3-Jan-12 World View -- Iran plays with fire

[John]

3-Jan-12 World View -- Iran plays with fire, provoking a Western military response


Defense authorization bill cuts anti-terror funding to Pakistan

** 3-Jan-12 World View -- Iran plays with fire, provoking a Western military response
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 03#e120103



Contents:
Iran tests new missiles in Persian Gulf
Iran's actions raise alarms in Gulf nations
Iran and the West are 'playing with fire' as mutual threats mount
Obama signs defense bill with indefinite detention provision
Left-wing bitterly criticizes signing of defense bill
Defense bill cuts anti-terror funding to Pakistan
My picks for the next President


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Iran, Qader missile, Nour missile,
Mehrab missile, Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC,
Great Islamic Revolution, Iran/Iraq war, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Richard Nixon,
National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Jonathan Turley,
Pakistan, Counter-Insurgency Fund, Afghanistan,
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul,
Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Iowa caucases

[Trevor]

Iran is certainly an interesting case. In the end, I do expect the younger generation to win the Awakening conflict. The biggest reason is because there is a limit as to how far their government is willing to go to subdue the protesters. They've arrested them, beaten them, and you've even had some incidents where they've been shot at. However, they are not willing to participate in mass slaughter of protestors that Syria is in the process off, since I see a Prophet victory for them.

As for the defense bill, that's actually slightly lower than in fiscal year 2011, although it should be kept in mind that the war in Iraq is over, meaning that the financial burden is somewhat lessened. I wonder what China's official budget will be for 2012. We'll find out in April, giving us at least some idea what they can do.

[CrosstimbersOkie]

Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?

Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...

True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.

I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.

Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.

I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.

[Guest]

Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?

Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...

True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.

I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.

Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.

I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.

I don't write here very much with good reason. This forum is as good out there is in summing up world events and the basic elements of generational dynamics are correct, of course. Everything is not explained by it but it is a huge preponderant factor. Having said that people extrapolate to no end which brings us to the presidential candidates....

Newt cannot be trusted with one word he says. Not his fault. A politician like any other who just blows the way the wind blows. And who is "Strauss & Howe" to lay down the rules of what makes a good president ? You talk as someone laid down some mew law of physics )

Someone said Ron paul is a "fruitcake". Another one said he would be a "disaster". Followed by some mish mash of how libertarianism would screw everything up. Vague. Lacking in any high-level analysis. So it had to be ultimately absurd. Don't even know how to respond to it. So I will just give a monologue back for you to chew.

True. Ron Paul will not win the nomination. But as with politics...it is because he is saying the right thing.

After trying the carrot and stick policy in the middle east for years all we have is a billion people who hate us. The whole of Pakistan hates us although we are giving them money for years. Easy to imagine that we will have many more terrorists who will want to blow things here up. And the cycle will start all over again. This is sheer stupidity.

Someone said Hilary clinton is a good Secretary of state. The woman faught a war with Libya when we got nothing out of it. Just spend many more billions trying to tell choose a victor in another country rather than letting them sort it out. Gaddafi had strong support from millions in Libya. So we involved into something that had no upside with us, ended up getting hated by millions more people, and now we just need to wait for someone to blow something here again.

The fact is that US spends more money on defence than the next N countries (think N~=10) and we are less secure than people in Canada or Switzerland because the first place in the world these people want to blow a bomb up is USA. And we are draining ourselves financially trying to secure us. Their was a great commentary by Bin Laden who said he beat the Soviets not by war but by economic attrition. He said that was the same strategy to be followed for beating the US. Bin Laden is dead. But the guy almost won half the war and his strategy has, unfortunately, played out really well.

Now we are headed into another conflict with Iran. More money spent. Nothing will be safer. You probably know the whole history of how Iran and US got into this bitter relationship for 50 years but dont know what to make of it. The whole logic of trying to help "our friend" Israel as parroted by our Newts is complete bogus and speaks to how many idiots we have around. Why not make friends with India and Brazil ? The only reason we help Israel is the overly strong Jewish-American lobby in this country that works behind the scenes. Giving all these billions to Israel has not made us secure at all. If anything, we have made many more enemies.

You could go on and on and on and on and on and on. If you think that Ron Paul is a fruitcake and Newt could make a reasonable president, its time to stop writing blogs about foriegn policy and use your time for something better. You are, Sir, clueless.

[Marc]

Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?

Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...

True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.

I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.

Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.

I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.

I appreciate the insights there. I do kindly think, however, that just as World War II and its Allies had their Manhattan Project which helped win that war, that a "21st-century Manhattan Project" that wouldn't be bad to start immediately would be to do everything reasonably possible to beef up America's (and its allies') anti-ballistic-missile defenses. This would get into laser-, pulse-, sonic- and lightning-beam technologies which could be crucial for victory, as well as to avoid paying a horrific price for victory. This effort could be a godsend if/when we get into a total-war scenario, which could quite possibly turn seriously nuclear.

Again, thanks for the valuable thoughts. —Best regards, Marc

[Trevor]

Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?

Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...

True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.

I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.

Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.

I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.

