Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy
> toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against
> the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing
> the "military-industrial complex".

WHAT are you talking about?

Each of your postings is more bizarre than the previous one.

[Warren Dew]

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

Which Boomers?  The Boomer left, maybe.

Trump is concerned about political support and the potential for irrational escalation on Kim's part.  The military folks are concerned that the Navy is in such sad shape from years of neglect under the sequester that it may not be able to perform a major strike mission.

[Kinser79]

(08-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

Which Boomers?  The Boomer left, maybe.

Trump is concerned about political support and the potential for irrational escalation on Kim's part.  The military folks are concerned that the Navy is in such sad shape from years of neglect under the sequester that it may not be able to perform a major strike mission.

Despite what the Lugenpresse tells you Kim Jong-Un is far from irrational.  The basis of Juche political theory (the Political ideology of the DPRK) is heavily revised Marxism-Leninism.  This means that the ruling ideology of that country is materialist and non-spiritual in nature.  Given that, it should be noted that what may appear crazy to the West are in fact calculated gambles on the part of the many Kims (Starting with Kim Il-Sung but ramped up heavily under Kim Jong-Il, continued by Kim Jong-Un [who was selected because the older son Kim Jong-Nam had expressed reformist tendencies, he was later assassinated]).

Generally speaking whenever the DPRK gets low on food or medicines, or whatever else, they test a missile and threaten South Korea (which they are still technically at war with anyway).  Over all they are unlikely to ever use nuclear weapons unless the regime is under serious threat.  The only real issue is if China backs them.  China's main interest in the DPRK is as a buffer state to Japan.  I should hopefully not have to explain why they would have such an interest, but otherwise the Kims seem to be more trouble then they are worth most times.

As to how to deal with the DPRK, if the goal is to take Kim out we should do so and do so quickly.  The ROKs have been spoiling for a rematch for a while now.  It is still part of the state agenda for the Republic of Korea (ROK) to reunify Korea under their banner just as Juche dictates for the DPRK.

As such pressure should be put on China to stay out of Korea, and to let the ROKs do most of the leg work.  As for the sad state of the navy, I would only say that is true of the carrier forces (which some thinkers view as potentially obsolete anyway).  We have a solution to that problem.  A great big unsinkable air craft carrier in the Sea of Japan.  This aircraft carrier also apparently has geisha girls and sushi bars.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 14-Aug-17 World View -- Kenya fears violence as opposition refuses to accept presidential election results

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Kenya's election commission announces that Uhuru Kenyatta is reelected president
  
• Kenya's opposition leader Raila Odinga promises to 'remove' the Uhuru Kenyatta government
  

****
**** Kenya's election commission announces that Uhuru Kenyatta is reelected president
****


President Uhuru Kenyatta giving election victory speech on Saturday

Tensions continue to boil in Kenya as the opposition leader, an ethnic
Luo, continues to claim that Tuesday's presidential election was
rigged by the government in favor of the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta, an
ethnic Kikuyu.

There is widespread fear of a repeat of the inter-tribal violence that
followed the 2007 election, killing more than 1,200 people, and
punctuated by numerous atrocities, when Odinga lost the presidential
election to another Kikuyu, Mwai Kibaki.

For decades, Kenya's elections have been suspected of riggings, but
challenges have always been summarily rejected by Kenya's Supreme
Court. This time, it had been hoped that careful preparation by the
country's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) would
produce an election result that was so carefully computed that no one
would challenge it. The key was a sophisticated IT system managed by
the IEBC. But then on July 31, the man in charge of the IT systems,
Chris Msando, was found brutally murdered,
with broken fingers and other evidence of torture,
including strangulation.

After the election on Tuesday, the IEBC announced preliminary results
showing a 54% victory for Kenyatta, with 44% to Odinga. Odinga
claimed that his people had collected election results from each of
the districts in the country, and that his figures show that he had
won, not Kenyatta. He said that the IEBC's IT systems had been
hacked, which the IEBC denied.

By Friday, the IEBC had received all the paper ballots from all the
districts, and had counted all of them individually. The result was
the same -- 54% for Kenyatta to 44% for Odinga.

Diplomats from numerous countries are saying that Kenyatta won the
election fairly, and that Odinga should now concede defeat, which he
is refusing to do. 24 people have been killed in post-election
violence, and further violence is feared. Reuters and The Nation (Kenya) and CNN

Related Articles

• Torture and murder of election official raise fears of violence in Kenya (01-Aug-2017)
  
  
• Increasing violence in Kenya revives fears of tribal war (07-Jun-2016)
  
  
• Kenya protests take an increasingly dangerous turn (08-Jun-2016)
  

****
**** Kenya's opposition leader Raila Odinga promises to 'remove' the Uhuru Kenyatta government
****


Opposition leader Raila Odinga with thousands of supporters in Nairobi on Sunday

Despite enormous international pressure to concede defeat, the major
opposition candidate Raila Odinga is refusing to do so, and continues
to claim that the election was rigged, although he has provided no
evidence so far.

