Generational Dynamics World View

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2020, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-13-2020, 08:33 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Tsk tsk.  As usual, I'm the only person in this generational theory forum who actually considers generational theory to be valid.

If you mean the original insights of Strauss and Howe, you may have some such claim.  I consider turning theory to have merit, but point out that S&H took most observations from the Industrial Age and did not account fully for the age transition.  Like any theory, you often have to tweak to keep the theory valid.  In the case of Einstein tweaking Newton, it can be quite a tweak, but a tweak for physicists more than engineers.  For most people and most environments, Newton is good enough.  

Anyway, a failure to adopt to new data doesn't make devotion to a dated theory a good thing.

I recognize the significance of boundary conditions. It is a good way to avoid getting pulled into a trap. 

Obviously it is essential to consider what is not the result of the generational theory (technology? natural disasters? brilliant creative people? random luck?) from what is. Generational theory can't explain the Krakatoa eruption (although it seems to divide the Missionary and Lost generations). Coincidence? Maybe, and I am not going to go further with that argument. 

Time in which one is born is environment.  Obviously one sees very different worlds if one is born in 1877, 1897, 1922, 1937, 1952, 1977, 1992, or perhaps 2012.  Maybe we have better means of forcing people to see the salient events of the past, so just because one is born in 1955 doesn't mean that one can't see such shocking images as newsreel footage of Nazi murder camps as if they were a part of one's conscience even if those date from ten years earlier. 

Video is one way of preserving historical reality for its effect upon consciousness. It will be a long time -- maybe never -- before the Nazis get any redemption in history. On a less sordid theme, we have sound and video recordings of musical and theatrical performances, so we can all get to see Gene Kelly's climactic dance in An American in Paris and hear the very different performances of Bach's suites for solo cello by Mstislav Rostropovich and Pablo Casals. Those cellists may be silenced, but their performances live on. In opera, Maria Callas and Luciano Pavarotti live on.

Institutional changes happen, and some of them stick. Some changes are at most ephemeral fads, like fins on cars in the late 1950's or 'mod' clothes in the 1960's. Some, like the near abandonment of smoking, seem likely to stick.   

Successful habits stick.  I expect elderly people to remain physically and intellectually active as long as possible, which is good for extending a lifespan and a life with some quality in experience -- as long as they can get away with it. I see Boomers doing this for grand principle as opposed to GI rationality or a Silent zest for life... and figure that retirement age will soon overtake the first wave of Generation X. Staying active intellectually and physically may only be 'pragmatic' for X... people may find different reasons for doing the same thing. 

The recursion of history is the forgotten lessons therefrom. Consider as an example at the speculative bubbles of the 1920's and the Double-Zero decade. Speculative bubbles look like easy money and are more profitable than 

1. starting new shoe-string businesses
2. long-term thrift
3. investment in plant and equipment
4. streamlining operations in business
5. technological innovation
6. development of human capital

Easy money has always been one of the most obvious temptations. Some very easy ways of making money fast, like commercial fraud, stock scams, trading on insider information, drug trafficking, and outright robbery, do much fraud. The  other ways have some lag between investment and pay-off, low returns to the investor, risk, or a requirement of skill and involvement.   So let's look at how the generations saw the temptation of a speculative boom based on paper profits around 1915:

GILDED: this will never turn out well.
PROGRESSIVE: if it goes wrong, I won't be around.
MISSIONARY: maybe it will work.
LOST: deal me in!
GI: (baby talk)

Fast forward to 1925, on the brink of the disaster:

GILDED: (dead people don't say much)
PROGRESSIVE: if it goes wrong, I won't be around.
MISSIONARY: maybe it will work.
LOST: deal me in!
GI: it's just too complicated for me to understand.
SILENT: (baby talk)

Fast forward to 1945 as Americans are at war with Hitler and Tojo:

PROGRESSIVE: (dead people don't say much)
MISSIONARY: we could have done better.
LOST: I got burned and had to start over.
GI: Had it not been for the Big Crash, I might not be in this damned war. That made Hitler possible.
SILENT: I don't understand it.
Boom: (baby talk)

Let's really fast forward to 1990:

LOST: (dead people don't say much)
GI: don't do it! just don't do it!
SILENT: we have better systems in place this time.
BOOM: this is easier than saving for retirement. 
X: finally the secret of easy money!
MILLENNIAL: (baby talk)

...and 2005
GI: (dead people don't say much)
SILENT: nobody is going to stop it. 
BOOM: it might be shaky but I will know when to sell out
X: finally the secret of easy money!
MILLENNIAL: I don't understand it, but I could never invest. Too much student debt.
HOMELAND: (baby talk)

Do you see how it works?

It is possible to learn from the worst. Indeed, the worst, like the Holodomor and the Holocaust, can remained ingrained for centuries. Consider that Grimm's fairy tales are found among all peoples who speak Indo-European (but not Finno-Ugric, Semitic, Turkic, Dravidian, Sinitic, or Austronesian  languages. They might seem like obvious old wives' tales, but only in certain contexts. Those tales can be grisly, but they are obviously very old. 

Maybe people can learn some lessons: don't look for scapegoats when things go wrong.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 16-Nov-20 World View -- Ethiopia civil war escalates sharply as Tigray Region attacks Eritrea

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Ethiopia civil war escalates sharply as Tigray Region attacks Eritrea
  
• The rise of prime minister Abiy Ahmediat
  
• Generational history of Ethiopia and Eritrea
  

****
**** Ethiopia civil war escalates sharply as Tigray Region attacks Eritrea
****


Map of Horn of Africa showing Tigray Region of Ethiopia (VOA)

The ethnic civil war in Ethiopia escalated sharply on Saturday when
the army of the Tigray ethnic group fired missiles at the airport in
Asmara, the capital city of the Eritrea, bringing Eritrea into
Ethiopia's civil war.

The Tigray ethnic group occupies the Tigray region in northern
Ethiopia, with Eritrea on its northern border, and Sudan on its
western border. Ethiopia's federal government, headed by prime
minister Abiy Ahmediat of the Oromo ethnic tribe, is located in the
capital city Addis Ababa in central Ethiopia. For the last few weeks,
government forces have been attacking Tigray with missiles and
militias. The militias are mostly ethnic Amharas. The Amhara region
is directly south of the Tigray region.

Over 20,000 refugees from Tigray have abandoned their homes and
belongings and have fled into Sudan to refugee camps along the border
to escape the violence. Sudanese officials have said that as the
fighting escalates, they expect to see 200,000 refugees.

At the same time, terrorist groups from ISIS and al-Shabaab have been
entering Ethiopia from Somalia and, according to Ethiopian officials,
plotted to attack various parts of the country, seizing the window of
opportunity opened by the conflict in the Tigray region.

