I wouldn't be surprised if America will soon be out of a job-because the U.S. government will have lost all credibility.

*** 2-Sep-13 World View -- President Obama goes into 'Obamacare mode' over Syria issue

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• President Obama goes into 'Obamacare mode' over Syria issue
• Egypt's Mohamed Morsi accused of inciting violence

****
**** President Obama goes into 'Obamacare mode' over Syria issue
****


Vladimir Putin and a scowling Barack Obama at their June, 2012 meeting (AP)

The Syria crisis has apparently turned into an existential crisis for
the presidency of Barack Obama, as he shifts gears to prepare for
continuing speeches and briefings in an effort to get Congressional
approval for military action in Syria. ( "1-Sep-13 World View -- U.S. foreign policy in chaos as Obama reverses himself on Syria"
)

The issue has deeply divided the public in both political parties,
with polls showing almost 80% opposing any intervention at all.
However, President Obama has now personally committed both himself and
the country to military action, and he will be bringing all of his
speech-giving and community organizer skills to bear on getting
approval from Congress, as he did for Obamacare.

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on all of the Sunday morning
news shows, looking like he hadn't slept in two days, which may well
be the case after President Obama pulled the rug out from under him.

Republicans have been vitriolically critical of Obama for several
days, criticizing his handling of the Syria issue, and his plan for a
military strike with cruise missiles that would accomplish nothing but
boost his ego.

But now, even Obama's supporters are questioning his competence as
president. This was apparent on Sunday from the comments of reporters
on CNN who have always been totally in the tank for Obama -- up until
now.

The last time that I wrote about CNN political analyst David Gergen
was in 2009 in the article "Vile 'teabagging' jokes signal the deterioration of CNN and NBC news"
.

So it was quite surprising on CNN on Sunday to hear him question
Barack Obama's competence as President, in an interview along with
President Bush's Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. Gergen was
asked what Obama is going to say to Russia's president Vladimir Putin
when they both attend the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg next week, and
they face each other "eye to eye":

<QUOTE>"DAVID GERGEN: Whatever it is, it's going to be frosty
on both sides. I don't think they will talk very much. I think a
risk, and Nick was pointing out some of the risks, there is a very
definite risk that Russia now will step up its armaments of the
Syrians in preparation for an attack.

After all, this is their friend [al-Assad]. They are going to say
this is a wrongful action with no international support, illegal
internationally and we're going to step it up.

So there are those risks, I think. I think the bigger risk, and
what the president has got to work on here, is that you can say
it's wise to have call for the Congress to do this, but the way he
went about it, it was so jerky and unpredictable, that I think
it's raised questions about just how firm a grip he has on the
wheel as a commander in chief.

After all, starting with the drawing of the red line itself, which
seemed to be sort of almost by the way, it's a red line, as
opposed to a well thought-out plan, and now we have no apparent
strategy for long term in the Middle East. Nick knows this better
than I do.

But presidents need to be seen in control of events and guiding
events, and not just reacting or bouncing around. I'd welcome
Nick's views.

NICHOLAS BURNS: I think David's right. The United States has to --
the administration has to regroup here. The Congress has to vote
in favor of this resolution or else the credibility of the United
States as a global power in the Middle East is going to be vastly
reduced.

And it means also that the administration has to give the kind of
powerful performance that Secretary Kerry gave this morning on all
the Sunday shows. ... He gave a ringing endorsement for why it's
important for us to act.

We have to see that kind of consistency, resolve and strength from
the administration. That's what the world is looking for. It
didn't see it this week. I hope we'll see it in the next week or
two."<END QUOTE>

I think that I can honestly say that I never expected to hear David
Gergen say anything remotely like, "the way he went about it, it was
so jerky and unpredictable, that I think it's raised questions about
just how firm a grip he has on the wheel as a commander in chief."

Nor would I ever have expected much criticism for Obama from CNN's
commentator Fareed Zakaria, who has been totally in the tank for Obama
until now:

<QUOTE>"Last March, President Barack Obama spoke off-the-cuff
about how Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a
"game-changer." It has turned out to be, except not quite in the
sense that he meant.

It has been an event that has confused and confounded the Obama
administration. Whatever your views on the larger issues, it's
hard not to conclude that the administration's handling of Syria
over the last year has been a case study in how not to conduct
foreign policy.

The president started out with an understanding that the Syrian
conflict is a messy sectarian struggle that cannot be influenced
easily by American military intervention. He was disciplined in
resisting calls to jump into a cauldron.

But from the start, he confused and undermined this policy with
loose rhetoric, perhaps egged on by some of his advisors and
critics to "do something." So, he announced just over two years
ago that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had to go.

Now, a pundit can engage in grandiose rhetoric. The president of
the United States should make declarations like that only if he
has some strategy to actually achieve it. He did not.

In truth, Obama and many others miscalculated. They believed that
Assad's regime was near the end, misreading both its strength and
brutality, but also the level of support it has from several
segments of Syrian society.

Then, just about a year ago, came the off-the-cuff remarks about a
red line on chemical weapons, insufficiently thought through but
now publicly stated and definitive.

Since then, American foreign policy in Syria has largely been
concerned about ensuring that Obama's threat does not seem
empty. After all, what American national interest is being
followed?

The administration says it is upholding international law. Except,
as Fred Kaplan points out in Slate, the institutions that embody
international law and consensus, the United Nations and other
international organizations, do not support this action.

The United States plus France and Turkey cannot be considered the
embodiment of international law and global public opinion.

The nature of the strike, we are told, will be short and symbolic,
a shot across the bow, in the midst of a civil war in which both
sides are in a high-stakes struggle for survival.

