatible with the existence of any
>   totalitarian government anywhere in the world. Don't boomers
>   remember that the spanish and portuguese conquistadors had fairly
>   good relations with both the Ming emperor and the Japanese
>   shoguns. Spanish silver in that era, infused the Asian currencies
>   of the day. Later when the British conquered India they had much
>   better relations with the Muslims in British India than with the
>   Hindus. The hostility toward the west only occurred later when
>   first democratic cold warriors and later globalistic boomers tried
>   to force globalism down their throats and tried to pressure them
>   into abandoning key elements of their culture. Muslims do
>   understand force, and they had much more respect for the original
>   crusaders and treated them as regular prisoners of war, compare
>   this with how islamists treat pows today: Because today's
>   westerners under boomer leadership have embraced globalism, the
>   Islamist regards any captured westerner a someone who would spread
>   globalism to Muslims unless the westerner is executed by the
>   Islamist at some point. Boomer globalism therefore has not only
>   wrecked the west but destroyed its relations to a large extent
>   with other civilizations.  

Have you forgotten that Iran's young people are in the same Prophet
generation as America's Boomers?  And that therefore the traits and
behaviors that you loathe as the disgusting epitome of evil in Boomers
are the same traits and behaviors that you love and adore in Iran's
young generations.  You must have a lot of trouble dealing with your
schizophrenic emotions.

Assuming that you survive the war, wait till you're a little older,
and you begin to realize how much you're hated and loathed by younger
people.

You misunderstand what admiration I have for Iran is for the generations that currently govern that country and took power in 1978-1979. The young people in Iran want to embrace globalistic decadence, completely different from young people in the west who want to overthrow boomer tyranny and reestablish western greatness. Ironically in iran it is the generation contemporaneous with the baby boomers that is maintaining and advancing that countries greatness.

The only reason we have hostile relations with Russia, China and North Korea is because the US keeps trying to ram democracy down those countries throats and refuses to truly acknowledge the legitimacy of those countries governments. Without that relations with them would have been much better. Remember that the US and the Chinese CCP had an effective alliance from 1969 until 1992 when the boomers gained full control of the US government. The root cause is the US under boomer leaderships inability to have normal relations with countries that have totalitarian systems of government. While at the same time the boomers refuse to allow a genuine military buildup because of their bias against the "military-industrial complex" and their belief that US winning wars and throwing its weight around would contaminate the so-called democratic pureness of the american people.

Homelanders and new prophets will likely rebel against democratic globalism, since Xers and millies despise democratic globalism they would all be allied against boomers.

*** 11-Jul-17 World View -- With ceasefire, American forces become more deeply involved in Syria's civil war

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• US, Russia, Jordan agree on ceasefire deal for southwest Syria
  
• Israel OKs ceasefire, but expresses severe misgivings
  
• With ceasefire, American forces become more deeply involved in Syria's civil war
  

****
**** US, Russia, Jordan agree on ceasefire deal for southwest Syria
****


Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg on Friday (AP)

The United States and Russia have brokered a ceasefire in a
"de-escalation zone" in southwest Syria. The agreement was reached in
a meeting between US president Donald Trump and Russia's president
Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg on
Friday. This meeting was the culmination of weeks of secret
negotiations held in Amman, the capital city of Jordan. The zone to
which the ceasefire applies is on Syria's borders with Jordan and
Israel. Jordan and Israel were consulted during the negotiations, and
are included in the agreement. Syria and Iran have agreed to the
deal.

According to the Russian press, the purpose of the de-escalation zone
is to help "disengage" (whatever that means) armed opposition from
groups recognized as terrorists by the UN Security Council. These
include the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh),
al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda linked groups like Al-Nusra Front (now known as
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham).

According to Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, a monitoring
center will be set up in Amman, Jordan, to be used to oversee the
ceasefire:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We agreed to use a monitoring center established by
> Russia, the US and Jordan in Amman to coordinate all the details
> of functioning of these de-escalation zones."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

According to Lavrov, many of the details have not be worked out.
However:

> [indent]<QUOTE>In this zone [southeastern Syria, in southern Daraa,
> Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces] the ceasefire regime will take
> effect on July 9 starting 12:00 Damascus time. The US took an
> obligation that all the militant groups, located there, will
> comply with the ceasefire.
>
> At first, the security around this de-escalation zone will be
> maintained with the help of Russian military police in
> coordination with the Jordanians and Americans."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

At the G20 summit on Friday, US secretary of state Rex Tillerson said
at a news conference:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I think this is our first indication of the US and
> Russia being able to work together in Syria, and as a result of
> that we had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in
> Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the
> areas."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The ceasefire took effect on Sunday at noon, Damascus time. Syrian
ceasefires in the past have usually fizzled within a couple of weeks,
but as of Monday evening, this ceasefire appears to be holding, with
only scattered violations. Russia Today and Russia Today and Times Live (South Africa)