Ethiopia is a hotbed of tensions between different ethnic groups.
There are already growing clashes between other ethnic groups in other
parts of Ethiopia, and there are fears that waves of refugees will
cross into Kenya and Somalia, possibly destabilizing the entire
region.

The Tigray attack on the airport in Asmara, Eritrea, was something of
a surprise, and puzzled analysts since it seems to have no purpose
except to provoke a retaliatory attack by Eritrea on Tigray.

However, Debretsion Gebremichael, the leader of the Tigray People’s
Liberation Front (TPLF), says that the airport was a "legitimate
target," since it was being used by Ethiopian forces. "As long as
troops are here fighting, we will take any legitimate military target
and we will fire. We will fight them on all fronts with whatever
means we have," he said

Ethiopia’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmediat, launched military operations
in Tigray two weeks ago after he accused local authorities of
attacking a military camp in the region and attempting to loot
military assets. The TPLF denies the charge and has accused the prime
minister of concocting the story to justify deploying the offensive.

On Sunday, the Abiy government rejected any calls for a ceasefire:

<QUOTE>"With unwavering commitment we will see this project
through to the end ... As a sovereign nation, Ethiopia reaffirms
its capability and resolve to manage ... its own rule of law
operation without any external intervention. ...

The Federal Government of Ethiopia is asserting its constitutional
mandate to uphold the rule of law according to the laws of the
land."<END QUOTE>

With Abiy unwilling to consider a ceasefire, with the Tigrays
attacking Eritrea, and with tens of thousands of refugees pouring into
neighboring countries, observers are concerned that this could
escalate into a full-scale war in the Horn of Africa.

****
**** The rise of prime minister Abiy Ahmediat
****


Map of Ethiopia showing internal Regions (Bloomberg)

Ethiopia's last generational crisis war (1975-1991) was a protracted
war between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) against the
vicious Marxist Derg military government in Addis Ababa, which
climaxed in 1991 when they finally toppled the TPLF. The Tigrays are
only 6% of Ethiopia's population but they dominated Ethiopia's
government for decades, following the 1991 victory.

The Oromo ethnic group, of which Abiy is a member, and the Amhara
ethnic group are the two largest ethnic groups in Ethiopia. During
the generational Awakening era, mass protests by these two groups
targeted the Tigray coalition government, resulting in a "velvet coup"
that brought Abiy to power as prime minister. At the same time
Ethiopia and Eritria signed a peace deal ending a bitter border
dispute between the two countries.

Shortly after that, Abiy won the Nobel Peace Prize, which is always
laughable these days. The TPLF says that, since then, Abiy's
government has systematically persecuted Tigrays since he took office.
After Abiy became prime minister in April 2018, several high-ranking
TPLF officials were prosecuted for human rights abuses and corruption.
The TPLF responded by accusing Abiy of targeting them in a politically
motivated campaign.

When Abiy’s government delayed this year’s general elections until
2021, citing Covid-19, the TPLF accused the prime minister of using
the pandemic to hold on to power beyond his mandate. The TPLF then
unilaterally held regional elections in September. The federal
government refused to accept the results, and this led to the federal
government's military attack on Tigray.

Abiy apparently expects a quick victory against the Tigrays, but
analysts point out that the TPLF remains a fighting force of up to
250,000 battle-hardened troops. Furthermore large elements of the
Northern Command leadership of the national Ethiopian army are
Tigrays, meaning that Abiy cannot expect full loyalty from the army.

****
**** Generational history of Ethiopia and Eritrea
****


Horn of Africa

These two countries have been linked since at least the second century
AD.

Ethiopia adopted Christianity in the 4th century, and was a tribal
society ruled by emperors until the 1800s. However, a split between
Ethiopia and Eritrea occurred in the 700s with the rise of Islam and
the Arab trade along the Red Sea, and what is now Eritrea became part
of the Islamic Empire, and later the Ottoman Empire.

Italy colonized the region in the 1860s, in the so-called Scramble for
Africa, so named because after it was discovered in the 1850s that
malaria could be controlled with quinine, England, Belgium, France,
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Germany all competed with each other to
colonize different parts of Africa.

In 1869, the Suez Canal opened, connecting the Red Sea with the
Mediterranean Sea, and Italian shipping firms became active. Large
stretches of Eritrea's coastline were acquired from the local sultans
and transferred to Italian control. By the mid-1880s, the Italian
army moved into Eritrea, displacing the Ottomans, and challenging the
Ethiopian empire.

In 1889, Menelik II rose to the position of Emperor of Ethiopia. The
"Italian-Ethiopian War" (1889-1896) was a generational crisis war for
Ethiopia. Menelik inflicted on Italy the most humiliating and bloody
defeat ever experienced by a colonial power in Africa. In the
outcome, Italy retained Eritrea as a Red Sea colony, populating it
with thousands of Italian settlers, developing road and rail
transport, but doing little to improve the lives of Eritreans.

Ethiopia gained independence, and by 1914 and the beginning of WW I,
all of black Africa except Ethiopia and Liberia were European
colonies.

By 1935, Eritrea was a colony of Italy, and Ethiopia had a new
emperor, one who had taken the title Haile Selassie, meaning "Might of
the Trinity," emphasizing the fact that Ethiopia was a largely
Christian country.

In October 1935, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini ordered an invasion
of Ethiopia, partly in revenge for Italy's humiliating defeat in 1896.
Mussolini announced the establishment of a new Italian empire,
including Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia, under the name Italian East
Africa. Haile Selassie fled the country.

When Mussolini brought Italy into World War II on Hitler's side, in
June 1940, Haile Selassie won the cooperation of Britain in launching
a counterattack against the Italian forces in Italian East Africa. By
1941, Haile Selassie was once again emperor of Ethiopia. After the
war, the United Nations made Eritrea a part of Ethiopia, an autonomous
federal province with its own constitution and elected government,
something that the Muslims in Eritrea strongly opposed.

From the above description, one can see that although World War II was
a generational crisis war for Italy and Britain, with part of the war
fought on Ethiopian soil, it was not a crisis war for Ethiopia itself.
In fact, with the previous crisis war having climaxed in 1896, this
was a generational Unraveling era for Ethiopia. In such an era (like
America in the 1990s), there is little appetite for war among the
general population, except perhaps for quick police actions. Although
Ethiopia and Eritrea changed hands several times during the WW II time
period, the fighting was mostly between foreign armies, and did not
heavily involve the local population.

In the mid-1950s, the region entered a generational Crisis era, and
the fault line between Muslims and Christians began to inflame. In
1958, Eritrea's Muslim leaders formed the Eritrean Liberation Front
(ELF), consisting mainly of students, intellectuals, and urban wage
laborers. Low-level warfare continued throughout the 1960s.