On Sunday, Odinga addressed a crowd of 4,000 cheering supporters in
Kibera, an enormous slum in Nairobi, Kenya's capital city. With the
crowd chanting "Uhuru must go," he blamed Jubilee, Kenyatta's
political party, for the post-election violence that killed at least
24 people:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I am telling Jubilee that they have spilled innocent
> people's blood, they will pay for it. Because Jubilee has deployed
> troops with guns to kill innocent people, tomorrow (Monday) you
> should not leave your house, there is no work tomorrow . Then on
> Tuesday (August 15) I will give out the direction as to what we
> need to do."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

After the 2007 elections, Odinga's claims of rigging were thought to
be the trigger for the massive inter-tribal violence and atrocities
that followed. In the 2013 election, Odinga challenged the election
results in the courts, but the court rejected his claims.

This time, Odinga has announced that he will overturn the election
results, not through the courts but through the people. It's not
known what known what action Odinga will announce on Tuesday, but it's
feared that it could trigger more violence.

Whether violence is likely is discounted by some analysts, who point
out that people remember the 2007 violence, and have no desire to
repeat it.

However, in one way violence has been increasing since 2007. Raila
Odinga is a member of the marginalized Luo tribe, which is an offshoot
of the Kalenjins, a nomadic herder people. Uhuru Kenyatta is from the
market-dominant Kikuyu tribe, which represents farmers and large
landowners. In the classic battles between herders and farmers, there
have repeated instances of violence between Kalenjins and Kikuyus this
year. In fact, there have been some Kalenjin politicians inciting
violence against large landowners. The result could be new rounds of
violence, with Odinga accused of inciting the violence. The Star (Kenya) and Reuters and Guardian (London)

Related Articles

• Post-election massacre in Kenya raises concerns of tribal war (02-Jan-2008)
  
  
• Ethnic revenge massacre in Kenya kills 41 (22-Dec-2012)
  
  
• Kenya's herders attack well-known conservationist, stoking tribal tensions (24-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Herders invade ranches in Kenya, ambush and kill British ranch owner (07-Mar-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Kenya, Kisumu, Kibera,
Luo, Kikuyu, Uhuru Kenyatta, Raila Odinga, Mau-Mau Rebellion,
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, IEBC,
Mwai Kibaki, Jubilee

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

[Warren Dew]

(08-13-2017, 06:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

Which Boomers?  The Boomer left, maybe.

Trump is concerned about political support and the potential for irrational escalation on Kim's part.  The military folks are concerned that the Navy is in such sad shape from years of neglect under the sequester that it may not be able to perform a major strike mission.

Despite what the Lugenpresse tells you Kim Jong-Un is far from irrational.

I agree.  This is why I advocate taking out his nuclear weapons without threatening his regime.  Rationally, once that has happened, he should refrain from all out war on South Korea since that would result in his regime being eliminated as well, instead settling for symbolic retaliation.

But I would not be the one gambling 100,000 lives in Seoul on his rationality.  Trump would.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-14-2017, 02:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 06:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

Which Boomers?  The Boomer left, maybe.

Trump is concerned about political support and the potential for irrational escalation on Kim's part.  The military folks are concerned that the Navy is in such sad shape from years of neglect under the sequester that it may not be able to perform a major strike mission.

Despite what the Lugenpresse tells you Kim Jong-Un is far from irrational.

I agree.  This is why I advocate taking out his nuclear weapons without threatening his regime.  Rationally, once that has happened, he should refrain from all out war on South Korea since that would result in his regime being eliminated as well, instead settling for symbolic retaliation.

But I would not be the one gambling 100,000 lives in Seoul on his rationality.  Trump would.

Kim is being rational.  It is the precedents of lesse now.... Ah YES, man.  Do the regime changes in Iraq,Libya, and now Syria ring a bell?   Kim's nukes are an insurance policy against regime change. As such, given prior incidents, hell yeah, he'll turn Seoul into a rubble heap by either conventional or atomic weapons.  At least that's the action I'd take if attacked by the US deep state. And... there's more man.  regime change in Iran 1953, Iran / Contras, Chile, ad nauseam.

[Kinser79]

(08-14-2017, 02:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 06:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 05:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 12:24 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers are trying to keep "strategic patience" as the US policy toward North Korea. They refuse to allow a US first strike against the north because of their narcissistic obsession with opposing the "military-industrial complex".

Which Boomers?  The Boomer left, maybe.

Trump is concerned about political support and the potential for irrational escalation on Kim's part.  The military folks are concerned that the Navy is in such sad shape from years of neglect under the sequester that it may not be able to perform a major strike mission.