Does anyone think that this will make any difference? And then,
the strangest twist, an unplanned, last minute appeal to Congress,
paving the way for further delay, weakening momentum, erasing what
little surprise existed, and setting the stage for a potential
defeat at home.

I don't think that this strike, should it eventually take place,
will be as damaging as its critics fear. The Assad regime will
likely hunker down, take it, and move on.

It will make little difference one way or the other. But the
manner in which the Obama administration has first created and
then mismanaged this crisis will, alas, cast a long shadow on
America's role in the world."<END QUOTE>

Many analysts are predicting that President Obama will win
Congressional approval because there's so much at stake, in that a
defeat would be devastating to his international credibility and the
international credibility of the entire nation. The result is that
Democrats will fall into line behind the President, and enough
Republicans will support military action to gain Congressional
approval.

Ironically, Obama will be going into "Obamacare mode" at a time when
Obamacare itself is under fire, having suffered a series of disastrous
setbacks. (See "5-Jul-13 World View -- Eurozone and Obamacare continue their parallel economic collapse"
)

President Obama had expected to devote all his energies in September
to selling Obamacare, to prevent a collapse of the "Obamacare
exchanges," which are scheduled to open on October 1, but which are
woefully behind schedule. He'll now have to split his community
organizing and speech-making skills between Syria and Obamacare, and
Republicans will be sure to demand concessions on one issue in
exchange for support on the other issue. CNN-SOTU Transcript and CNN-Fareed Zakaria Transcript

****
**** Egypt's Mohamed Morsi accused of inciting violence
****

Former president Mohamed Morsi, who has been detained in an unknown
location since he was deposed in an army coup on July 3, is now being
charged in criminal court for ten deaths in clashes between his Muslim
Brotherhood supporters and his opponents, after he assumed dictatorial
powers in a constitutional decree. Morsi and 14 members of his
presidential staff have been accused of ordering their supporters to
attack peaceful protesters who assembled outside the presidential
palace to denounce his decree. The move reportedly came after the
republican guards and ministry of interior refused to obey orders to
attack protesters. Al-Ahram (Cairo)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, John Kerry,
Vladimir Putin, David Gergen, Nicholas Burns, Fareed Zakaria,
Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

I have wondered if Obama was being egged on, what with this "red line" thing. I have gotten the impression that he was being pushed in a direction that he didn't really want to go.

There was a comment about generational change in the book The End of the American Era. It was pointed out that younger Americans lacked the historical experience of people who remembered WWII and the early years of the Cold War. So, overall, there is less commitment to international activism by younger people, compared to older (who are dying off). The exceptions, I suspect, are basically Boomer factions.

*** 3-Sep-13 World View -- France promises a military response to Syria's chemical weapons attack

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• France promises a military response to Syria's chemical weapons attack
• President Obama continues full-scale Syria sales campaign
• China fears destabilization of Afghanistan, as NATO pulls out
• Drone strikes decreasing sharply in Pakistan
• Never smile at a crocodile

****
**** France promises a military response to Syria's chemical weapons attack
****


Bashar al-Assad smiles on Monday at a meeting where he's presumably celebrating the number of Sunni women and children civilians he's torturing and killing (Reuters)

It was just a week ago when it was thought that Britain, France, and
the United States would form a coalition for military action against
the regime of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad in response to the
regime's use of chemical weapons. But then Britain's parliament
rejected any involvement, and President Barack Obama reversed his
position, delaying any strike and leaving the decision to Congress,
putting American foreign policy into chaos.

This week, it appears that France is leading the effort. France says
it is building a coalition to back military action against the regime.
According to Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault on Monday:

<QUOTE>"This act cannot be left without a response. It's not
for France to act alone. The president is continuing his work of
persuasion to bring together a coalition without delay.

France is determined to penalize the use of chemical weapons by
(President Bashar al-)Assad's regime and to dissuade with a
forceful and firm response. The objective is neither to topple
the regime or liberate the country."<END QUOTE>

On Monday, France issued a nine-page report on Syria's chemical
arsenal:

<QUOTE>"The Syrian chemical program began in the 1970s with
import of chemical munitions. Since the 1980s, Damascus undertaken
to procure the materials, products and know-how the establishment
of an independent national production capacity and mass in this
area.

The nature of the Syrian chemical arsenal With more than a
thousand tons of chemical warfare agents and precursors Damascus
has one of the world's largest operational stocks without
perspective programmed destruction."<END QUOTE>

Syria for years has been intensively developing chemical weapons and
delivery technology. The report details hundreds of tons of mustard
gas, VX gas and sarin gas, and a wide range of artillery and missiles,
with a range up to 500 kilometers, capable of accurately delivering
hundreds of toxic agents.

The report confirms "a massive and coordinated use of chemical agents
against civilians on August 21," with half the victims being women and
children. The attack could only have been made by the regime itself,
because of the quantity and sophistication of the weaponry required to
carry off this massive attack.

The Russians have said that al-Assad would have to be "crazy" to
launch such an attack, because they were already winning the war.
This assessment is contested by many analysts, but the report makes
al-Assad's motives quite clear:

<QUOTE>"Our information confirms that the regime feared a
large scale attack on Damascus by the opposition during this
period. Our assessment is that the regime sought to loosen the
grip of the opposition, and to regain strategic control of the
capital. ...