In the 1970s, the Eritrean independence movement took another turn
with the formation of a powerful Marxist offshoot of the ELF, the
Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF). Haile Selassie was toppled
in 1974, after which factional warfare began to increase.

This might have led to a full-scale generational crisis war, but there
was a major development: In 1977, the USSR allied with the Ethiopian
government, took control of Eritrea's Red Sea ports, and provided
Ethiopia's government with huge supplies of arms, enough to suppress
the EPLF guerrillas.

The guerrilla war fought by Marxist rebels against the well-armed
Ethiopian government climaxed in May 1991 with the collapse of
Ethiopia's government, coincident with the collapse of the USSR.
Eritrea finally declared independence. By that time, there were
500,000 refugees that had fled to refugee camps in Sudan, and they had
to be resettled in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

In 1998, a new border war broke out between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
This was a non-crisis war, with a quality very similar to World War I,
where trenches were dug, mines were laid, and bodies of dead soldiers
were strewn about. Of the 400,000 men who fought on both sides,
50,000 soldiers died.

A peace deal in 2000 ended the two-year border war, but it was never
fully implemented, and a new peace deal was signed in 2018.

Sources:

• Abiy Ahmed and the future of Ethiopia (Al-Jazeera, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• War crimes feared in Ethiopia’s Tigray, Amnesty reports massacre (Al-Jazeera, 13-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopia: Investigation reveals evidence that scores of civilians were killed in massacre in Tigray state (Amnesty International, 12-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict explained in 500 words (Al-Jazeera, 10-Nov-2020)
  
• Tigray conflict threatens to ‘catalyse’ tensions elsewhere in Ethiopia (France24, 12-Nov-2020)
  
• In Escalation of Ethiopia War, Tigray Leader Says His Forces Fired Rockets at Eritrea (Reuters, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• Rockets Hit 2 Airports in Ethiopia's Amhara State (VOA, 14-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopia Names New Leader for Restive Tigray Region (VOA, 13-Nov-2020)
  
• UN Rights Chief Alarmed by Reports of Massacre in Ethiopia's Tigray Region (VOA, 13-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopia: How the Tigray conflict escalated (News24, 16-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopia arrests 14 Al-Shabaab, ISIS terrorists (The Nation, Nigeria, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• Fears of regional conflict in Horn of Africa after rocket attacks on Eritrea (Guardian, London, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• Tigray Confirms Eritrea Strike as Ethiopia Conflict Spreads (Bloomberg, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• Tigray confirms shooting missiles at Eritrea (AP, 16-Nov-2020)
  
• Rockets from Ethiopia's Tigray region hit Eritrea capital: diplomats (AFP, 15-Nov-2020)
  
• Ethiopians fleeing to Sudan describe airstrikes and machete killings in Tigray (Reuters, 15-Nov-2020)

Related Articles:

• Ethiopia's prime minister Abiy Ahmediat escapes grenade attack at massive rally (24-Jun-2018)
  
  
• In a surprise, Ethiopia accepts peace deal with Eritrea (06-Jun-2018)
  
  
• Ethiopia chooses an Oromo leader, as Kenya has farcical confrontation with the courts (30-Mar-2018)
  
  
• Thousands of Ethiopian Oromos flee into Kenya, threatening regional stability (15-Mar-2018)
  
  
• Ethiopia declares state of emergency after shock resignation of prime minister (17-Feb-2018)
  
  
• Ethiopia declares extraordinary six-month state of emergency (10-Oct-2016)
  
  
• Heavy fighting along Eritrea-Ethiopia border raises fears of war (14-Jun-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Ethiopia, Tigray Region, Eritrea, Asmara,
Abiy Ahmediat, Oromia Region, Amhara Region,
Tigray People’s Liberation Front, TPLF,
Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, al-Shabaab, Derg,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Italy, Scramble for Africa, Suez Canal, Red Sea, Italian-Ethiopian War,
Menelik II, Haile Selassie, Benito Mussolini,
Italian East Africa, Eritrean Liberation Front, ELF,
Eritrean People's Liberation Front, EPLF

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

[pbrower2a]

Except as a part of the Italian Empire between 1935 and 1941, Ethiopia has never been part of any other empire. Due to its isolation, Ethiopia has not gotten the respect for an early civilization complete with some sophisticated art. It was the first country to be liberated from the Axis powers (along with Somalia and Eritrea.

Between the Italo-Ethiopian war and the famine that toppled Emperor Haile Selassie and established a Commie Regime is a long lifetime, at least by African standards.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 15-Nov-2020 World View: Ethiopia stone churches

(11-15-2020, 10:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: > Except as a part of the Italian Empire between 1935 and 1941,
> Ethiopia has never been part of any other empire. Due to its
> isolation, Ethiopia has not gotten the respect for an early
> civilization complete with some sophisticated art. It was the
> first country to be liberated from the Axis powers (along with
> Somalia and Eritrea.

> Between the Italo-Ethiopian war and the famine that toppled
> Emperor Haile Selassie and established a Commie Regime is a long
> lifetime, at least by African standards.

In addition to all that, it also has those amazing rock-hewn stone churches:







https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/18/gallery/

[John J. Xenakis]

** 15-Nov-2020 World View: South Korea

Burner Prime" Wrote:> If China invades Taiwan, very few Americans (but the usual
> warhawks) will push for a call to arms.

John Wrote:> ** 14-Nov-2020 World View: China invades Taiwan

> That's not true. We'll be at war within 24 hours.

Guest Wrote:> What do you think will happen to South Korea in this event?
> Immediate NK invasion?

I wish I could answer this question for you, but there are too many
possible scenarios.

One scenario is an "accidental invasion." Some kind of unintended
military clash occurs between Chinese and Taiwanese vessels,
escalating into a war. This scenario is possible because the Chinese
Communists are thirsting for war, are nationalistic to the point of
insanity, and make one stupid mistake after another.

Another scenario is the "lightning invasion." In this case, the
Chinese launch a surprise attack and try to capture the island within
a day, hoping that the US won't have time to respond. In this forum,
Navigator has argued that China would never succeed at this, because
the advance preparation would be detected. Nonetheless, the Chinese
Communist hypernationalistic insanity makes it possible.

A variation of this scenario would be a lightning invasion of Taiwan
coordinated with a North Korean invasion of South Korea. The Chinese
Communists, in their hypernationalistic insanity, might see the Korean
situation as a distraction to the US to prevent a reaction to the
Taiwan invasion.

Other variations involve a massive missile attack on American cities
and on American warships in the South China Sea.