Despite what the Lugenpresse tells you Kim Jong-Un is far from irrational.

I agree.  This is why I advocate taking out his nuclear weapons without threatening his regime.  Rationally, once that has happened, he should refrain from all out war on South Korea since that would result in his regime being eliminated as well, instead settling for symbolic retaliation.

But I would not be the one gambling 100,000 lives in Seoul on his rationality.  Trump would.

Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.  We're not talking about some low IQ nation that is dominated by a semi-feudal political ideology masquerading as a religion as with Libya, Iraq and etc.  The word on the street is that the ROKs are ready to go.  The Japanese are ready to roll (the DPRK is an existential threat to them and has been for decades).  Also my sources in the fleet tell me that President Daddy has deployed several Boomer (ETC: Ballistic Missile submarines carrying nuclear warheads) submarines.

So Kim might have one to ten nukes, but we have hundreds.  The real question is China and if China will back him up or not.  Not to mention that tensions between China and India are escalating--if the PRC doesn't back Kim he has no hope.  It was only with Mao's help and Joe Stalin's political pressure his grandfather was preserved as a buffer for China.

An eastern invasion of Soviet Union/Russia is a logistical nightmare in the 1950s as well as today.

As for Seoul, they've been staring down the barrel of a gun for over 50 years.  What needs to happen is that Kim needs to understand that at least for the next 3.5 years the US won't have a feckless and weak foreign policy, and if he wants antibiotics, rice and diesel fuel he needs to behave or we can and will take him out.

The main thing keeping him in power now is the fact that Seoul isn't keen on having the PLA crossing the Yalu river.  Sure the DPRK's army is larger but ROK's has better weapons and isn't half starved.

[Warren Dew]

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 15-Aug-17 World View -- Pakistan celebrates its 70th birthday, wondering what Pakistan is

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Pakistan celebrates its 70th birthday, wondering what Pakistan is
  
• Generational history of the 1947 Partition War that created Pakistan and India
  

****
**** Pakistan celebrates its 70th birthday, wondering what Pakistan is
****


A government building in Lahore is illuminated in the colors of Pakistan's national flag in celebration of independence (Reuters)

August 14, 1947, was the day that the state of Pakistan was created,
the result of splitting the Indian subcontinent into two states, India
and Pakistan. The concept devised by the two founders, Hindu leader
Mahatma Gandhi and Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was that people
of the two religions would live separately, and so at peace.

India was to be a secular state, albeit with a Hindu majority, but
what was Pakistan to be? Another secular state? What is Pakistan?

Jinnah in 1947 must have looked at Saudi Arabia and Turkey as examples
of Muslim states. Turkey was a Sunni Muslim majority secular state,
while Saudi Arabia was a Sunni Muslim majority Muslim state.
Apparently, Jinnah didn't like either of those examples. He didn't
want Pakistan to be a secular state like Turkey, because then it would
be just another India, but he also didn't want Pakistan to exclude
other religions, as Saudi Arabia does.

The result today is that Pakistan still doesn't know what kind of
state it is. It's a Sunni Muslim state, but it still has a sizable
Shia Muslim minority, and smaller minorities of other religious
faiths, including Sufis and Ahmadis, which are Islam spinoffs, and
Christians.

The vast majority of Pakistanis are accepting of all of these
religions, but there is a significant minority that support terror
groups associated with Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP, Pakistan Taliban) that
want to exterminate the other religions, particularly the Shias, the
Sufis, and the Ahmadis, and conduct frequent terror attacks on their
mosques, their schools, and their markets.

Many Pakistanis blame Jinnah himself for these problems, for allowing
the seeds of these problems to be sown in 1947, rather than finding a
way to prevent.

However, what Jinnah didn't foresee -- what nobody foresaw, not the
Britons, not Gandhi, nor Jinnah, nor anyone else -- was the Partition
War that followed. Since this war was so unexpected, it's almost
impossible to believe today not only that it occurred, but how
incredibly bloody it was, filled with all kinds of sadistic atrocities
by both Hindus and Muslims, including mass murder, mass rapes, burning
down entire villages, mass slaughter, and forced migration.

One thinks of World War II ending in 1945, but not for Pakistan and
India. The Partition War of 1947-48 was at least as bloody and
horrific as any battle of the world war that proceeded it, resulting
in two million people killed and over ten million displaced from their
homes.

Pakistan since then has been completely haunted by the Partition War.
Pakistanis want to blame India, but they know that they're to blame as
well. Officially, Pakistan wants to live in peace with India, but
large segments of the government, particularly the army, anticipate a
new war with India, often in revenge for the Partition War. Living
with such schizophrenia, no Pakistani president in 70 years has ever
completed the full five-year term described by the constitution.
Every president has been thwarted by assassination or a coup. Just in
recent weeks, Pakistan's Supreme Court ordered president Nawaz Sharif
to step down because of unproven allegations of corruption, and now
Pakistan has a new acting president, Mamnoon Hussain, until elections
are held next year.