Finally, we believe that the Syrian opposition does not have the
capacity to lead a chemical weapons operation of such
magnitude. No group belonging to the Syrian insurrection has, at
this stage, the ability to store and use these agents, let alone
deploy them in a size similar to that used on the night of August
21, 2013 in Damascus. These groups have neither the experience nor
the know-how to implement them, in particular by the means used in
the attack on 21 August."<END QUOTE>

Reuters and France 24 and France declassified National Intelligence (Translation)

****
**** President Obama continues full-scale Syria sales campaign
****

President Obama met with two Republican Senators, John McCain and
Lindsey Graham, who have repeatedly urged military action in Syria.
The meeting is part of Obama's full-scale sales campaign to get an
affirmative vote from Congress on military action in Syria. The
Senators are complaining that the president has no coherent policy,
but is just reacting to one crisis after another with no strategy.

After the meeting, Lindsey said:

<QUOTE>"The President really has no one to blame in many way
but himself, about the lack of public understanding of what's at
stake in Syria. We talked about the past, the present and future.
Twoyears ago, we had an opportunity to get Assad out, when there
were dozens of al-Qaeda only in Syria. Now there's thousands, a
year from now there are going to be tens of thousands. Two years
ago, there were not 600,000 refugees in Jordan, compromising the
Kingdom of Jordan. Time is not on our side, so we urge the
president to up his game."<END QUOTE>

Lindsey was responding to a threat by Bashar al-Assad that any
military action could cause the region to "explode." Lindsey's point
is that inaction is already causing the region to explode. As I've
written in the past from the point of view of Generational Dynamics,
the region is going to "explode" with or without military action.
Military Times and TV transcription.

****
**** China fears destabilization of Afghanistan, as NATO pulls out
****

On Monday, Taliban suicide bombers and gunmen dressed as Afghan police
attacked a U.S. base near the Pakistan border, setting dozens of
parked NATO supply vehicles on fire. Reports indicate that the
vehicles were to be transported across the Pakistan border overland to
the sea port of Karachi, as part of the massive logistics effort
required to remove ten years worth of military equipment from
Afghanistan before NATO's final departure next year. Taliban suicide
attacks have been on the increase as NATO forces have been leaving.

China's president Xi Jinping is visiting Afghanistan on Tuesday, at a
time when China is concerned that Nato's withdrawal will free up
jihadists to head elsewhere, including China itself. "The worry is
the withdrawal of US troops will have a spillover effect," according
to a Chinese analyst. Arab News

****
**** Drone strikes decreasing sharply in Pakistan
****


Drone strikes in Pakistan, 2005-2013 (SATP)

Despite increasing terrorist attacks near the Afghan-Pakistan border,
American drone strikes in Pakistan have been sharply decreasing since
they reached a peak in 2010. Although the drone strikes have been
extremely effective in eliminating terrorist leadership from al-Qaeda
and the Taliban, they've experienced increasing public opposition
because of collateral damage. In May, a court ordered drones entering
Pakistani airspace to be shot down, calling them a war crime, a
violation of international law, basic human rights, and the
territorial sovereignty of Pakistan. The US worry over safe and
secure withdrawal from Afghanistan has forced it to bend before
Pakistani pressure and the steep decline in drone attacks is the
natural fallout. South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP)

****
**** Never smile at a crocodile
****


Crocodile

A tourist visiting an island in Australia was unable to leave the
island because a monster 20 foot crocodile kept stalking him every
time he tried to leave the island in his small canoe. He was trapped
on the island for two weeks and was running out of supplies when a
local man going by in a boat spotted him by chance and saved him.

There's no word on whether the tourist tried to coax the crocodile
into swallowing an alarm clock so that he could listen for the ticking
of the clock to know whether the croc was getting close. Daily Mail and Related YouTube video


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Jean-Marc Ayrault, France, John McCain, Lindsey Graham,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Taliban, NATO,
China, Xi Jinping,
Australia, Peter Pan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 4-Sep-13 World View -- U.S. Syria military strike gains momentum, despite confused signals

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• New record: Two million Syrian refugees have fled to other countries
• U.S. Syria military strike gains momentum, despite confused signals
• Russia raises alarms over U.S.-Israel missile test
• Obama to meet with gay activists in Russia

****
**** New record: Two million Syrian refugees have fled to other countries
****


Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan - the world's second largest refugee camp (Reuters)

The number of registered Syrian war refugees who have fled to other
countries has now passed the two million mark, more than half of them
children. This is nine times as many as there were a year ago. The
number of refugees increases by about 5,000 every day. As of the end
August this comprised 110,000 in Egypt, 168,000 in Iraq, 515,000 in
Jordan, 716,000 in Lebanon and 460,000 in Turkey. A further 4.25
million people are displaced inside Syria, amounting to a total of
more than 6 million people refugees.

So we have millions of refugees fleeing Syria, we have tens of
thousands of al-Qaeda linked Sunni Muslim militants headed for Syria,
we have thousands of Shia Muslim militants supplied by Iran and
Hezbollah headed for Syria, and we have massive amounts of advanced
heavy military weaponry arriving from Russia, headed for the Syria
regime. This is a clear trend toward an explosive situation,
irrespective of whether the U.S. lobs a few cruise missiles or not.
United Nations refugee agency - UNHCR

****
**** U.S. Syria military strike gains momentum, despite confused signals
****

Republican Congressional leaders on Tuesday came out strongly in
support of President Barack Obama's proposed military strike on Syria,
giving enormous additional momentum to the proposal.

The proposal will authorize American military action in Syria for 60
days, with a possible 30 day extension.

This was despite a statement by Obama that seemed to be designed to
cover all the bases:

<QUOTE>"It is something limited. It is something
proportional. It will degrade Assad’s capabilities. At the same
time, we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the
capabilities of the opposition and allow Syria to ultimately free
itself.