However, there is "good news" for South Korea. A variation involving
a North Korean invasion of the South would be a distraction to the US,
but it would also be a distraction for China, as the South would
retaliate on Pyongyang, creating a refugee crisis into northeastern
China. Therefore, the Chinese Communists may go ahead with an attack
on Taiwan, but order its North Korean vassal not to attack the South.

All of this is highly speculative. China has 21 border disputes with
neighboring countries, which shows how insane the Chinese Communists
are, and any one of those could start a war with a totally different
scenario.

This will be World War III, and the only real difference among these
scenarios is the timeline -- the ordering and timing of events.

In response to another comment, the country facing an existential
threat will put aside political differences and everyone will unite
behind the president. There's an issue with Joe Biden, who has been
hiding out in his basement for a year, doesn't seem to know what's
going on, and probably can't lead America through a major
international crisis. Hopefully, Biden will appoint an army general
who can take over as de facto president, and lead the country
through the crisis.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-15-2020, 10:28 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: This might have led to a full-scale generational crisis war, but there was a major development: In 1977, the USSR allied with the Ethiopian government, took control of Eritrea's Red Sea ports, and provided Ethiopia's government with huge supplies of arms, enough to suppress the EPLF guerrillas.

The guerrilla war fought by Marxist rebels against the well-armed Ethiopian government climaxed in May 1991 with the collapse of Ethiopia's government, coincident with the collapse of the USSR.  Eritrea finally declared  independence.  By that time, there were 500,000 refugees that had fled to refugee camps in Sudan, and they had
to be resettled in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Marxists were fighting the Soviets?  Nice irony.

This is an analysis of part of the world which deals mostly with tribal thinking, where nukes and proxy wars have not yet reshaped things.  Still, you have groups like ISIS and the old Soviet Union which pull at the no proxy war environment.  Asia?  Things get more complicated.  Ignoring the leader's and elites interests makes sticking with an age old perspective difficult.

The bottom line is tribal thinking has people always hating their neighbors and initiating a crisis war whenever the last one has faded from living memory. This was pretty accurate in the old days, when tribal thinking was cost effective if you had the military advantage. Tribal thinking was cost effective then. After machine guns, nukes and proxy wars violence is not cost effective. It just guarantees poverty and strife with a potential for total destruction. It is not in the interests of the leaders and elites.

Thus, constant predictions of violence when there is a dominance of tribal thinking, no crisis wars in areas where the WIERD have come to dominate. No apologies for hoping that tribal thinking will continue to fade.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 22-Nov-20 World View -- Afghan 'peace talks' threatened by terrorist rocket attack on Kabul

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Afghan 'peace talks' threatened by terrorist rocket attack on Kabul
  
• Why the Afghan peace agreement must fail
  
• Conflicting American values in Vietnam
  
• Conflicting American values in Afghanistan
  
• When is a war winnable?
  

****
**** Afghan 'peace talks' threatened by terrorist rocket attack on Kabul
****


Taliban fighters relax after lunch (Washington Post)

A terrorist barrage of dozens of rockets were fired into residential
areas of the the heavily fortified Green Zone of Kabul, Afghanistan's
capital city, killing at least eight civilians and wounding dozens
more on Saturday.

The Taliban, which is engaged with the United States in
so-called "peace talks" taking place in Doha, Qatar, has
denied responsibility for the attack.

On the other hand, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
ISIS is a terrorist group, imported from Syria, in competition
with the Taliban to win the prize as the better terrorists.

This occurs amid the backdrop of negotiations taking plac in Doha,
Qatar, between representatives of Doha and the Taliban. For a long
time, the Taliban refused to allow the Afghan government of president
Ashraf Ghani to send representatives to the negotiations, but they've
generously lifted that restriction in the last few months. However,
as I understand it, the Taliban and Afghan government do not talk to
each other, but only engage in "proximity talks." This hilarious
phrase means that the two groups are in separate rooms, and a
negotiator trots back and forth between the rooms to further the
"talks."

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Doha on Saturday, where he
met separately with the Taliban and Afghan government negotiators.
Presumably, Pompeo served as the proximity talk mediator on this
occasion.

According to reports, the talks have not even reached the stage
for producing a timeline. The original claim was that the Taliban
would end its terrorist violence, but, as I understand it, the
current demand is that the Taliban "tone down" the violence. (Believe
it or not, that's the phrase used by an analyst on tv.)

So the peace talks are a huge joke, and have never been anything
but a huge joke. But the do have one purpose: The provide political
cover for the Trump administration to withdraw American troops
from Afghanistan, which was a campaign promise made by Donald Trump.
Trump had claimed that he would get all American troops out of
Afghanistan by the end of 2020.

He didn't accomplish that, but he did go ahead with announcement that
shocked a lot of people. First, on November 9, he fired his Defense
Secretary Mike Esper, apparently because Esper opposed removing any
troops from Afghanistan. Trump replaced Esper with an acting Defense
Secretary Christopher Miller, who announced on November 17 that 2,000
troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by mid-January. That would
reduce the troop level from 4,500 to 2,500.

No one seriously believes that the Taliban will adhere to commitments
made in a peace deal once the American troops are all withdrawn. The
Taliban want Afghanistan to be governed by the Taliban, as it was
prior to 9/11/2001, after which US forces declared war on Afghanistan,
a war that's still going on. The Taliban want the war to end and want
American troops gone, so that they can go back to hardline jihadist
policies, such as closing girls' schools, as well as beating, raping
and torturing the Hazaras and other ethnic enemies.

So why did ISIS launch Saturday's terrorist attack? Since ISIS and
the Taliban are enemies, they presumably wish to sabotage the peace
talks, so that the Taliban can't over the whole country. We'll
probably know within a few months.

We may also know within a few months whether the American withdrawal
will destabilize the relationships among other countries in the region
-- China, Pakistan and India. These countries all have an interest in
Afghanistan and have benefited from the American presence, and may now
feel it necessary to fill the vacuum created if the Americans leave.

****
**** Why the Afghan peace agreement must fail
****

In 2007, president George Bush launched a "surge" policy in
the Iraq war which, much to the surprise of many people, actually
worked and won the Iraq war.

So in 2009, president Barack Obama decided that what worked in Iraq
would also work in Afghanistan. As I wrote at the the time, and have
written many times since then, Iraq and Afghanistan are completely
different situations, and a "surge" that worked in Iraq would not work
in Afghanistan. This prediction has, of course, turned out to be
completely correct.

A summary of the reasoning is as follows: Afghanistan's last
generational crisis war was an extremely bloody, horrific civil war,
in 1991-96. The war was a civil war, fought between the Pashtuns in
southern Afghanistan versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras
and Uzbeks in northern Afghanistan. The Taliban are radicalized
Pashtuns, and when they need to import foreign fighters, then can
import their cousins from the Pashtun tribes in Pakistan.