By the way, my understanding is that the name "Pakistan" is a hybrid.
It was formed in the 1930s from the name of the largest region,
Balochistan, by removing the "Baloch" part, and replacing it with P
for Punjab, A for Afghanistan, and K for Kashmir. A later
interpretation of the name says that I is for Indus, S is for Sindh,
and T is for Turkestan, leaving only the "AN" as the remains of the
original name, Balochistan.

Today, Kashmir is an open sore in the India-Pakistan relationship.
The worst fighting in the Partition War was in Punjab Province, which
contains Kashmir, and which was split into two parts by new
Pakistan-India boundary. Dawn (Pakistan) and Al Jazeera and Pakistan Today

Related Articles

• New report examines terrorism and religious extremism in Pakistan (26-Apr-2012)
  
  
• 'Hindutva' terrorist violence against Muslims shocks Indians (06-Nov-2008)
  
  
• Generational history of Karachi Pakistan since World War II (27-Aug-2015)
  

****
**** Generational history of the 1947 Partition War that created Pakistan and India
****


Muslims on a train from New Delhi to Pakistan in 1947 (AP)

The Partition War was the last generational crisis war for both India
and Pakistan, but you can't understand it unless you go back at least
as far as the previous generational crisis war, the bloody 1857 Indian
Rebellion, also called India's First War of Independence from the
British colonial power.

As I described in detail last year,
Hindu veneration of cows, and apparent British disrespect for
cows, was a major trigger for the 1857 Rebellion. This disrespect,
and the alleged defiling of Indians' bodies, led to riots and mutinies
that spread across India. The war lasted over two years and resulted
in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

During the generational Awakening era that followed by 1857 Rebellion,
there were renewed protests and demands for independence from Britain.
Cow protection had already started again as a symbol of Hindu
nationalism as early as 1882, as cow protection societies began to be
formed at that time. Cow protection became more and more important as
a nationalist symbol in the following decades.

Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian peace activist, launched a "non-cooperation
movement" against the British, involving civil disobedience. The
Awakening era climax occurred on April 10-12, 1919, with the horrific
Jalianvala Bagh Massacre (Amritsar Massacre), when British troops
opened fire on 10,000 Sikhs holding a protest meeting, killing
hundreds. That event, which is still remembered with shock to this
day, convinced both the British and the Indians that Britain should
completely give up control of India.

As the discussion of independence evolved over the following decades,
led by Gandhi and Jinnah, the principal debate was whether there
should be a single Indian state, or two states living side-by-side in
peace, and in the latter case, how the boundary should be drawn.

The argument that won the day was that Muslims can't stand pigs and
Hindus can't eat cows, and so they can't live together, leading to the
decision to have two separate states, India and Pakistan.

However, drawing the boundary has led to enormous problems that
haven't been resolved to this day. The most difficult problems were
the provinces of Punjab in the west, and Bengal in the east, both of
which had heavily mixed populations, and both of which were split down
the middle.

Punjab was the epicenter of the Partition War. Millions of people
left their homes, with Hindus and Sikhs moving from Pakistan Punjab to
India, and Muslims moving from India Punjab to Pakistan. Today, the
tensions between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir, which is part of
Punjab, have not been resolved, as we've reported many times in the
past year, and the region is headed for another war, essentially
re-fighting the Partition War.

However, the story is quite different for Bengal province. It too was
split down the middle, but that region in the east was on a different
generational timeline than Punjab, so the Partition war was a
non-crisis war for Bengal. The province was split into West Bengal,
which became part of India, and East Bengal, which became a completely
separate part of Pakistan known as East Pakistan, while the Pakistan
we know today was called West Pakistan.

East and West Pakistan really had almost nothing in common. The
population of West Pakistan was mostly ethnic Punjabis, Pashtuns, and
Sindis, and Urdu was the official language. East Pakistan consisted
mostly of Urdu-speaking Biharis and Bengali-speaking Bengalis, as I described in detail
last year.

So Bengal's turn for a generational crisis war came 2 1/2 decades
later in 1971. The Bengal war was a bloody civil war, repeating the
rapes, beheadings, mutilation and other atrocities of the 1947
Partition war in the west. Pakistan's army supported the Biharis,
while India's army supported the Bengalis. In the end, the Bengalis
won. East Pakistan gained independence in 1971, and called itself
Bangladesh, while West Pakistan just became plain Pakistan.