This is not Iraq, this is not Afghanistan. This is a limited
proportional step that will send a message not only to the Assad
regime, but to other countries that may be interested in testing
some of these international norms, that there are
consequences."<END QUOTE>

The words "limited" and "proportional" are targeted to people who want
little or no military action, while the phrases "degrade Assad's
capabilities" and "upgrade the capabilities" are targeted to people
who want to do something more than a so-called "pin prick" strike.

Administration officials evaded answering the question of whether
Obama would go ahead with a military strike anyway, even if
the Congress votes against it.

Whatever the real intentions of the Administration, it appears
increasingly inevitable that a military strike will occur. Time

****
**** Russia raises alarms over U.S.-Israel missile test
****

Early Tuesday morning, Russia's Information Agency (RIA) raised an
alarm that that the Russian military ballistic missile early warning
system had detected the launch of two "ballistic targets,” traveling
eastward from the central Mediterranean region. The suggestion was
that perhaps the United States was launching a military attack on
Syria. However, later in the day, the Pentagon announced that it had
been a successful test of Israel's ballistic missile defense system,
and it had been planned a year ago, so had nothing to do with Syria.
Ria Novosti

****
**** Obama to meet with gay activists in Russia
****

Russia's president Vladimir Putin has taken one "screw you" decision
after another against President Obama and the United States, most
recently by giving asylum to American traitor Edward Snowden and by
aggressively supporting the genocidal activities of Syria's president
Bashar al-Assad. So president Obama has apparently decided to take
revenge, at least symbolically. The administration has already
announced that Obama will snub Putin and not meet with him during the
G20 conference in St. Petersburg this week. But now, Obama will take
additional steps to publicly embarrass Putin by meeting with lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender rights activists while in
Russia. USA Today


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Zaatari refugee camp,
Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey,
Russia, Israel, Vladimir Putin

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 5-Sep-13 World View -- Obama gives a surprisingly coherent defense of Syria intervention

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Obama gives a surprisingly coherent defense of Syria intervention
• Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves military action in Syria
• Russia's president Putin accuses John Kerry of lying
• Iran's government splits over al-Assad's chemical weapons

****
**** Obama gives a surprisingly coherent defense of Syria intervention
****


Obama with Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm on Wednesday

I listened to part of President Barack Obama's press conference in
Stockholm, Sweden, on Tuesday. He was asked a question about NSA
spying, he sounded like a babbling idiot as he rambled on for about 15
minutes without saying anything coherent. In the past couple of weeks
he's said one dumb thing after another about the situation in Syria,
and made a chaotic mess of American foreign policy.

So imagine my shock and surprise when he gave the clearest and
most coherent defense of U.S. military action that I've yet
heard when he was asked about Syria:

<QUOTE>"First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set
a red line. The world set a red line when governments
representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of
chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding
their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress
set a red line when it indicated that -- in a piece of legislation
titled the Syria Accountability Act -- that some of the horrendous
things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered
for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about
what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of the
chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity
says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I
didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it. That’s
point number one.

Point number two -- my credibility is not on the line. The
international community’s credibility is on the line. And America
and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip
service to the notion that these international norms are
important.

And when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400
children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage: How can
this happen in this modern world? Well, it happened because a
government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian
populations. And so the question is, how credible is the
international community when it says this is an international norm
that has to be observed? The question is, how credible is
Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use
of chemical weapons?

And I do think that we have to act, because if we don’t, we are
effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue
resolutions, and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by
resolutions can continue to act with impunity. And those
international norms begin to erode. And other despots and
authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying, that’s
something we can get away with. And that, then, calls into
question other international norms and laws of war and whether
those are going to be enforced."<END QUOTE>

It's laughable that he claims he didn't set a red line, but that's
not why his response was coherent.

Obama's response is fully in the spirit of the Truman Doctrine, put forth by President
Harry Truman in 1947, and making the U.S. the Policeman of the World.
Truman's reasoning was that WW II was so expensive, and cost so many
lives, and so intervening in the Greece/Turkey crisis of the time
would be only a tiny fraction, and would be well worth it if it
prevented a new world war. President John F. Kennedy repeated this
theme in his inaugural address.

Obama's reasoning is that the world must prevent the use of chemical
weapons, which could lead to a new world war, and that this justifies
American military action. This is a modern day justification that's
similar to the Truman Doctrine.

Unfortunately, President Obama earlier said so many dumb things, he
has little credibility left. And nobody knows what Obama's plans are
for Syria, if he wins Congressional approval. White House

****
**** Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves military action in Syria
****

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved a resolution
giving U.S. President Barack Obama authority to take military action
against Syria over its use of chemical weapons on civilians. The
measure must pass both houses of Congress to become law, and is
expected to face stiff opposition that splits both parties.

The Senate committee approved a plan that would give Obama authority
to order limited strikes against Syrian military targets for 60 days.
He could extend the window by another 30 days under certain
conditions. The resolution does not authorize the use of ground
troops. It states military action must be aimed at deterring and
preventing Syria from carrying out future chemical weapons attacks.
VOA

****
**** Russia's president Putin accuses John Kerry of lying
****

Russia's president Vladimir Putin, who is giving massive amounts of
advanced heavy military weaponry to Syria's psychopathic president
Bashar al-Assad for use in massacring civilian women and children, and
who feels free to order the invasion of Georgia or any other country
without getting permission from the U.N. Security Council,
on Wednesday accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of
being a liar:

<QUOTE>"I watched the debates in Congress. A congressman asks
Mr. Kerry: ‘Is al-Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, we are telling you
responsibly that they are not.' ...

