	Generational Dynamics
	Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's

\| HOME \| WEB LOG \| COUNTRY WIKI \| COMMENT \| FORUM \| DOWNLOADS \| ABOUT \|

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 12-May-2010
12-May-10 News -- David Cameron becomes Britain's Prime Minister

Web Log - May, 2010

12-May-10 News -- David Cameron becomes Britain's Prime Minister

Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, complicates US relations with Pakistan

Conservative party leader David Cameron becomes Prime Minister of Britain

As an American, it's breathtaking to watch how quickly the British can change governments. There was an inconclusive election last weekend, with no party having an outright majority. Until Tuesday afternoon, it appeared that Gordon Brown would remain in office for a while. Then, in the blink of an eye, Brown moved out of #10 Downing Street, and asked the Queen to accept his resignation, and ask David Cameron to form a new government.

The Labor Party of the Gordon Brown, who replaced Tony Blair as PM a couple of years ago, came in second to the Conservative Party (the Tories) in Thursday's election. However, the Tories didn't have a majority either, and so the right-wing Conservative Party has agreed to form a coalition with the party farthest on the left, the Liberal Democrats. Thus, Conservative David Cameron will be the new prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the head of the Liberal Democrats, will be the new deputy prime minister. [A reader has educated me that the Labor Party is to the left of the Liberal Democrats. I apologize for the error.] (Paragraph corrected, 14-May)

As I've written many times, it's a feature of generational Crisis eras that they are dominated by political bickering and few accomplishments, until a "regeneracy event" unifies the country in a new war. Countries from Japan to Germany and Belgium have such fragmented governments now that little happens beyond bickering. That's true now of the U.K., and will probably be true of the U.S. after the November elections.

The Brits are very hopeful today, because they're hoping that David Cameron will bring change, and an end to the bickering. Generational Dynamics says that the bickering will continue and worsen, and that nothing will change until events, rather than politicians, force changes.

Times Square bomber complicates relations with Pakistan

When London's subways were bombed by suicide bombers on 7/7/2005, it soon became clear that the suicide bombers were British citizens, born of naturalized British citizen parents who had immigrated from Pakistan, and who had received training from Kashmiri terrorist groups in Pakistan. (See "Pakistan cracks down on extremists.") In the wake of that attack, Pakistani officials rounded up and jailed hundreds of suspected militants who might have had a relationship with the terrorists.

Even though there are significant differences between the London subway bombings and the attempted Times Square bombing, there are also enough similarities to make it worthwhile to compare the two incidents.

First, let's list the most obvious differences:

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be bomber, was an American citizen, but unlike the London subway bombers, he was naturalized, having immigrated from Pakistan.

The London subway bombers were disturbed enough to want to commit "altruistic suicide," to turn themselves into heroes. (See "Robert Pape - Dying to Win - Suicide terrorists.") But Shahzad chose to use a timer, and did a sloppy job of setting up the bomb, resulting in failure. One might conclude that his heart wasn't really in it.

The parents of the London subway bombers were, by all accounts, completely decent Muslim British citizens and members of their communities, who loved their children, raised them well, and were mortified beyond belief to learn what they had done.
Shahzad's parents live near Peshawar, in Pakistan, but we don't know much about them, because they went into hiding after the attempted bombing, according to Pakistan's Daily Times. We do know that Shahzad's father is a retired and respected Pakistan air force officer.

In both cases, they got training and inspiration from Pakistani terrorist groups: Kashmiri groups for the London subway bombers, and the Taliban for Shahzad.

The question is always the same: How could a citizen of a country (the U.K. or the U.S.) become so radicalized as to wish to blow up large masses of innocent people?

I particularly want to eliminate from consideration those who become suicide bombers because of their parents' wishes. We've heard stories of such cases among radical Palestinians, for example. Instead, I want to focus on those who become terrorists DESPITE their parents' wishes.

I've probably read hundreds of studies and articles and news stories on subjects related to this question over the past eight years, and I've drawn the following conclusions, which I believe to be true but cannot prove without a lot more research:

Without attempting to descend into pop psychology, I'll simply say that these terrorists are mentally extremely disturbed. These are not normal people who have normal relationships, although they may have relationships with other people who share their mental illnesses.

These terrorists understand that their parents do not wish them to become terrorists. But they also absorb their parents' bitterness toward what turns out to be the target country. Thus, a parent might say, "Even though we're discriminated against here, we still have a much better life here than we had in Pakistan, and so we should accept the discrimination, and know our place." What the child hears is, "This place is making me suffer." The child cares about his parents, and he rationalizes that a terrorist act is a heroic act, doing his parents a good deed. Hence the phrase "altruistic terroristm" or "altruistic suicide." This kind of parental connection is, I believe, essential to the self-image of this kind of terrorist.