So on Monday of this week, Pakistan celebrates the 70th anniversary of
its independence. On Tuesday, India celebrates the 70th anniversary
of its independence. What seems to be clear is that neither country
is really celebrating independence. What they're really doing is
commemorating the horrors of the 1947 Partition War, and wondering how
they'll get past it. In view of all that's happened in the last 70
years, it's hard to see that either country has a great deal to
celebrate, especially since they're headed for a new generational
crisis war in the next few years. Dawn (Pakistan) and Pakistan Today and Al Jazeera and Dawn

Related Articles

• Generational history of cow protection in India and Hinduism (07-Aug-2016)
  
  
• Bangladesh tries to recover from Dhaka terror attack, the worst in 40 years (03-Jul-2016)
  
  
• India's 'Operation All-Out' brings Kashmir closer to all-out war (24-Jun-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, Pakistan, Punjab,
Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Hindus, Sikhs,
Sufis, Ahmadis, Partition War, Nawaz Sharif, Mamnoon Hussain,
East Pakistan, Bengal, Bangladesh, Biharis, Bengalis, 1857 Rebellion,
Jalianvala Bagh Massacre, Amritsar Massacre,
Tehrik-e-Taliban, TTP, Pakistan Taliban

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

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 16-Aug-17 World View -- France promotes 'G5 Sahel' peacekeeping force in west Africa after jihadist attacks

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Jihadists attack multiple targets in Mali and Burkina Faso
  
• France calls for international peacekeeping in G5 Sahel force
  

****
**** Jihadists attack multiple targets in Mali and Burkina Faso
****


Djenna Mosque in Timbuktu, Mali, built around 1300

On Sunday night, gunmen opened fire on the Aziz Istanbul café in
Ouagadougou, the capital city of Burkina Faso, killing 20 people and
wounding several others. Last year, in January 2016, jihadists with
AK-47s attacked a café called Cappuccino and a hotel on the same
street as the Aziz Istanbul Café.

On Monday in Mali, gunmen attacked two camps of the UN peacekeeping
force in Mali, one in the northern city of Timbuktu and the other in
the central city of Douentza.

Gunmen stormed into the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated
Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) in Mali headquarters in Timbuktu on
Monday and opened fire, killing seven. In a separate incident Monday,
armed assailants attacked a U.N. Compound in the city of Douentza and
opened fire on U.N. peacekeepers and Malian soldiers, killing one
peacekeeper. In both attacks, the gunmen were shot dead.

The United Nations Security Council responded in its most forceful
manner by condemning in the strongest terms “the barbaric and cowardly
terrorist attack carried out in Ouagadougou,” and reaffirmed that
“terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the
most serious threats to international peace and security."

After the attacks on Monday, Mahamat Saleh Annadif, head of MINUSMA,
said, "I do not have enough words to condemn this cowardly and
despicable act." Quartz and UPI and Med Africa Times and AFP

****
**** France calls for international peacekeeping in G5 Sahel force
****

France's military has been conducting anti-terrorism operations in
northern Africa since 2013, when France intervened to prevent Mali's
collapse from an assault from ethnic Tuaregs and al-Qaeda linked
jihadists. In 2014, France launched Operation Barkhane to wipe out
armed terrorist groups in the Sahel, a term that refers to the strip
of Africa just below the Sahara desert, separating the Arab north from
Black Africa to the south.

France has 4,000 peacekeeping troops in Operation Barkhane in five
countries: Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad. However,
the cost of maintaining this peacekeeping force is high, and so
France's new president Emmanuel Macron would like to turn Operation
Barkhane into an international peacekeeping force, sponsored by the
United Nations.

On June 21, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution
approving the "G5 Sahel Joint Force," which would consist of 5,000
soldiers and police. The Trump administration had threatened to veto
the resolution, because most of the cost would be borne by the United
States, the leading financial contributor to UN peacekeeping
operations. So the resolution was passed after a compromise between
the US and France that dropped a provision that invoked chapter 7 of
the UN charter, which authorizes the use of force and UN funding.
Instead, the resolution was written so that the &euro;423 first year
budget would be funded by pledges from UN countries.

There have been pledges by France and the European Union, but not
nearly enough. However, the multiple terror attacks Burkina Faso and
Mali in the last few days has resulted in renewed efforts to get
funding. A donor conference will be held in Berlin in September, and
a planning conference in Brussels in December. United Nations
and Foreign Policy (13-June) and RFI (22-June) and Eurasia Review (1-July) and Le Monde

Related Articles

• Acting unilaterally, France sends army and air force into Mali (12-Jan-2013)
  
  
• Did France kick a hornet's nest with military intervention in Mali? (18-Jan-2013)
  
  
• France pulls out of Central African Republic as sectarian violence grows (01-Nov-2016)
  
  
• France's new president Macron commits troops to Mali 'as long as necessary' (20-May-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou, Aziz Istanbul café,
Mali, Timbuktu, Douentza, Mahamat Saleh Annadif, France,
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission, MINUSMA,
Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Operation Barkhane, G5 Sahel Joint Force

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

[Kinser79]

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 17-Aug-17 World View -- China opens a new front in its border war with India

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China opens a new front in its border war with India
  
• Survey of Bhutan's people shows high anxiety over border confrontation
  
• North Korea apparently backs down from the threat to attack Guam
  

****
**** China opens a new front in its border war with India
****


Pangong Lake is in the Himalayas over 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) high on the Tibetan plateau. (AP)

With the border confrontation between China's and India's armies at
Bhutan's Doklam Plateau still simmering, China has apparently opened a
new front in another part of their 3,500 km (2,175 mile) border.