[The Syrian rebels’] main combat unit is al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda
unit. They [the US] are aware of that. ... He [Kerry] lied. And he
knows that he lied. This is sad."<END QUOTE>

It turns out that Putin misquoted Kerry, but Putin is attacking the
United States, hoping to stop the bleeding of his own popularity
numbers, which have been plummeting. Furthermore, Putin risks major
embarrassments on several issues this week, with the G-20 summit
taking place in St. Petersburg.

It turns out that Russian public opinion is indifferent to the fate of
Syria's al-Assad regime, but is extremely upset about a number of
other issues, including:

• Putin has imposed extremely punishing trade sanctions on
  Ukraine in retaliation for Ukraine's moves toward signing an
  association agreement with the European Union. This subject will be
  mentioned by European countries attending the G-20 summit.
  
• Russia's Far East has experiences catastrophic flooding in August,
  and Putin was slow to respond, and did so ineffectively. (Think of
  Hurricane Katrina.)
  
• Moscow is holding mayoral elections on Sunday, with implications
  for all of Russia. Putin's candidate, Sergei Sobyanin, is being
  threatened by an upset victory from opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
  Putin is denying Navalny any media time, but he's gaining quickly
  because of an effective grass-roots campaign. Putin's candidate is
  expected to win anyway, in the same way that Putin's candidates won
  the last couple of elections -- through massive corruption and vote
  fixing.
  
• As we reported
  yesterday,
  Obama is snubbing Putin at the G-20 meeting, but will meet with
  Russian gay activists to embarrass Putin.

Ria Novosti and Jamestown

****
**** Iran's government splits over al-Assad's chemical weapons
****

Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been a leading dissident in
Iran's government since the 2009 presidential elections, but is still
highly revered as a hero of the Great Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Last week, Rafsanjani blamed Syria's president Bashar al-Assad for the
use of chemical weapons, in a radio interview, as posted on an Iranian
news web site:

<QUOTE>"The Syrian people have had more than 100 thousand
dead and eight million displaced inside and outside. The prisons
are full of people [and] have no more space, some have taken
stadiums and are filled. Bad circumstances rule the people. On
one side, the people are chemically bombarded by their own
government and from another side, today, must await American
bombs."<END QUOTE>

Since this was far from Iran's policy, the remarks were taken down
from the web site and altered to say something completely different.
Rafsanjani may be in serious political trouble for having spoken the
truth. One MP is quoted:

<QUOTE>"We are impatiently awaiting Mr. Hashemi
[Rafsanjani's] denial and plainly and correctly announcing his
position. We also request the Ministry of Intelligence to
investigate this matter and report the truth to the people. If
this tape is real ... [it means] that he seeks to weaken the
Resistance Front against the Dominant system, which of course is
untrue in my opinion."<END QUOTE>

Another MP said even more ominously:

<QUOTE>"I have seen that speech's video and certainly the
video cannot be manufactured. Of course Hashemi [Rafsanjani]
stated those words and it is his opinion.

Perhaps Mr. Hashemi views the country's expediency in this, but
overall [one] must request explanation from him to plainly
announce his opinion.

Some have said that Mr. Hashemi's statements are a cooperation of
sorts with America, while it is not like this at all because
Mr. Hashemi condemns America. Perhaps Mr. Hashemi's opinion has
been that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons, we
condemn these measures but will not stop supporting Syria.

So long as the majority of the Syrian people support the
government, we will also support them. Supporting Syria is very
important for Iran because they are the Axis of Resistance, and in
case of their elimination [Lebanese] Hezbollah will no longer be
effective.

The Syrian government must implement the necessary reforms. If
from the beginning, it did not exhibit violence in reacting to the
protests of a section of the people, we would not have reached the
current point, but overall we considered the Assad government
acceptable by the majority, therefore we support
them."<END QUOTE>

Iran is in a generational Awakening era (like America in the 1960s),
and although Rafsanjani is in the older generation of survivors of the
Great Islamic Revolution, he's been taking the positions of the
younger generations in Iran's Awakening era "generation gap." In the
2009 presidential election, several leaders supported the views of the
younger generation, and many of them were thrown into jail. Some of
them have never gotten out. Rafsanjani has survived so far, but one
of these days he's going to tell the truth once too often, and then
the Supreme Leader will do the equivalent of tying a cement block to
his leg and tossing him into the Caspian Sea or the Persian Gulf.

American Enterprise Institute and Reuters and American Enterprise Institute


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Sweden, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Truman Doctrine, John F. Kennedy,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Russia, Vladimir Putin, John Kerry,
Sergei Sobyanin, Alexei Navalny,
Iran, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It's laughable that he claims he didn't set a red line, but that's
not why his response was coherent.

Obama's response is fully in the spirit of the Truman Doctrine, put forth by President
Harry Truman in 1947, and making the U.S. the Policeman of the World.
Truman's reasoning was that WW II was so expensive, and cost so many
lives, and so intervening in the Greece/Turkey crisis of the time
would be only a tiny fraction, and would be well worth it if it
prevented a new world war. President John F. Kennedy repeated this
theme in his inaugural address.

Obama's reasoning is that the world must prevent the use of chemical
weapons, which could lead to a new world war, and that this justifies
American military action. This is a modern day justification that's
similar to the Truman Doctrine.

