01-06-2020, 01:06 PM
** 06-Jan-2020 World View: Generational theory in the Pentagon
That's an interesting question. Sure, there may well be people in the
Pentagon or State Dept. who are following my web site, and in fact I
occasionally exchange e-mail messages with someone in government. But
we've had many discussions in the Generational Dynamics forum that
anyone who talks about generational theory in the workplace or even
with friends meets with hostility. So-called "experts" have no desire
to have their ideological beliefs challenged.
That's why this whole thing about Steve Bannon being an adviser to
Donald Trump has been such a big deal for me. I've often wondered
whether anyone in the White House follows the Generational Dynamics
web site, or is even on my mailing list under an anonymous name. The
one thing I did note -- and I wrote many articles about it -- is that
whenever Donald Trump did anything in foreign policy that baffled the
media and the Democrats (which was pretty much always), I was always
able to explain how the decision made perfect sense from the point of
view of Generational Dynamics. In fact, the current actions on Iran
are like that. That doesn't mean that Trump or his advisers are
specifically analyzing situations from the point of view of
generational theory, since the same conclusions can always be reached
independently, but at the least it's been a coincidence. And this is
in contrast to, for example, the Obama administration decisions, which
never made any sense whatsoever.
One thing that I've learned repeatedly is that the experts in
Washington have no clue what's going on in the world. As I've
mentioned several times in my articles, I learned this in 2006 when
Congressional Quarterly and the London Times did a survey of Mideast
"experts," many with years of experience, and found out that they
didn't know the answers to the simplest questions.
One of things that the experts didn't know was whether al-Qaeda was a
Sunni or Shia organization. Think about that. We had people --
Republicans and Democrats -- making foreign policy who were so
ignorant and stupid that they couldn't answer the simplest questions
about the subject they were supposed to be experts on. (And recall
that Pelosi famously declared that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. Lol.)
Today's politicians and media are obviously just as ignorant, which is
obvious every time they open their mouths. I've singled out the
Connecticut senator Chris Murphy because al-Jazeera has run video from
him several times, and referred to him as an "expert." He's been in
Congress since 2007 and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
since 2013, so he should know what's going on. And yet, he says the
most incredibly stupid things. My theory is that the reason that
al-Jazeera runs video from him and others like him is that they want
to show to their Arab audience how stupid the Americans are.
It's obvious that none of the experts on tv has any idea of what's
going on in Iran, and I assume that the same is true of people
in the Pentagon. You don't need to know generational theory to
know what's going on in Iran, and in fact that carries the "fourth
turning" baggage with it. But you would need to know something about
Iran's history, and these people know less than nothing.
Let's look at what you or someone in the Pentagon or elsewhere would
have to know to have any idea what's going on in Iran:
So, my point in answer to your question is that what has to be
understood about the situation in Iran actually does not require
an understanding of generational theory, but it does require a
knowledge of the history of Iran, and the ability to do fourth
grade math.
Obviously, I don't expect media reporters and analysts to have
the mental capacity to understand all that, but I do expect
people who call themselves "experts" to understand at least some
of the simpler concepts, which they don't.
(01-05-2020, 07:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I wonder if there's anyone in the Pentagon who is familiar with
> generational theory. Certainly an understanding that Iran is in a
> generational Awakening would have helped to make the decision that
> killing Soleimani had limited downside risk.
That's an interesting question. Sure, there may well be people in the
Pentagon or State Dept. who are following my web site, and in fact I
occasionally exchange e-mail messages with someone in government. But
we've had many discussions in the Generational Dynamics forum that
anyone who talks about generational theory in the workplace or even
with friends meets with hostility. So-called "experts" have no desire
to have their ideological beliefs challenged.
That's why this whole thing about Steve Bannon being an adviser to
Donald Trump has been such a big deal for me. I've often wondered
whether anyone in the White House follows the Generational Dynamics
web site, or is even on my mailing list under an anonymous name. The
one thing I did note -- and I wrote many articles about it -- is that
whenever Donald Trump did anything in foreign policy that baffled the
media and the Democrats (which was pretty much always), I was always
able to explain how the decision made perfect sense from the point of
view of Generational Dynamics. In fact, the current actions on Iran
are like that. That doesn't mean that Trump or his advisers are
specifically analyzing situations from the point of view of
generational theory, since the same conclusions can always be reached
independently, but at the least it's been a coincidence. And this is
in contrast to, for example, the Obama administration decisions, which
never made any sense whatsoever.