While Doklam Plateau is far to the east, Lake Pangong is on the western
part of the China-India border, actually forming part of the border
between China-occupied Tibet and the India-government portion of
Kashmir.

According to Indian sources, Chinese soldiers on Tuesday tried to
enter Indian territory at two different places. India troops blocked
the Chinese troops by forming a human chain of Indo-Tibetan Border
Police personnel. This apparently is standard fare from time to time
between the two border armies.

What was different this time was that the Chinese soldiers began
throwing stones at the Indians, for which the latter retaliated. Both
sides sustained minor injuries. According to an Indian army officer:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Chinese troops tried to enter Indian terrain on
> Tuesday (August 15) when our soldiers were celebrating
> Independence Day.
>
> The incident occurred along the banks of Pangong Lake, a popular
> tourist attraction on the Indian side of the border in Ladakh.
>
> [After two hours,] the situation was brought under control after a
> drill which saw both sides holding up banners proclaiming their
> rights over the disputed area before stepping back to their
> respective positions."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Apparently this banner drill is the customary way for Indian and
Chinese troops to step back from a confrontation. The border standoff
has been going on for yet, but so far, no bullets have been fired for
decades.

However, the situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC - as the
India-China border is called) has been deteriorating since April, and
has been escalating since the Doklam standoff began in June. China's
president Xi Jinping was apparently caught by surprise when Indian
troops came to Bhutan's defense at the Doklam Plateau, and now has to
decide whether to start a border war or to stand down. Either
approach could be a major humiliation for him at the Communist
People's Congress in November.

What was China's side of the story? By the end of the day on
Wednesday, China denied knowing anything about the confrontation.
Greater Kashmir and The Hindu and India West and The Quint

****
**** Survey of Bhutan's people shows high anxiety over border confrontation
****

Bhutan, caught between the two giants India and China in the standoff
over Bhutan's Doklam Plateau, is the perfect potential example of the
old saying, "When the elephants fight, the grass gets stomped." A
recent analysis of the social media in Bhutan shows that most
Bhutanese would favor a better diplomatic relationship with China.
However, Bhutanese are aware that China's army invaded Tibet and
simply annexed it, and most Bhutanese worry that China would do the
same to Bhutan -- invade Bhutan and annex Doklam Plateau or all of
Bhutan. The Diplomat

Related: China and India prepare for border war at Doklam Plateau (12-Aug-2017)

****
**** North Korea apparently backs down from the threat to attack Guam
****


Kim Jong-un inspects the army's proposed plans for launching missiles towards Guam on Monday (KCNA)

North Korea has apparently backed down from the threat to launch
ballistic missiles at Guam, which contains US military bases. As he
had previously promised, North Korea's child dictator Kim Jong-un
waited for the presentation from the Korea People's Army (KPA), and
received a briefing on Monday. After hearing the presentation, he
announced that he would "give the Americans a little more time."

There are two theories about why he backed down. One is that he was
responding to President Donald Trump's threat to unleash "fire and
fury" on North Korea, and later adding that the military options are
"locked and loaded." The second theory is that China forced North
Korea to back down. However, no one doubts that Kim could change his
mind again at any time. 38 North and
North Korea Leadership Watch

Related: Japan will shoot down N. Korean missiles via 'collective self-defense' (13-Aug-2017)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, China, Pagong Lake, Tibet,
Bhutan, Doklam Plateau,
North Korea, Kim Jong-un, Guam

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

[Warren Dew]

(08-16-2017, 09:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: While Doklam Plateau is far to the east, Lake Pangong is on the eastern
part of the China-India border, actually forming part of the border
between China-occupied Tibet and the India-government portion of
Kashmir.

You mean "western part", not "eastern part", right?

I think Kim was responding to Mattis' statement that it would be "game on" if Guam was attacked.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-17-2017, 01:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:43 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: While Doklam Plateau is far to the east, Lake Pangong is on the eastern
part of the China-India border, actually forming part of the border
between China-occupied Tibet and the India-government portion of
Kashmir.

You mean "western part", not "eastern part", right?

I think Kim was responding to Mattis' statement that it would be "game on" if Guam was attacked.