The altruistic terrorist searches for a moral framework for committing a terrorist act. This is similar to my previous writings that religion does not cause war, but war causes religion. (See my article, "Book review review: Christopher Hitchens: 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'.")
In this case, the altruistic terrorist turns to an Islamist spiritual leader who can provide the necessary moral guidance needed to kill a mass of innocent people. This is the role filled by people like Osama bin Laden who, incidentally, himself turned to terrorism because he hated his father, and developed a perverted form of Islam that he used to inspire would-be terrorists. (As I said, religion does not cause war, but war causes religion.)

This spiritual leader provides parental guidance to the would-be terrorist, who is not listening to his own parents. The spiritual leaders tells him how to become a hero, how to make his parents proud of him, and even how to have 72 virgins at his disposal.

In summary, a troubled young man goes through a process: He sees a way to solve his personal problems and become a hero in his parents' eyes, by adopting the moral authority of a terrorist spiritual leader.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, it appears that young people in countries in a "fifth turning era" (countries that have passed through a generational fourth turning Crisis era without having a crisis war) are particularly susceptible to becoming altruistic terrorists. (See my 2005 article, "Belgians shocked that suicide bomber is Belgian woman.") In such countries, younger generations become increasingly angry and vengeful, and hold human life to have less and less value. This leads to the altruistic terrorism. However, the same thing happens, though less often, to young people in countries in Crisis eras.

Faisal Shahzad appears to follow this pattern, based on what I currently know. How does this apply to Shahzad?

Shahzad's parents live in Peshawar, a hotbed of Taliban terrorism, and as I've written a number of times in the past, Pakistanis have often blamed America for Taliban terrorism. This is an example of a population in denial, but it's true of many Pakistanis. So it's quite possible that Shahzad's parents blamed America for the terrorism around them.

We know that, as early as 2004, Shahzad was bitterly opposed to the President Bush's policies in Iraq, according to reporting by Associated Press. Shahzad took several trips to Pakistan, where his attitudes about Bush undoubtedly intensified.

Long-time readers of this web site will remember how furious I was that the loony left, from MoveOn.org to NBC News to the New York Times, were doing everything in their considerable power to bring about the defeat and humiliation of the United States in Iraq, especially during the discussions of the "surge," in 2006-7. At the time, I indicated that I believed that their actions were close to treason, and that they were doing tremendous damage to America. The situation with Shahzad may be one tangible result of their actions.

In 2008, Shahzad lost his home to foreclosure. This was probably the last straw.

Faisal Shahzad and the Pakistan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP)

There is some question as to whether Shahzad has had contact with Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), the Pakistan Taliban group; both TTP and Pakistan's government have denied it.

But Pakistan's Dawn news service says that the U.S. is pressuring Pakistan on the attempted bomb plot. On Sunday, US Attorney General Eric Holder said that American officials firmly blamed TTP for the attempted bombing, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS news that there would be "severe consequences" if a successful attack in the United States were traced to Pakistan.

This has raised fears of a wider war, according to Bloomberg, because U.S. pressures on Pakistan may ignite a wider war. In particular, the U.S. is pressuring the Pakistani army to go into North Waziristan, one of the tribal regions on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and clean out the militants.

The situation has gathered some momentum since then. BBC reports that at least 24 militants were killed and several other injured in suspected U.S. drone attacks in North Waziristan.

And on Tuesday, according to Dawn, the US State Department said that it was considering putting TTP on the list of groups designated as "foreign terrorist organizations." This would trigger punitive measures, such as freezing assets tied to the group, barring foreign nationals with links to it from entering the United States and making it a crime to give any material help.

This has raised the level of concern among Pakistan's public. For example, an editorial in Pakistan's The Nation asks, "Is a US attack imminent?" According to the opinion writer, the Shahzal incident is being used as an excuse by the US to send additional troops into Pakistan.

And in India, the arrest of Shahzad has "vindicated its oft repeated stand that Pakistan is the epicentre of terror activities," according to Hindustani Times.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, Pakistan and India are headed for a new genocidal war, re-fighting the bloody war that following Partition in 1947, creating the two countries. Both the Pakistanis and the Indians are well aware of the danger of a breakout of war, and they've been pursuing peace talks, but the Faisal Shahzad situation shows that very little is under their control.

Backlash developing against massive European bailout

The continually deteriorating financial situation in Europe remains far and away as one of the most important news stories in the world right now.