One thing that I've learned repeatedly is that the experts in
Washington have no clue what's going on in the world. As I've
mentioned several times in my articles, I learned this in 2006 when
Congressional Quarterly and the London Times did a survey of Mideast
"experts," many with years of experience, and found out that they
didn't know the answers to the simplest questions.
One of things that the experts didn't know was whether al-Qaeda was a
Sunni or Shia organization. Think about that. We had people --
Republicans and Democrats -- making foreign policy who were so
ignorant and stupid that they couldn't answer the simplest questions
about the subject they were supposed to be experts on. (And recall
that Pelosi famously declared that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. Lol.)
Today's politicians and media are obviously just as ignorant, which is
obvious every time they open their mouths. I've singled out the
Connecticut senator Chris Murphy because al-Jazeera has run video from
him several times, and referred to him as an "expert." He's been in
Congress since 2007 and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
since 2013, so he should know what's going on. And yet, he says the
most incredibly stupid things. My theory is that the reason that
al-Jazeera runs video from him and others like him is that they want
to show to their Arab audience how stupid the Americans are.
It's obvious that none of the experts on tv has any idea of what's
going on in Iran, and I assume that the same is true of people
in the Pentagon. You don't need to know generational theory to
know what's going on in Iran, and in fact that carries the "fourth
turning" baggage with it. But you would need to know something about
Iran's history, and these people know less than nothing.
Let's look at what you or someone in the Pentagon or elsewhere would
have to know to have any idea what's going on in Iran:
- It would be nice to know something about the relationship
between the Constitutional Revolution and the Islamic Revolution,
but that would be asking too much.
- You'd have to recognize the importance of the Iran/Iraq
war of the 1980s. But why would anyone know about that? There are
two wars going on right now -- in Syria and Yemen -- and there have
been other recent wars -- Gaza wars, Lebanon war, Iraq war, Gulf
war -- so why would anyone know anything about this ancient
antedeluvian Iran/Iraq war that happened so long ago that it's
totally meaningless and forgotten today?
- Then you'd have to be able to make generational connections. This
is very abstract, and few people are capable of it, given that few
people can do fourth grade percentage problems. Suppose a poll in
1990 revealed that only 20% of 30-40 year old Iranians believe that
ABC is true, and a poll that today says that 80% of 30-40 year olds
believe that ABC is true. Most analysts, reporters, economists and
politicians would say, omigod, 30-40 year olds have changed their
minds, and they fall back on the usual extraneous factors, such as
increased poverty or a change in the US administration. They would
not be mentally capable of understanding that 30-40 year olds in 1990
would be 50-60 years old today, and 10-20 year olds in 1990 would be
30-40 years old today, and so they haven't changed their minds at all.
Examining the two poll results would reveal that everyone believes the
same thing they did 20 years ago, but they've just gotten older. That
concept is completely foreign and incomprehensible to the mainstream
media, economists and analysts, but it's crucial to understanding
what's going on in Iran today. And you have to understand that, even
if you know nothing about generational theory.
- Applying that abstract reasoning to the current situation, the
students who were beaten, tortured and jailed by Iran's security
policy for peaceful demonstrations 20 years ago are now going to be
30-40 years old, and they're obviously going to remain extremely angry
at the current hardline leaders, even if they are thronging the
streets, crying about Solomeini.
- Even more recently, those 30-40 year olds have not forgotten
that just a month ago, Solomeini was overseeing the torture,
rape, jailing and murder of peaceful anti-government protesters.
- Applying the same abstract reasons, everyone over age 25 in Iran
today has some personal memory of the Iran/Iraq war, and how their
fathers, uncles and brothers were tortured and killed by Iraqis. For
these people, Solomeini is a war hero, and those feelings haven't gone
away. So feelings about Solomeini are going to be mixed -- many
revere him for fighting the Iraqis, and also loathe him for torturing
and killing peaceful Iranian protesters. Once again, this is way too
nuanced and abstract for anyone in Washington to understand.
- Finally, the situation in Iraq is even more nuanced. On the one
hand, Solomeini is a war criminal because of the Iran/Iraq war, and
Solomeini has been overseeing the Iran-backed People's Mobilization
Forces (PMFs) in torturing, beating and jailing peaceful anti-Iran
protesters, but on the other hand, Iran is pretty much in control of
Iraq's government, which is pretty much in shambles anyway.
So, my point in answer to your question is that what has to be
understood about the situation in Iran actually does not require
an understanding of generational theory, but it does require a
knowledge of the history of Iran, and the ability to do fourth
grade math.
Obviously, I don't expect media reporters and analysts to have
the mental capacity to understand all that, but I do expect
people who call themselves "experts" to understand at least some
of the simpler concepts, which they don't.