From: Andrew J. Bacevich
Professor of international relations at Boston University

From a moral perspective, it appears that observers see killing civilians with chemical weapons as somehow different from killing civilians with conventional weapons. I don’t know why there would be any distinction. Egyptians who are killed are just as dead as the Syrians who were killed, and though it appears that dying of a chemical weapons attack is an awful experience, frankly bleeding to death from a gunshot wound to your chest or stepping on a mine that blows off your leg is equally awful. So anyone who makes an argument that there’s a moral obligation to act has to address that question: Why here and not there?

Snip

So beyond allowing ourselves to feel virtuous because we have done something in response to a reprehensible act, what has been gained?

I would certainly agree that the nature of the weapons-chemical or conventional-is a non-issue. You are just as dead, what ever weapon used.

Originally Posted by Deb C

From: Andrew J. Bacevich
Professor of international relations at Boston University

...

From a moral perspective, it appears that observers see killing civilians with chemical weapons as somehow different from killing civilians with conventional weapons. I don’t know why there would be any distinction. E
...

Mr. Bacvich should know better. Droning and CIA spook mediated killing is much more "civilized" than chemical weapons. Chemical weapons kill lots of folks all at once, and grab headlines, while drones and CIA spooks kill even more people over a longer period of time and don't grab headlines. By "civilized" , I mean we don't get to see the casualty count on the TeeVee boob tube. You see, it's like airplane crashes. Airplane crashes get headlines, while car crashes don't. Never mind that car crashes kill many more folks than airplane crashes.

I agree that almost every discussion about war crimes is irrational.

Since the objective of war is to kill people, then how does the
concept of a "war crime" even make sense?

Why is it a war crime to rape women, but not a war crime to kill women
(or men)?

Since the objective of war is to kill people, then how can it possibly
matter how you kill people since, as the above comments point out, you
end up just as dead, whether killed by a bullet, by a bomb, by a drone
strike, or by sarin gas?

As the old saying goes, all's fair in love and war.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I agree that almost every discussion about war crimes is irrational.

Since the objective of war is to kill people, then how does the
concept of a "war crime" even make sense?

Why is it a war crime to rape women, but not a war crime to kill women
(or men)?

Since the objective of war is to kill people, then how can it possibly
matter how you kill people since, as the above comments point out, you
end up just as dead, whether killed by a bullet, by a bomb, by a drone
strike, or by sarin gas?

As the old saying goes, all's fair in love and war.

These are valid points, but the differentiation, such as it is, seems to be intended to divide the less wanton form the truly wanton. Killing is bad, but torture is far worse. Killing soft tarets is bad, but killing random targets is worse. The list is long, and not exactly intuitive. Gas is considered a forbidden weapon because it was so terrible in WW-I. Since then, we've learned how to do far worse things than that.

Which goes back to the point of the distinctions being essentially arbitrary, normative arguments. Unfortunately, when people don't share norms, these points become difficult to argue logically.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Which goes back to the point of the distinctions being essentially arbitrary, normative arguments. Unfortunately, when people don't share norms, these points become difficult to argue logically.

Codifying the concept of right and wrong in warfare began with the Lieber Code during the ACW. Francis Lieber had three sons who all served in the war, two for the North and one for the South. One died and another was severely wounded. The code was his attempt to make sense of war, starting from the perspective of one who had real skin in the game. The driving concept behind all the codes was the need to make the inevitable peace achievable. We’re still working on that.

Codifying the concept of right and wrong in warfare began with the Lieber Code during the ACW. Francis Lieber had three sons who all served in the war, two for the North and one for the South. One died and another was severely wounded. The code was his attempt to make sense of war, starting from the perspective of one who had real skin in the game. The driving concept behind all the codes was the need to make the inevitable peace achievable. We’re still working on that.

This in no way responses to the point that the distinctions being made are, in the end, more or less arbitrary. This doesn't mean that you (or I) can't agree with them, just that they are ultimately normative. Chemical weapons are bad (clue that we are talking about norms and values here) because we say so, not because there is something fundamentally and incontrovertibly different about them.

*** 6-Sep-13 World View -- Russian landmark contest fiasco highlights widespread xenophobia

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Russian landmark contest fiasco highlights widespread xenophobia
• Defecting Syrian Army general may play transitional role

****
**** Russian landmark contest fiasco highlights widespread xenophobia
****


Heart of Chechnya Mosque

A contest intended to inspire patriotic good feelings in Russia has
turned into political disaster, highlighting the mutual xenophobia
between ethnic (Orthodox Christian) Russians and (Sunni Muslim) North
Caucasians.

The nationwide "Russia 10" contest was launched in March with the
purpose of selecting a symbol for the Russian Federation from a roster
of architectural and geographic landmarks across Russia's nine time
zones. Russian citizens voted online or by text message. The contest
drew little attention until July, when a public relations campaign in
the North Caucasus province of Chechnya, led by Chechen leader Ramzan
Kadyrov, led to the "Heart of Chechnya Mosque" in Grozny shooting far
into first place. The mosque received almost 40 million votes, even
though Chechnya's population is only 1.3 million, because Russians
were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted, and because Muslims
all across Russia joined in.