Thanks for the correction.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 18-Aug-17 World View -- Barcelona attackers apparently had multiple coordinated attacks planned

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Barcelona attackers apparently had multiple coordinated attacks planned
  
• ISIS takes credit for the Barcelona attack
  
• White House officials appear to differ on North Korea military option
  

****
**** Barcelona attackers apparently had multiple coordinated attacks planned
****


People walk down a main street on Thursday in Barcelona, where a van mounted the sidewalk and ploughed into people. (AP)

Thirteen people died and over 100 were injured in a terror attack on
Thursday at 5:30 pm, when a van ploughed into crowds strolling down
the street in Barcelona's famous Las Ramblas area, a top tourist
destination.

The driver fled on foot after the attack and has not been found. Two
passengers in the van have been arrested, one who was born in Morocco,
and one who was born in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in north
Africa.

Authorities believe that the Barcelona attack is linked to an
explosion hours earlier in Alcanar, about 125 miles south of
Barcelona. The house was apparently a bomb-making factory, filled
with bottles of propane and butane. The explosion completely
destroyed the house, killing one person and leaving seven more with
injuries.

Another terror attack, in Cambrils, a coastal town south of Barcelona,
was thwarted by police early Friday, when four alleged attackers were
killed and another was seriously injured. The fact that all in all
there were three attack sites indicates that this was bigger than a
lone wolf attack, and was considerably more complex.

Motor vehicles are being increasingly used as weapons of terror,
because they're easy to use, require no training, and are impossible
to detect in advance by authorities. The most recent motor vehicle
attack occurred on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia, by neo-Nazi
James Alex Fields Jr., who drove his car into a crowd of protesters,
killing one an injuring 19 others.

In the last three years, deadly car-ramming jihadist attacks have
occurred in several European cities, including Paris, London,
Stockholm, Berlin, Nice France, and Nantes France. It's feared that
the number of these attacks is going to increase. AP and BBC and CBS News

Related: Nice France terror attack provokes desperate search for solutions (16-Jul-2016)

****
**** ISIS takes credit for the Barcelona attack
****

The so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) immediately
took credit for the Barcelona attack through its Amaq public relations
agency:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The perpetrators of the Barcelona attack are soldiers
> of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to
> calls for targeting coalition states."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

ISIS has a policy of simply taking credit for any terrorist act, even
when it had nothing to do with it, and there's no reason to believe
that ISIS did anything to support or direct the Barcelona attack.

However, ISIS has been using its online sites to encourage lone wolf
attacks by individuals against the own home countries, especially the
"coalition states" mentioned in the Amaq message. These are countries
in the US-led coalition attacking ISIS in Syria.

ISIS is under attack in both Iraq and Syria, and has been almost
completely expelled from Mosul in Iraq, and will soon be expelled from
Raqqa in Syria. As they've been losing ground, they've changed their
online strategy. They used to post videos encouraging young jihadists
from around the world to come to Syria and join ISIS, but that message
is no longer viable. Now their online videos are almost exclusively
targeted at encouraging young jihadists to attack their home
countries, with a car attack advocated as one of the best terror
techniques, because it's easy to do, requires no training, and is
almost impossible to detect in advance by authorities. Business Insider and BBC and AP

Related: Iraqi forces are just 'tens of meters' away from retaking Mosul from ISIS (09-Jul-2017)

Related: Final push to expel ISIS from Raqqa, Syria, to begin in June (16-May-2017)

****
**** White House officials appear to differ on North Korea military option
****

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, it's been clear for
some time that North Korea is not going to stop nuclear and ballistic
missile development until they have a nuclear ballistic missile
capable of reaching the United States mainland. North Korea's child
dictator Kim Jong-un has repeatedly ignored sanctions and aid
proposals by the West, hoping to stop the development. But Kim is
thought to believe that once that point has been reached, his regime
will be safe from attack, since no one would want to risk nuclear
retaliation.

Many people have suggested that the US should launch a cruise missile
attack on North Korea to take out their nuclear and ballistic missile
development sites. Once again, from the point of view of Generational
Dynamics in this generational Crisis era, it's clear that Kim is
determined to forestall this option, and has done so with hundreds of
artillery batteries on the boundary with South Korea, within targeting
range of the South Korean capital city Seoul.

Full disclosure: As I've described in the past,
I've worked with Steve Bannon off and on for several
years in the past, both on his movie "Generation Zero" and when I was
cross-posting articles on the Breitbart National Security site, and I
know personally that he is an expert on military history and world
history, and also has an expert understanding of Generational Dynamics
and generational theory.