Related Articles

• Russian-led Syria peace talks collapse in Astana, Kazakhstan (06-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Iran scores strategic victory in Syria with land route from Tehran to Mediterranean (20-Jun-2017)
  
  
• US shoots down Syrian warplane, as Iran launches missiles into Syria (19-Jun-2017)
  
  
• US and Iran headed for military confrontation in Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria (09-Jun-2017)
  

****
**** Israel OKs ceasefire, but expresses severe misgivings
****

Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave qualified approval of
the ceasefire agreement:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Israel will welcome a genuine ceasefire in Syria but
> this ceasefire must not enable the establishment of a military
> presence by Iran and its proxies in Syria in general and in
> southern Syria in particular.
>
> [We] had deep discussions about this last week with US Secretary
> of State Tillerson and with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both
> told me that they understand Israel’s position and will take our
> demands into account. ...
>
> [These demands include the following:] Prevent the strengthening
> of Hezbollah via Syria, with emphasis on the acquisition of
> precision weapons, prevent Hezbollah – or Iranian forces – from
> establishing a ground presence along our border, and prevent the
> establishment of an Iranian military presence in Syria as a
> whole."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

According to some reports, Netanyahu is opposed Russia's military
police taking sole responsibility for monitoring the ceasefire along
Syria's border, and is demanding that United States forces be
involved. Reading between the lines of Lavrov's statement (quoted
above), Russia appears to concur.

Although Israel is committed to avoid getting involved in Syria's war,
Israel has targeted Syrian weapons convoys headed for Hezbollah to be
used against Israel, and has targeted Syrian launchers when mortar
shells from Syria landed in the Golan Heights. Since Russia is such
a close ally of Syria and Hezbollah, Israel is insisting that Russia
not be the sole guarantor of the ceasefire. Israel National News and Reuters and YNet News and Israel Rising

Related Articles

• Israel's warplanes strike weapons depot inside Syria near Damascus (28-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Israel and Syria have unprecedented missile clash over Jordan (19-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Syria says that Israel bombed al-Mazzeh military airport near Damascus (14-Jan-2017)
  

****
**** With ceasefire, American forces become more deeply involved in Syria's civil war
****

For months, Russia and the Syrian regime have complained that
America's military presence in Syria is a violation of international
law, because unlike Russian forces, American forces have never been
invited into Syria by the Syrian regime.

The response is that with Syria's ISIS conducting terror attacks
around the world, including the US and Europe, and with Syria flooding
Europe with millions of refugees, the West is perfectly justified
under international law to enter Syria and kill off ISIS, for its own
protection and self-defense. There's no reason why the West should
just sit and wait for ISIS to conduct the next terror attack, since
obviously al-Assad is incapable of stopping ISIS, and may be promoting
the terror attacks on Europe.

These arguments may now be mooted by the ceasefire agreement. The
agreement has been approved by the Syrian regime, and it specifically
invites American forces into Syria. Therefore, I assume that
America's military in Syria is fully supported by international law.

However, the other side of that observation is that American forces
are getting more deeply involved in the war in Syria. If the war
settles down into a nice friendly peace, then that would be no
problem. However, it's far more likely that the current "ceasefire"
is merely serving to allow all the various forces -- the Russians, the
Syrian regime, Hezbollah, the Iranian forces, the remnants of ISIS,
al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army, the Turks, the Kurdish People’s
Protection Unit (YPG), and probably others -- to replenish their
weapons stores and reposition their forces, in preparation for the
next battle after the ceasefire collapses. This is particularly true
in Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria, which will be a major battleground
in the months to come.

There has been the usual mainstream media criticism of president
Donald Trump for having a chaotic foreign policy, and for working
closely with Russia's president Vladimir Putin, whom many Americans
see as an enemy.

For example, Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign
Relations, was interviewed on the BBC on Monday, and was asked why
this president "has been reluctant to be harsh on Russia and Putin."
His response:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I think that's still a mystery for which we don't
> have an answer. Whether it has something to do with that, or as
> you know there's any number of forms of speculation. All I can
> say is after a couple of years, Mr. Trump is has staked out what
> you would call a consistently benign or sanguine view towards
> Russian behavior. I don't understand it on the merits, so like a
> lot of other people, I keep wondering whether there's something
> that lies behind it, and if so what? ...
>
> I do not see [the Russians] as a natural partner of the United
> States in most situations."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Haas is wondering "whether there's something that lies behind it," and
as regular readers are aware, there is definitely something behind it.
Trump's foreign policy is not chaotic at all, but is completely
consistent and principled, because his close advisor Steve Bannon
deeply understands Generational Dynamics theory, and they are guided
by that theory.