Indeed, it's much worse than that. The ethnic groups in Afghanistan
are COMPLETELY NON-UNITED and loathe each other. Pashtuns still have
scores to settle with the Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks that formed the
Northern Alliance, especially the Shias. These opposing groups have
fresh memories of the atrocities, torture, rape, beatings,
dismemberments, mutilations, and so forth that the other side
performed on their friends, wives and other family members, and they
have no desire to be friends or to work together. They'd rather kill
each other.

Obama's surge policy failed because it had to. Obama never had
any clue what's going on in the world, so his multiple foreign
policy failures aren't surprising. In addition, he appointed
that idiot John Kerry as Secretary of State, who stumbled from
one disaster to another making things worse.

When Trump began running for president, it was clear that he also had
no clue what was going on in the world. I once mocked him for knowing
nothing about other countries except his golf courses. But then he
did something that was completely unexpected and surprising: He hired
Steve Bannon as his principal advisor. This is something I never
dreamed would happen. I had worked off and on with Bannon over a
period of years, and he's an expert on both military history and
Generational Dynamics analysis. Even before taking office, Trump
was educated for a year on foreign affairs by Bannon.

Even after Bannon left the White House, there was still somebody left
who knew what was going on in the world -- John Bolton. Bolton left
the White House last year, and as far as I know, Trump no longer has
anyone who can credibly inform him about what's going on in the world,
beyond the catalog of facts you can find in the CIA World Factbook.

By the way, Joe Biden has been hiding out in his basement for a year,
and apparently knows less than nothing about anything. But he
thinks that it might be a good idea to withdraw American troops
from Afghanistan, though he isn't sure.

****
**** Conflicting American values in Vietnam
****

Working on my forthcoming book on Vietnam has given me plenty of time
to contemplate how American values contradict each other, and how
well-meaning presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon tried to navigate
through the conflicting values and were often forced to make bad
decisions that led to bad outcomes.

After World Wars I and II, a traumatized, exhausted America
feared they would be fighting a third world war, this time
against the Communists. This anxiety increased as Communism seemed
to be on the march everywhere -- behind the Iron Curtain in eastern
Europe, in China, in northern Korea, in northern Vietnam, and
even in the United States in the form of a strong American
Communist Party (CPUSA). It became the highest priority of
American foreign policy to stop Communism before it led to
World War III.

But American values went far beyond that. America was committed to
democracies, and South Vietnam was a young vibrant democracy
which was being invaded by Communist North Vietnam. There was
no way that the leaders who had survived World War II would have
tolerated just standing by and letting the South Vietnamese democracy
die at the hands of the Communists.

But there was another American value that was equally strong.
America had been a British colony and had won its independence
from a colonial power. America valued its independence, and
would not tolerate having another country, even a friendly country,
interfere in its affairs.

South Vietnam was a democracy that had just won its independence
from a colonial power, France. America was interfering in South
Vietnam's affairs to defend it from the Communists, and so
was violating another American value -- not interfering in the
affairs of another democracy.

It was this contradiction in American values that led to
contradictions in American policies that led to issues that
could be exploited by the antiwar activists and American Communists,
using the contradictions to sabotage the American war effort
politically, leading to the final defeat, and the American
betrayal of the people of South Vietnam.

****
**** Conflicting American values in Afghanistan
****

It's worthwhile exploring those conflicting American values in
Vietnam, because exactly the same conflict exists today in
Afghanistan. However, this time the enemy is a vicious Islamist
terror regime, rather than communism.

On the one hand, there is a strong American drive to preserve
the democracy in Afghanistan, and protect it from the Islamist
terror regime.

On the other hand, there is a strong American drive to avoid
interfering in the Afghan government. With the Americans negotiating
in Doha with the Taliban, almost to the exclusion of the official
Afghan government, there are major policy contradictions, as there
have been for the last 19 years.

These contradictions are now in full force, as Americans try to decide
how aggressively to take control in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban,
or to let the Kabul government make its own decisions. After almost
20 years in Afghanistan, Trump has decided that Americans can't stay
there forever, and that it's time to withdraw completely, and let the
Taliban take over if that's what's in the cards.

There's another issue. Many American soldiers fought in Afghanistan,
and many people lost fathers, brothers and sons there. The same is
true of Nato countries. Was all that lost blood and treasure for
nothing? Apparently so.

****
**** When is a war winnable?
****

As I work on my forthcoming book on Vietnam, I've also reached some
conclusions about when a war is winnable or not winnable.

These conclusions are based on examination of the following wars:
Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war. What these three wars
have in common is that they're all guerrilla insurgencies -- internal
rebellions against the government. Why were we able to win the Iraq
war, while losing the Vietnam and Afghanistan war. This analysis does
not apply to wars fought by opposing armies.

The insurgency in Vietnam could not be defeated because it was
impossible to distinguish between the insurgents and ordinary
civilians. The South Vietnamese government adopted a
counter-insurgency strategy that had been successfully used a decade
earlier by the UK in its Malay colony. In that case, the civilians
were indigenous Malays, while the insurgents were ethnic Chinese. The
British were able to segregate the Chinese from the Malay population
for a simple reason: They looked different. They could easily be
distinguished.

The South Vietnamese government adapted this same strategy into
something called "strategic hamlets," where North Vietnamese
insurgents would be segregated from civilians. This worked for a
while, but it had to fail because it was impossible to tell the
difference between an ordinary civilian and a Communist insurgent.

President George Bush's "surge" strategy won the Iraq war because the
insurgents were quite distinguishable from Iraqi civilians. The
insurgent group "al-Qaeda in Iraq" consisted almost entirely of
fighters imported from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria. They were not
Iraqis, and the Iraqis hated them. That's why the Iraq war was
winnable. (See "Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq" from April, 2007.)

The Afghan insurgency was hopeless from the beginning. Yes, we were
able to quickly defeat the Afghan army after 9/11/2001, but after the
situation turned into an insurgency it could not be won because
ordinary civilians were ethnic Pashtuns, and so were the Taliban.

The Afghan war turned into a guerrilla insurgency about 15 years ago,
and since then it has been unwinnable. This is the justification for
withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. Sooner or later, we'll
have to lose.

Unfortuately, that conflicts with important American values about
protecting young democracies. This political battle will be fierce.