So it's significant that Bannon appears to agree with the Generational
Dynamics analysis of the situation. In an interview with American
Prospect magazine, Bannon said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s
> nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the
> equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die
> in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know
> what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they
> got us."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In a recent analysis on White House policy in Korea,
I quoted South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham,
who said that war with North Korea is "inevitable," and:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"If there’s going to be a war to stop him [Kim], it
> will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over
> there. They’re not going to die here. And he [Trump] has told me
> that to my face."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

However, both Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said Thursday that the U.S. still has the option of using
military force. According to Mattis:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I can just assure that in close collaboration with
> our allies there are strong military consequences if [North Korea]
> initiates hostilities."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

And Tillerson said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Obviously, any diplomatic effort in any situation
> where you have this level of threat that we're confronted with, a
> threat of proportions that none of us like to contemplate, has to
> be backed by a strong military consequence if North Korea chooses
> wrongly."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The statements by Mattis and Tillerson are presented by the media as
contradicting Bannon's position, but that's clearly not true. Mattis
and Tillerson are saying that if North Korea initiates hostilities,
then they will get a strong military response. Bannon is saying that
if North Korea does NOT initiate hostilities, but instead continues
development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, then it's
inevitable that they will develop a nuclear ballistic missile, and
then we will be more or less at their mercy. Those statements are not
contradictory.

And Graham's is not contradictory either. It says that, one way or
another, war with North Korea is "inevitable," and that an effort will
be made to confine the war to the Korean peninsula. That's a
worthwhile objective, but it's totally delusional to believe that it
could succeed in a generational Crisis era. American Prospect and Washington Examiner

Related: Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States (03-Aug-2017)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Barcelona, Spain, Alcanar, Melilla, Morocco,
Cambrils, Charlottesville, James Alex Fields Jr.,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh
Amaq, Mosul, Iraq, Raqqa, Syria,
North Korea, Steve Bannon, Lindsey Graham,
Jim Mattis, Rex Tillerson

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

[Warren Dew]

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: And Graham's is not contradictory either.  It says that, one way or
another, war with North Korea is "inevitable," and that an effort will
be made to confine the war to the Korean peninsula.  That's a
worthwhile objective, but it's totally delusional to believe that it
could succeed in a generational Crisis era.

The Spanish Civil War was limited to the Iberian peninsula during a crisis era.  There could be limited wars prior to the big one.

[Warren Dew]

(08-16-2017, 09:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

Sure.  But it takes time to rebuilt nuclear reactors to produce plutonium, and enrichment plants for bomb grade uranium.  Those can be destroyed faster than they can be rebuilt.  Nuclear weapons take good scientists, but they require a production infrastructure.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-18-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

Sure.  But it takes time to rebuilt nuclear reactors to produce plutonium, and enrichment plants for bomb grade uranium.  Those can be destroyed faster than they can be rebuilt.  Nuclear weapons take good scientists, but they require a production infrastructure.

? Another war?   No, wars are like playing cards. We have too many cards in our hand, so if we add another card,
NK, we need to discard another war, say like Afghanistan. Also, don ya think we need a war tax? I think if the US fights a war, it needs to be paid for. Since we have so many wars, lets put 'em on budget and raise taxes enough to pay for them all. 

"require good infrastructure" Uh,  maybe they have some fissile stuff stashed.  I even bet they've stashed nuke missile supplies as well. It's simple, Kim does not want to be another "We came, we saw, he died".  Anyone who could, would take what the US has done in the past and stash stuff in random spots.

Political issues = I think China among others would be involved in some of that political and real fallout, so to speak.

Oh, but hey, lets get another war in Asia, cus then thats just one more thing to complete the circle. Remember the Apollo ?  That's what NK's rockets remind me of.

And...  campus unrest you bet.  Remember that man?  Alt Right = Wallace folks , assorted lefties, well, NOW then, SJW's into feminism now.

And... We even have our new Weather Underground sorts = Teenage Mutant Ninja Antifas, or they could be latter  day of acolytes of Gus Hall.

I wonder if we're gonna then move on to Iran and get some more re-duxes. like a hostage crisis or oil shut off.

And so it is, what was, shall be again, what was old is new again.  

Dazed and Confused

---Rags

[Warren Dew]

(08-18-2017, 02:01 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: ? Another war?   No, wars are like playing cards. We have too many cards in our hand, so if we add another card,
NK, we need to discard another war, say like Afghanistan. Also, don ya think we need a war tax? I think if the US fights a war, it needs to be paid for. Since we have so many wars, lets put 'em on budget and raise taxes enough to pay for them all. 

Sure, pull out of Afghanistan.

Quote:Political issues = I think China among others would be involved in some of that political and real fallout, so to speak.

China will object but will be secretly pleased that we took care of the problem.

Quote:And...  campus unrest you bet.  Remember that man?  Alt Right = Wallace folks , assorted lefties, well, NOW then, SJW's into feminism now.

No draft, no boots on the ground.

Quote:I wonder if we're gonna then move on to Iran and get some more re-duxes. like a hostage crisis or oil shut off.

I'm sure after North Korea has been made an example of, Iran will be more than happy to renegotiate their deal to our liking.