As I've been writing for years, Generational Dynamics predicts that in
the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, America and the West
will be aligned with India, Russia and Iran, while China will be
aligned with Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries. The Trump
administration's "consistently benign and sanguine view" of Russia is
guided by this analysis, and the fact that Russia will be our ally.

That's not to say that one can be sanguine about the situation in the
Mideast. Everyone is united now in their determination to defeat ISIS
in Mosul, Iraq, and in Raqqa, Syria. The Iraqi military declared
"Mission Accomplished!" on Monday in Mosul, and victory in Raqqa is
expected within weeks. After that, the increasingly vicious
Shia-Sunni split will become more exposed, and any one of the warring
parties in Syria may decide to take action. Washington Post/AP and Al Monitor and LA Times

Related Articles

• Trump administration considers promoting Iran 'regime change' (10-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw Poland evokes the Clash of Civilizations (07-Jul-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Vladimir Putin, Russia, G20, Hamburg,
Syria, de-escalation zone, Amman, Jordan, Iran,
Sergei Lavrov, Daraa, Quneitra, As-Suwayda,
Rex Tillerson, Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu,
Richard Haas, Steve Bannon

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

The Boomers disloyalty to western values is obvious. When Boomers after 9/11 saw that Xers and Millies had dreams of their own, particularly in relation to how the conflict should be carried out; the boomber selfishly and tyrannically suppressed those dreams when they saw that Xers and millies envisioned the cleansing of the middle east. Think of the numerous Muslim cities that would have been razed to the ground, the numerous scenes of Xer and Millie troops bayoneting babies and brandishing the dead babies on the tips of the bayonets in front of the wailing women that would have occured, the numerous towns and villages that would have had their inhabitants lined up and machinegunned and the bodies buried in pits. All of that was prevented by the SELFISHNESS of the BOOMERS. The Boomber is a disgusting tyrant motivated purely by extreme selfishness and more loyal to their disgusting "ideals" than to their own children.

I'm seriously beginning to question your sanity.

JohnX the description I gave before of hypothetical conduct in the war on terror IS how we would have conducted military operations if the boomers hadn't been selfish and hadn't insisted on doubling down on their failed ideals even after 9/11. That is what would have happened had Xers and Millies been in their proper ranks and management positions relative to their age instead of being put in a state of arrested development by boombers who refused to retire and step down even after reaching the unspoken term-limits.

(07-11-2017, 09:16 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> JohnX the description I gave before of hypothetical conduct in the
> war on terror IS how we would have conducted military operations
> if the boomers hadn't been selfish and hadn't insisted on doubling
> down on their failed ideals even after 9/11. That is what would
> have happened had Xers and Millies been in their proper ranks and
> management positions relative to their age instead of being put in
> a state of arrested development by boombers who refused to retire
> and step down even after reaching the unspoken
> term-limits.

OK, soooooooooo you're saying that it's a GOOD thing that the boomers
were "selfish" and it's GOOD that they "doubled down on their failing
ideals," because otherwise the Xers and Millies would have been in
charge and would have followed a policy leading to total disaster. Is
that right?

No JohnX; what I am saying is that the policies put forth and envisioned by many Xers and Millies and mentioned often in my posts should have been allowed to been carried out. Doing so would have reestablished deterrence with regards to muslims and strengthened deterrence with more serious adversaries, namely Russia and China. It was testament to the boomers selfishness that these did not come to pass.

(07-11-2017, 10:31 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]No JohnX; what I am saying is that the policies put forth and envisioned by many Xers and Millies and mentioned often in my posts should have been allowed to been carried out. Doing so would have reestablished deterrence with regards to muslims and strengthened deterrence with more serious adversaries, namely Russia and China. It was testament to the boomers selfishness that these did not come to pass.

So I go back to my previous statement.

(07-11-2017, 11:02 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2017, 09:16 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]JohnX the description I gave before of hypothetical conduct in the war on terror IS how we would have conducted military operations if the boomers hadn't been selfish and hadn't insisted on doubling down on their failed ideals even after 9/11. That is what would have happened had Xers and Millies been in their proper ranks and management positions relative to their age instead of being put in a state of arrested development by boombers who refused to retire and step down even after reaching the unspoken term-limits.

No it's not. The actual Xers and Millies who people our military are not barbaric monsters like you seem to be.

The war became unpopular later on because people realized that the government was insisting in forcing the troops to fight with one arm tied behind their backs. Recruitment slacked off dramatically after about 2004 or so when it became obvious that Bush and co, actually believed the nonsense of turning Iraq into a western democracy. This was actually referenced during the 2016 election by Trump when he asked "we could have at least taken their oil".