Well, this infuriated the ethnic Russian nationalists, who would find
a mosque intolerable as Russia's national landmark, and who started an
online “Anything but the mosque” campaign. Suddenly, in the last two
days of August, another building, Kolomensky Kremlin (citadel) in
Kolomna, suddenly received tens of millions of new votes, beating out
the mosque by only 400,000 votes. Kadyrov is screaming "blatant
fraud," and is demanding a refund of all the texting fees -- millions
of dollars that the cell phone companies made in texting fees -- and
has called for a boycott of the cell phone companies. The last round
of voting will is still in progress, but so far, all the contest has
done is highlight the growing hatred between ethnic Russians and North
Caucasians. Jamestown and RFERL

****
**** Defecting Syrian Army general may play transitional role
****

Reports indicate that Syria's former defense minister General Ali
Habib has defected to Turkey. He was dismissed as defense minister in
2011 when he broke with president Bashar al-Assad over the use of the
military against civilian protesters. There are hints that the
U.S. and the Russians are actually in agreement about something,
namely that General Habib might play a role in a new Syrian government
if al-Assad could be made to disappear. There have been numerous
defections from al-Assad's government since 2011, but almost all of
them have been Sunni Muslims. Habib's defection would be significant
because he's a Shia/Alawite, so he could potentially represent the
Alawite community in a deal to end the war. Hurriyet (Istanbul)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov,
Heart of Chechnya Mosque, Kolomensky Kremlin,
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Ali Habib

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 7-Sep-13 World View -- U.S. and Russia split bitterly over Syria intervention issue

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Wealthy investors cheer bad unemployment report
• U.S. and Russia split bitterly over Syria intervention issue
• U.S. evacuates staff from Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq embassies

****
**** Wealthy investors cheer bad unemployment report
****


Labor force participation rate, 1978 to present (Zero Hedge)

The unemployment rate declined from 7.4% to 7.3% in August, but it
wasn't because of a growth in the job market, which was disappointing.
Instead it was caused by a new sharp fall in the "labor force
participation rate" -- the percentage of workers who haven't given up
searching for work. It fell to 63.2%, the lowest level since August
1978, after a whopping 516,000 more workers dropped out of the labor
market in August. The labor force participation rate began
to fall after the Nasdaq crash in 2000, and has been plummeting
rapidly since the financial crisis began in 2007.

Friday's jobs report was good news for wealthy stock market investors,
because it means that the Federal Reserve is more likely to continue
its quantitative easing project of pouring $85 billion into the
banking system EVERY MONTH. This money has been propping up the stock
market, and from there going into the portfolios of wealthy investors.

If you've heard the word "tapering" a lot on financial newscasts, it
refers to the possibility that the Fed might start to gradually reduce
the $85 billion monthly cash injection. This would be considered bad
news for wealthy investors, since a lot of the $85 billion goes into
their bank accounts. But the $85 billion has failed to stimulate
growth in the economy, and so there's an increasing amount of
political pressure for the Fed to begin tapering. Friday's bad jobs
report makes it less like that the Fed will start tapering right away,
and so investors are generally pleased. Zero Hedge and LA Times

****
**** U.S. and Russia split bitterly over Syria intervention issue
****

It was U.S. President Barack Obama versus Russian President Vladimir
Putin on the last day of the G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Both of them were ranting, but Obama accused Putin of
paralyzing the international community, and Putin accused Obama of
violating international law.

It's hard to take either of them seriously. Obama has been babbling,
incoherent and indecisive for so long, and nobody has a clue what he's
going to do next. Putin talking about international law is a farce,
with Russian troops still occupying Georgia in violation of
international law, following his 2008 invasion of Georgia, in
violation of international law. Nonetheless, the bitter divisions
were obvious.

The following countries sided with Obama: Australia Canada, France,
Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the
United Kingdom and the United States.

The following countries sided with Putin: Russia, China, Brazil,
Argentina, Mexico, India, Germany, South Africa, Indonesia, European
Union.

The United Nations was started after World War II in order to prevent
exactly what's going on now, but the United Nations is now as useless
as the League of Nations.

The only thing that matters now is what happens in Washington, the
home of the Policemen of the World. The political battle is just as
bitter and divisive as the battle at the G20, splitting both political
parties, and far more consequential.

Obama will give a televised nationwide address of Tuesday. It should
be interesting. Independent (London)

****
**** U.S. evacuates staff from Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq embassies
****

Because of threats of retaliation over the situation in Syria,
the U.S. State Dept. is evacuating some staff from embassies
in Beirut, Lebanon, from Turkey and from Iraq. According
to the Beirut embassy:

<QUOTE>"On September 6, the Department of State drew down
non-emergency personnel and family members from Embassy Beirut due
to potential threats to U.S. Mission facilities and personnel.
The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to avoid all travel to
Lebanon because of current safety and security concerns.
U.S. citizens living and working in Lebanon should understand that
they accept risks in remaining and should carefully consider those
risks.

U.S. citizens concerned for their safety should consider making
plans to depart by commercial means. U.S. citizens will be
responsible for arranging their own travel out of Lebanon. Beirut
International Airport is open and commercial flights are
operating. Travelers should check with their airlines prior to
traveling to verify the flight schedule.

Those who remain should prepare to depart at short
notice. ... U.S. citizens should be aware that the Embassy does
not offer “protection” services to individuals who feel unsafe.
U.S. citizens with special medical or other needs should be aware
of the risks of remaining in Lebanon given their condition and
should be prepared to seek treatment in Lebanon if they cannot
arrange for travel out of the country. U.S. citizens traveling or
residing in Lebanon who choose to remain should be aware that the
U.S. Embassy's ability to reach all areas of Lebanon is limited.
The Embassy urges all U.S. citizens in Lebanon to monitor the
media for the latest developments."<END QUOTE>

McClatchy and State Dept.


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, labor force participation rate,
Federal Reserve, quantitative easing, tapering,
Syria, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 8-Sep-13 World View -- Would America not defend Israel after all?

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
• Forces gathering momentum in the Mideast
• Would America not defend Israel after all?

****
**** John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
****

On Saturday in Paris, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the
world was facing a "Munich moment," referring to Neville Chamberlain's
1938 meeting with Adolf Hitler, and returned to London brandishing an
agreement with Hitler for "Peace in our time":

<QUOTE>"This is our Munich moment.