Sources:

• Afghanistan / ISIS claims responsibility for deadly attack in Kabul (AP, 21-Nov-2020)
  
• Afghanistan (CIA World FactBook)
  
• The Taliban is on the offensive. Keeping the militants at bay: U.S. airstrikes, even as bases close and troops leave. (Washington Post, 21-Nov-2020)
  
• U.S. War in Afghanistan - 1999 – 2020 (Council on Foreign Relations: The U.S. War in Afghanistan - 1999 – 2020)
  
• With Biden headed to White House, Afghan government hopes for tougher stance on Taliban (Washington Post, 10-Nov-2020)
  
• Within the Taliban, clashing views of Afghanistan’s future (Washington Post, 12-Jul-2020)
  
• Twenty-three rockets hit Afghan capital Kabul, 8 civilians killed (Al-Jazeera, 21-Nov-2020)
  
• US troops’ Afghanistan deployments cut short by pandemic, drawdown in tumultuous 2020 (Stars and Stripes, 20-Nov-2020)
  
• Trump's military cuts in Afghanistan highlight divisions over 19-year-old conflict (Stars and Stripes, 18-Nov-2020)
  
• China’s next border friction may be with Afghanistan, the ‘graveyard of empires’ (South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 20-Nov-2020)
  
• Donald Trump risks handing Afghanistan to the Taliban (Economist, 21-Nov-2020)
  
• US troops in Afghanistan: Allies and Republicans alarmed at withdrawal plan (BBC, 18-Nov-2020)
  
• Republicans livid over Trump’s plan to reduce troops in Afghanistan (Politico, 16-Nov-2020)

Related Articles:

• Why we can never prevail in Afghanistan (16-Dec-2019)
  
  
• US and Taliban to sign laughable 'reduction in violence' agreement in Afghanistan (16-Feb-2020)
  
  
• Donald Trump fires John Bolton over Afghanistan 'Peace Negotiations' (11-Sep-2019)
  
  
• Guess what? British politicians and journalists are just as ignorant as Americans (14-Jan-2007)
  
  
• New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable (06-Dec-2018)
  
  
• Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Kabul, Afghanistan, Taliban, Qatar,
Mike Pompeo, Ashraf Ghani,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
George Bush, Iraq, surge, Barack Obama,
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, John Bolton, Joe Biden,
Vietnam, France, Malay, South Vietnam

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

[Bob Butler 54]

What makes a war ‘winnable’. I might differ that we ‘won’ in Iraq. I sort of agree that bringing in outsiders hated by the local population is not the way to go. However, if you look at it from the leader / elite / racket perspective, did we win any war for oil? Is the huge embassy built by Bush 43 abandoned? The military bases he built? Did the Middle East become destabilized? Did the US become war adverse, reluctant to put boots on the ground, one of the traditional things that happens as a result of a crisis?

If Iraq was a victory, it was a partial one.

The local population who finds proxy support of a major power in an insurgent proxy battle has an advantage. They can keep the fight going, and generally has enough patience that the other side gives up.

Major powers seldom engage in crisis wars. When they do, they can defeat regular armies often enough, but if their intent is not to support the local population the conflict soon goes insurgent. There, the major powers don’t do so well.

[Warren Dew]

(11-21-2020, 11:04 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: These conclusions are based on examination of the following wars:
Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war.  What these three wars
have in common is that they're all guerrilla insurgencies -- internal
rebellions against the government.  Why were we able to win the Iraq
war, while losing the Vietnam and Afghanistan war.  This analysis does
not apply to wars fought by opposing armies.

How would we test your theory against the "we do deserts, we don't do mountains (or jungles) theory?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Nov-2020 World View: Guerrilla insurgencies

(11-21-2020, 11:04 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > These conclusions are based on examination of the following wars:
> Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war. What these three wars
> have in common is that they're all guerrilla insurgencies -- internal
> rebellions against the government. Why were we able to win the Iraq
> war, while losing the Vietnam and Afghanistan war. This analysis does
> not apply to wars fought by opposing armies.

(11-22-2020, 09:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > How would we test your theory against the "we do deserts, we don't
> do mountains (or jungles) theory?

In my article, I mentioned that the South Vietnamese "strategic
hamlet" program was based on a British program in Malaya a decade
earlier. In the Malay counter-insurgency program, where the
insurgents were ethnic Chinese, the "new villages" were built on the
edges of the jungles, and the Chinese civilians were kept in the
villages where the British could tightly control them, and separating
them from the Chinese Communist insurgents. The insurgents, of
course, melted into the jungles. But they were unable to steal food
and resources from the Chinese in the villages, which made it easier
for the British to defeat them.

The British Malay counter-insurgency program was itself based on an
earlier program during the Boer War. The following source compares
the two:

-- The Boer War and Malayan Emergency: Examples of British
Counterinsurgency pre- and post-“Minimum Force”
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/bo...st-minimum
(SmallWarsJournal, 20-Dec-2018)

What's interesting about this comparison is that in the Boer War, the
Boer population was treated very brutally, put into concentration and
detention camps, with poor sanitation, overcrowding and lack of food,
and were targeted with very punitive techniques for control by a
colonial power. As the article describes in detail, during the time
between the Boer War and the Malay emergency, British doctrine changed
away from a harsh, colonial a "butcher and bolt" approach, evolving to
a "minimum force" and "hearts and minds" doctrine. So in Malaya, the
concentration camps were replaced by "new villages" which were much
more benign.

I would point out that the Malay approach could not have worked in the
Boer War, and did work in Malaya because ethnic Chinese were easily
distinguished from indigenous Malays.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Nov-2020 World View: Winning a war

(11-22-2020, 05:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > What makes a war ‘winnable’. I might differ that we ‘won’ in
> Iraq. I sort of agree that bringing in outsiders hated by the
> local population is not the way to go. However, if you look at it
> from the leader / elite / racket perspective, did we win any war
> for oil? Is the huge embassy built by Bush 43 abandoned? The
> military bases he built? Did the Middle East become destabilized?
> Did the US become war adverse, reluctant to put boots on the
> ground, one of the traditional things that happens as a result of
> a crisis?

> If Iraq was a victory, it was a partial one.

I guess it depends on what you mean by winning a war.

Using your criteria, someone could claim that we didn't win WW II.
Maybe we saved France and Belgium from the Nazis, but we lost Poland
and Hungary to the Soviets, which is just as bad. Europe was
completely destabilized by massive flows of refugees. America built
military bases in Germany, which are still there. There was a
neo-Nazi insurgency, which still exists at a minor level. So if WW II
was a victory, it was a partial one.

In the case of Iraq, I would evaluate it this way. We had three
objectives -- first to eject Iraq from Kuwait, then to get rid of
Saddam Hussein, and finally to defeat the AQI insurgency. We
succeeded at all three objectives.

In Afghanistan, we had two objectives -- first to destroy the Taliban
government, and then to control the Taliban insurgency. We succeeded
at the first, and failed at the second.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Nov-2020 World View: Trump and Biden

From e-mail:

Quote:> Good to know you are well. I read your latest
> posts. I'm on pins and needles with this vote debacle. The more I
> read the more depressed I get. My wife even is seeing that the
> things I have been saying since at least 2007 are accurate. But
> still I am hurt deeply by this excessive imbalance being
> revealed. And the disgusting behaviir of the media. Now they are
> posting chyrons disputing what Trump and his people say in real
> time, manipulating their viewers with their " undisputable" and
> "correct" pronouncements.