A backlash appears to be developing against the massive bailout of the last two days. Euro Intelligence summarizes the growing feeling by saying, "Euphoria ends as investors suspect another shameless EU confidence trick."

Euphoria was indeed very high on Monday, and it appeared that Europe's problems were ending. Here's a graph, courtesy of FT Alphaville, of yields (interest rates) on bonds of the five PIIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain):

Bond yields on the five PIIGS countries, as of Monday, May 10 <font face=Arial size=-2>(Source: ftalphaville.ft.com)</font>

Bond yields on the five PIIGS countries, as of Monday, May 10 (Source: ftalphaville.ft.com)

As you can see yields fell sharply on Monday, thanks to the euphoria from the bailout package, and also thanks to the fact that the European Central Bank had started purchasing these bonds, as part of the bailout program. Yields continued to fall on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg, as the ECB continued its bond purchase program. However, it may be that nobody was buying these bonds EXCEPT the ECB.

The same skepticism that we described yesterday continued into Tuesday. Few people seem to believe that the Europeans have done anything to solve the underlying structural problems, but have only bought a little time by pouring huge amounts of liquidity into the system.

John P. Hussman's weekly newsletter contained an interest analysis that's worth summarizing. In an article entitled, "Greek Debt and Backward Induction," he argued as follows:

Because of the massive bailout program, there's enough liqudity around so that Greece will not have to enter the debt markets again for around 18 months.

After that, Greece will default, because their structural problems will remain unresolved. Defaulting will mean that they'll restructure their debt, and Greek bonds will be worth only cents on the dollar.

If you do a present value computation on Greek bonds, making reasonable assumptions about restructuring, then an investor would have to demand 20% yield (interest rate) to invest in Greek bonds today.

But in the terms of the bailout, the EU and the IMF are loaning Greece enormous sums of money, and demanding only 5% interest. The 15% is thus a "non-recourse subsidy" -- meaning that it's money that the EU and IMF have no hope of getting back. They're simply throwing good money after bad.

Hussman concludes that Greece appears unlikely to remain in the eurozone for long.

With this last part of Hussman's argument I disagree.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, Europe is headed for another major war, like the ones it has had at regular intervals for many, many centuries. So rather than Greece leaving the eurozone, my expectation is that the EU itself will split, and right now the fault line appears to be between the northern countries (including Germany and Britain) versus the southern countries (including France).

In the Generational Dynamics forum, member JLak makes the argument that the new bailout actually brings war closer. He compares the European Union today to America prior to the Civil War, when there was a clear distinction between the hectic factory lifestyles of the North, versus the genteel cotton plantation lifestyles of the South:

"When faced with a tough decision, extreme measures will be taken to delay until larger forces [take control]. Eventually it will turn into a situation that parallels the prelude to the American Civil War. The EU states have roughly the same political cohesion as the US states of that era, and there is a central ideological battle between a system of production and innovation through free choice of the individual, and a system of forced labor controlled by the anointed few (my view of socialism).

The question is whether there will be a war over it. Do EU nations care if the PIIGS default? Before bailing them out, it is not worth going to war over. After bailing them out, they will have no choice because their own debt will threaten their peaceful existence. Germany, UK and France are in no position to be lending to profligates."

Whatever the scenario, I believe there is one thing that everyone agrees on: A major historic change has occurred in Europe this week. The euro common currency was supposed to force all countries to work together; instead it created major divisions. The ECB was supposed to be "fiercely independent" of political pressures; instead, it flip-flopped and caved into political pressures. Germany was supposed to lead the EU in solid, responsible democracy; instead, it increasingly exhibited xenophobia toward another EU country, Greece.

Decisions were made with good intentions but, like all major decisions, there are always unintended consequences. We should begin to see those unintended consequences soon.

Additional links

Is Germany returning to the days of Kaiser Wilhelm, headed for new divisions and war? Berliner Republik (in German)

Europe�s Debt Crisis: Your Questions Answered. Includes some answers from Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism. NY Times

About one in five Israeli men between the ages of 35 and 54 are not part of the labor force, giving Israel one of the largest welfare programs in the West. LA Times

Europe's debt aid package took a nudge from President Obama. This could have political ramifications if the U.S. taxpayer is contributing a lot to the European aid package. NY Times

Another 47 cases of H1N1 swine flu were confirmed last week in Bangladesh. Pakistan's Geo TV

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 12-May-10 News -- David Cameron becomes Britain's Prime Minister thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (12-May-2010) Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

Web Log Pages

Current Web Log