I appreciate the insights there. I do kindly think, however, that just as World War II and its Allies had their Manhattan Project which helped win that war, that a "21st-century Manhattan Project" that wouldn't be bad to start immediately would be to do everything reasonably possible to beef up America's (and its allies') anti-ballistic-missile defenses. This would get into laser-, pulse-, sonic- and lightning-beam technologies which could be crucial for victory, as well as to avoid paying a horrific price for victory. This effort could be a godsend if/when we get into a total-war scenario, which could quite possibly turn seriously nuclear.

Again, thanks for the valuable thoughts. —Best regards, Marc

If I was president and I knew that was coming, that would be my number one priority. This war will end up being nuclear, even if it doesn't start out that way. Building up our ballistic defense would be essential.

One big advantage we had during WWII is that we were surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. We could build and mobilize and there was nothing the Axis could do to stop us. We were the only ones not being bombed every single day for years on end. That's a big advantage that we aren't going to have this time around. The oceans will provide some protection, but it's not going to be the kind of barrier that it was 70 years ago.

Most of the ships we lost in Pearl Harbor were repaired and in spite of the setbacks, we were very, very lucky. If they had managed to hit our oil refineries or caught our aircraft carriers or if they destroyed the dockyards. That would have kept us from launching any real assaults for over a year and we certainly wouldn't have been able to fight at the Coral Sea or Midway; not and win, anyway. We'd have won, certainly, since we were much bigger and stronger than Japan, but it would have been a much harder road for us.

China can match our strength and match our capabilities, so we can't count on any of that this time around. According to my calculations, in real military spending, we outmatch them by 3-1 to 3.5-1. Not nearly as reassuring as you might think, because they'd catch up to us in 5-7 years, especially with our plans to gut everything.

In terms of who I think is best suited for what's coming, I'd have to say Newt Gingrich. Not only is he very knowledgeable about the world, but he is also familiar with Generational Theory, meaning that he has an idea of what we're going to end up facing in future years.

[JR_in_Mass]

OK, this is opinion: Gingrich is a blowhard, "a stupid person's idea of what a smart person is like." He's been in academia, politics, and (Heaven help us) lobbying/influence peddling his whole life - never, as far as I have heard, holding a job where he had to soldier it out to the end of the day, put up with sh*t, or break a sweat (except perhaps occasional flop sweat, which he has certainly earned). In GenDyn terms, isn't he nearly the archetype of an arrogant, narcissistic Boomer? Why in the world would anyone trust a clown like that to get anything right?

[CrosstimbersOkie]

Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?

Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...

True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.

I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.

Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.

I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.

I appreciate the insights there. I do kindly think, however, that just as World War II and its Allies had their Manhattan Project which helped win that war, that a "21st-century Manhattan Project" that wouldn't be bad to start immediately would be to do everything reasonably possible to beef up America's (and its allies') anti-ballistic-missile defenses. This would get into laser-, pulse-, sonic- and lightning-beam technologies which could be crucial for victory, as well as to avoid paying a horrific price for victory. This effort could be a godsend if/when we get into a total-war scenario, which could quite possibly turn seriously nuclear.

Again, thanks for the valuable thoughts. —Best regards, Marc

I don't know Marc. I'm afraid that moves on the part of the US will just be countered and thus be ineffective when the time comes. The Chinese have already stolen terabytes of data from US Government computers and have worms in place waiting to be activated. That's been covered in the media for several years. Whatever technology is developed toward specific ends is in danger of being countered and rendered irrelevant. In a conflict it's the aggressor who's at the disadvantage because they have to commit to a course of action--a strategy. At this point the other side has the advantage of having more options. It's the same way with preparation for war, essentially. Once you commit to something you limit your options. You become inflexible and less able to adapt.

Better to keep your options--all of your options open I think.

PS:

There is one area where preparation will pay off and which can't be countered by a wily enemy. That's investment in human capital. A literate and technologically trained populace is a weapon that will be able to adapt to changing circumstances provided its leaders provide it with an overall vision and allow it to run.

[Marc]

Hi, CrosstimbersOkie,

Thanks for the earnest feedback. I do agree that human capital is critical in any organization — be it private, public, or nonprofit. I also know that the Chinese have indeed hungrily gotten access to a very significant amount of US military data in the recent past, which is never a good thing. However, despite the data compromise and your view that we should really develop what we militarily need right at the time we get into a serious conflict (and this seems to harmonize with what Strauss & Howe say), I strongly conjecture that we do/will have a strong leg up on the Chinese when it comes to new-generation anti-ballistic-missile technologies. If this is likely true, then for that reason, I say, "go for it," even if this seems Reaganesque in regards to pursuing "Star Wars" military technologies. As has been said before, the best offense is a good defense — and if we bring much of the Star Wars–type technologies online shortly, this could really help us, I respectfully feel. This is even more true, I feel, given the ICBM-type technologies that exist today, which reduces the protective power of the oceans and land masses that separate America from elsewhere. But again, I know that there's a diversity of opinion regarding military strategy relating to the next few years and the next decade.

Thanks yet again for the good insights. —Best regards, Marc

[CrosstimbersOkie]

Whatever the case, just be sure that you are the one moving rather than the one being moved.

Sun Tzu said:

Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.

Since the Chinese seem to penetrate US Government data at will, it's all too easy for them to do the moving.