This may seem like a very dark time, since the Democrats and the media
have been relentlessly vindictive assholes for four years, and
continue to be, even after the election.

But one thing you can look forward to is that Trump will still be
around, and in a couple of months he'll be leading what he claims is a
new movement formed from the 72-74 million people who voted for him.
He may even say that he's running in 2024, and start holding rallies
again. And those rallies always draw tens of thousands of people.

Meanwhile Biden will have to start governing, as opposed to hiding in
his basement. He'll blame every problem on Trump, and Trump will be
right there to blame Biden. It should be interesting.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-23-2020, 11:19 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: I guess it depends on what you mean by winning a war.

Using your criteria, someone could claim that we didn't win WW II. Maybe we saved France and Belgium from the Nazis, but we lost Poland and Hungary to the Soviets, which is just as bad.  Europe was completely destabilized by massive flows of refugees.  America built military bases in Germany, which are still there.  There was a
neo-Nazi insurgency, which still exists at a minor level.  So if WW II was a victory, it was a partial one.

In the case of Iraq, I would evaluate it this way.  We had three objectives -- first to eject Iraq from Kuwait, then to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and finally to defeat the AQI insurgency.  We succeeded at all three objectives.

In Afghanistan, we had two objectives -- first to destroy the Taliban government, and then to control the Taliban insurgency.  We succeeded at the first, and failed at the second.

World War II was fought to contain the Axis powers. We won. It is the Cold War which was intended to contain the communist powers. They are no longer communist, but the need to contain their autocratic expansionist tendency is still there, even if their eagerness to fight in crisis wars isn’t. If you bend the goals of the multiple conflicts, you are just absurdly redefining the goals of the assorted conflicts to win an argument.

You have a partial list of goals in the Iraq conflicts. Bush 43 was trying for neocolonialism, for throwing his weight around as the sole superpower, for becoming the dominant and expanding power in the region. Thus, the huge embassy complex and military bases. If you edit his goals you can say they were all achieved, but no one would take you seriously. A destabilized Middle East was not one of the goals.

The major goal in Afghanistan was to deny Bin Ladin a place to train for more attacks on the West. It seemed appropriate at the time. Again, you are changing the goals of the conflict to suit your position. Again, I don’t take it as serious.

It is a joke, but then much of your stuff is.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-23-2020, 11:41 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: This may seem like a very dark time, since the Democrats and the media have been relentlessly vindictive assholes for four years, and continue to be, even after the election.

But one thing you can look forward to is that Trump will still be around, and in a couple of months he'll be leading what he claims is a new movement formed from the 72-74 million people who voted for him. He may even say that he's running in 2024, and start holding rallies again.  And those rallies always draw tens of thousands of people.

Meanwhile Biden will have to start governing, as opposed to hiding in his basement.  He'll blame every problem on Trump, and Trump will be right there to blame Biden.  It should be interesting.

The biggest scandal associated with Obama was birthersim, which was pretty much disproven when a Hawaii paper was found with Obama’s parents announcing his birth to the world. Was there cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia in working the 2016 election? Did Trump suppress funds allocated by congress for security until a foreign power provided an advantage for him political? Is Trump hamstringing his successor in ways not seen in previous transitions of power? There is a difference between the Obama ‘scandal’ being based on Trump’s lie, while Trumps continuous scandals have considerable truth to them. If you are just interested in reporting the truth, you have to report on them.

The red buy into the Trump and Fox lies. You buy into the Trump and Fox lies. You have to buy into the lies designed to enable elitism and racism. The truth is just not enough. I don’t see how the old values, based on lies, are going to have staying power in a crisis. The problems at the core of the crisis are always resolved. Trump has punted on both COVID and systematic racism. He has enough believers with him to tie up anyone who tries to rebuild the Republican Party from his lies.

I understand he is giving up on the ‘I won’ pretense. The GSA has acknowledged Biden as the apparent winner. Michigan has certified. His court cases have been rejected. Do you think the Republican policy of obstructionism will be a big win in the mid terms? Do you think a non elitist non racist movement can unite the conservatives with Trump rousing his base? Do you think someone else trying in the short term to take over the remnants of the party stands a chance with Trump active?

In a crisis, the greatest problems facing the culture are focused on and resolved. Doing so will sink the old values. If Biden fulfills the promises made on the bug, systematic racism, and promoting the interests of the workers, the crisis - high - awakening patterns don’t leave much room for the do nothing obstructionism of the unraveling.

I see the denial phase of the lame duck period as ending. We will see how much of a revenge phase there is, and how wild Trump goes with pardoning his administration. He can hurt the next administration, but if he is too blatant about it he will also be hurting America. He can throw pardons around, but doing so admits guilt.

I am content sitting back and watching the turnings progress, the old values become discredited.

But the bottom line is likely enough correct. It should be interesting.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Nov-2020 World View: John Kerry is 'Climate Czar'

John Kerry is being appointed "Climate Czar."

An idiot pursuing idiotic policies.

It'll be fun having John Kerry to kick around again.

[Bob Butler 54]

Well, it looks like the revenge phase is underway.  Trump has declared the Open Skies treaty void, without bothering with the congressional approval needed to void a treaty.  This treaty allows planes to scout for things like nuclear explosions, or preparations for invasion.  Trump is not only ignoring the law which gives congress the ability to nullify treaties, but is trashing the only planes designed to look for nukes or potential invasions.  This is in case Biden attempts to rejoin the treaty, say by notifying everyone that Trump hasn't the authority.

The only member of the treaty who has been invading people lately?  Russia?

Just to let you know who Trump is really working for.  Now why would Putin want the treaty voided?  I wonder...

Now the planes Trump is destroying aren't the only recon aircraft in the Air Force inventory.  Other planes can go in.  Thing is, the planes being destroyed are 1950s relics, and many of the other aircraft are much newer and less expendable.  I'll bet on much newer reconnaissance drones being used.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 24-Nov-2020 World View: Janet Yellen

Higgenbotham Wrote:> You can see how seriously goofy Yellen is when she said during the
> coronavirus crisis that it's not time for the Fed to buy stock
> just yet, but we should get everything set up to do it when she
> takes the helm. She wants to be the first to go down the road of
> buying stock - that's how nutty she is. She really thinks she can
> make a name for herself that way. "Just get the crack pipe ready
> so I can be the first Treasury Secretary to take a hit of
> crack."

If your core belief is MME ("modern monetary theory"), which says that
the government can borrow an infinite amount of money and never have
to pay it back, then this isn't nutty at all.

Milton Friedman planted the seed for MME, it was taken up and expanded
by Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen is simply driving it to its natural
conclusion. As I've written many times, Milton Friedman has been
proven wrong, but nobody wants to believe that. There's nothing
deadlier than when a conservative icon promotes a liberal idea that's
wrong. It's the worst of all possible worlds. You can't blame Yellen
for having a "crack pipe," when the crack pipe is Milton Friedman.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 24-Nov-2020 World View: China after the war

Guest Wrote:> Navigator mentioned the world will end up being ruled by dictators
> in a past post. What countries does he see becoming the new
> superpowers (or regional powers)?

Navigator Wrote:> My belief is that after a major war, and after the collapse of the
> welfare states, the world is going to look something like a map of
> Germany after the 30 Years War (roughly mid 1600s).

> Who becomes a major power after that is anyone's guess, but many
> will try to become one. Leaders will arise in many areas. If
> they can unify their "tribe" or ethnicity, instill a warrior ethos
> in their people, and have access to enough resources, then they
> can embark on conquests. Their aim will be to end up in a
> position similar to Charlemange (or better).

Guest Wrote:> Kissinger is back at it; leading America down the road to hell.

> "I would think we need first of all a dialogue with the Chinese
> leadership in which we are defining what we're attempting to
> prevent and in which the two leaders agree that whatever other
> conflicts they have they will not resort to military conflict,"
> Henry Kissinger told Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
> Micklethwait on November 16 at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum.

> "Unless there is some basis for some cooperative action, the world
> will slide into a catastrophe comparable to World War I."

> https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16785...singer-war

Guest Wrote:> "Xi Jinping, the one man in China's system, is now propagating the
> audacious concept of tianxia, that "all under heaven" owe
> allegiance to Beijing."

> An interesting quote from the above article by Gordon Chang. This
> is what John has been talking about for years.

> I refuse to kowtow to anyone.

It's interesting that Kissinger is still living in the 1970s, at the
time of ping-pong diplomacy. At that time, China was flat on its back
from Mao's disastrous policies -- the Great Leap Forward and the
Cultural Revolution. These are some of the stupidest policies of any
country in the history of the world, and they so completely devastated
China that China's economy still hasn't recovered. But in the 1970s,
China was so desperate that at least it was possible to talk to them
sensibly. That hasn't been true for a long time now, with China's
contempt for international law and the rest of the world, whom they
consider to be barbarians. Kissinger doesn't realize how things have
changed since the Tiananmen Square bloodbath, and the question is
whether Biden's relationship with China is so completely compromised
that he'll adopt the Kissinger position. All the signs are that it is
compromised, but we'll see.

I believe that it was Toynbee a century ago who said that China
would be the dominant power in the 21st century. He made that
prediction based on the size and growth of China's population,
which seemed irrestible. I used to semi-believe that myself,
but as I've been writing about China for 20 years, I've gradually
believed it less and less, and after writing my book on China, I
now consider it to be impossible.

I've come to appreciate how thoroughly immersed the Chinese are in
Confucianism. Most Americans know Confucianism through Chinese
fortune cookies, and sayings like, "Confucius say: Man with one
chopstick go hungry." or "Confucius say: Man should not sleep with
woman with more troubles than he have." These fortune cookie
sayings give the impression that Confucianism is pleasant
and benign.

But I've come to understand how deadly and destructive Confucianism
has been for China. Domestically, it means that any leader is
automatically a dictator who cannot be contradicted, unless he makes a
mistake so egregious that he loses the "Mandate from Heaven," and then
a rebellion must ensue. Internationally, it means, as I said above,
contempt for international law and the view of the rest of the world
as barbarians whose only purpose is to serve the Chinese, in the same
way that donkeys serve farmers. The West tolerated this view for
decades, giving China the opportunity to take advantage of
organizations like the UN, the WTO and WHO, but resulting in
disastrous decisions like the annexation of the South China Sea, or
the enslavement of millions of Uighurs in concentration camps. Trump
has reversed some of China's most disastrous successes, but now we
have to watch and see whether Biden's relationship with China is so
thoroughly compromised that China will resume its contemptuous
treatment of America and the west with full force.

The point is that Confucianism is so disastrous for China that China
can't even govern itself. Consider China's recent history. For four
of the last eight centuries, China was actually ruled by other people
-- the Mongols and the Manchus. And as we've seen in the last 70
years, when the Chinese do control their own government, they become
extremely self-destructive. So I think that the CCP thugs do have an
erotic fantasy of China taking over the world role that America
currently holds, but I don't see any possibility of that, given the
destructive and self-destructive nature of Confucianism. You can't
lead a world of people that you think are donkeys.

[David Horn]

(11-24-2020, 12:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, it looks like the revenge phase is underway.  Trump has declared the Open Skies treaty void, without bothering with the congressional approval needed to void a treaty.  This treaty allows planes to scout for things like nuclear explosions, or preparations for invasion.  Trump is not only ignoring the law which gives congress the ability to nullify treaties, but is trashing the only planes designed to look for nukes or potential invasions.  This is in case Biden attempts to rejoin the treaty, say by notifying everyone that Trump hasn't the authority.

The only member of the treaty who has been invading people lately?  Russia?

Just to let you know who Trump is really working for.  Now why would Putin want the treaty voided?  I wonder...

Now the planes Trump is destroying aren't the only recon aircraft in the Air Force inventory.  Other planes can go in.  Thing is, the planes being destroyed are 1950s relics, and many of the other aircraft are much newer and less expendable.  I'll bet on much newer reconnaissance drones being used.

Just one more reason to listen to Andrew Weissman and prosecute DJT to the fullest extent possible.  There are actions that go beyond the pale, and turning the other cheek only assures they will happen again if anyone of Trump's ilk is ever elected to that august office.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 24-Nov-2020 World View: Open Skies Treaty

(11-24-2020, 12:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > Well, it looks like the revenge phase is underway. Trump has
> declared the Open Skies treaty void, without bothering with the
> congressional approval needed to void a treaty. This treaty
> allows planes to scout for things like nuclear explosions, or
> preparations for invasion. Trump is not only ignoring the law
> which gives congress the ability to nullify treaties, but is
> trashing the only planes designed to look for nukes or potential
> invasions. This is in case Biden attempts to rejoin the treaty,
> say by notifying everyone that Trump hasn't the authority.

More garbage.

The withdrawal was announced in May, with the actual withdrawal to
take place in six months, which is now. The reason is that Russia
kept on violating the agreement. So it wasn't revenge, and it makes
sense. Let's now watch and see if Biden appeases Russia.

*** WPAFB and NASIC were key to Open Skies Treaty

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ame...SXNFRSW4I/