We in the United States know, and our French partners know, that
this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter.

This is the time to pursue a targeted and limited but clear and
effective response that holds dictators like Bashar Assad
responsible for the atrocities which they commit.

This is not the time to allow a dictator unfettered use of some of
the most heinous weapons on earth."<END QUOTE>

President Barack Obama also referred to the lead-up to World
War II when he said that not coming to Britain's aid was
not the right thing to do:

<QUOTE>"I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than
to say that when London was getting bombed, it was profoundly
unpopular, both in congress and around the country to help the
British. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to
do."<END QUOTE>

Both Kerry and Obama were, in fact, drawing analogies to WW II.
Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement toward Hitler was
extremely popular, but was later recognized as historically
disastrous, as Britain was in full-scale war the following year. When
I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers all vilified
Chamberlain for his appeasement of Hitler. And Obama makes the point
that, just as Chamberlain's appeasement policy was extremely popular,
any American plan to aid Britain as London was being bombed by the
Nazis was extremely UNpopular. It was only after Pearl Harbor was
bombed that helping Britain became acceptable to the American public.

I've written about so many truly astonishing things that have
happened in the last ten years, and this situation has got to
be among the two or three most astonishing. It literally takes
my breath away.

On the one hand, you have President Obama, who spent 20 years
in avid adoration of his mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright,
whose theme was "God Damn America! God Damn America!", but
who was elected president on a surge of popularity because
of his hatred of President George Bush.

On the other hand, you have John Kerry, who testified before the
Senate in 1971 that America's soldiers were a bad as Nazis, and who
reaffirmed his 1971 statements in 2006, at the same time he was saying
that any American soldier who ended up in Iraq was stupid. Obama
appointed Kerry as Secretary of State because they shared the
same views about America.

So you have two people, the epitome of anti-Americanism and the hatred
of American values, who have suddenly done a 180 degree turnabout and
adopted the most American of pro-World War II values, that it's
America's responsibility as Policemen of the World to protect human
life and alleviate suffering, even if it means using military force,
especially when doing so might prevent a wider war. If these two have
been botching foreign policy, it's because they've been at war with
themselves.

But that's only half of the astonishment.

The other half is that we are, in fact, reliving the late 1930s, a
"Munich moment," a time when appeasement is suddenly extremely
popular, and a willingness to help people suffering horrific deaths is
extremely unpopular. And the history of the 1930s tells us that such
appeasement leads to war.

Some people have written to me to complain that al-Assad is no Hitler,
and this time it's different because al-Assad isn't annexing territory
as Hitler was doing.

But that's wallowing in details and not looking at the big picture.
What Hitler and al-Assad have in common is committing psychopathic
atrocities on a large scale, treating the international community
contemptuously, and openly driving the region and the world to a major
war.

And what's Russian president Vladimir Putin's role in all this? Putin
has already used military force to annex parts of Georgia, and other
regions in the Caucasus and in central Asia are being threatened.
Even if al-Assad alone isn't annexing territory, his ally Putin is,
and if Putin were contemplating any way to gain control of Syria, we'd
have no way of knowing it until it happened.

****
**** Forces gathering momentum in the Mideast
****

There are powerful forces gathering momentum across the world,
converging on Syria -- Sunni jihadists from Pakistan to Nigeria to
Dagestan are going to fight in Syria. Shia jihadists from Iran and
Hezbollah are going to fight in Syria. Russia is pouring advanced
weapons into Syria. Millions of refugees are pouring out of Syria
into neighboring countries. The entire Sunni/Shia and Arab/Jew fault
lines are inflamed throughout the Mideast.

And in the middle of all this, the psychopath Bashar al-Assad shocks
the entire world by perpetrating a horrific chemical weapons attack,
and the psychopath Vladimir Putin helps him.

As I've said in the past, it's my opinion that Syria has already
passed a tipping point, headed for a major conflict that will engulf
the entire region. That's going to happen no matter what the
U.S. does. Furthermore, the U.S. will be drawn into this
conflict sooner or later.

So that's the context in which a decision has to be made whether to
strike at Syria, in one form or another. If we do nothing -- if we
"appease" al-Assad, and allow him to use chemical weapons freely with
no restrictions -- if we "appease" Putin, and allow him unrestricted
use of Russian weapons and military -- will we be drawn into a larger
war? Based on my understanding of history, there's no doubt in my
mind that we will, and that the West will be blamed for appeasement.

In fact, I believe that the last two years have proven that. America
has been appeasing al-Assad for two years, ignoring his psychopathic
attacks on his own people, and the result has been disastrous for the
region, getting worse every day.

So what if we do take some military action? Two years ago, that would
have been extremely effective. But what about today? Will that
immediately trigger a larger war? I don't believe so. Despite all
the bluster, Russia will not launch a strike at American assets. Iran
and Hezbollah are both in generational Awakening eras, and they won't
be triggered into a major war, in my opinion. Most of the threats of
war from Iran and Hezbollah are just posturing. I don't want to
underestimate the threat of a terrorist act on an American embassy or
other American or Israeli asset, but that threat always exists no
matter what we do. And I do believe that America showing some
strength instead of ceaseless dithering and confusion can have some
deterrent effect, as it has had for decades, and may even curtail
al-Assad's use of chemical weapons for a while.

So is appeasement of the psychopaths al-Assad and Putin the right or
wrong policy? There are too many unknowns to reach a conclusion, the
worst unknown being that neither Obama nor Kerry has a clue what's
going on in the world, and are completely rudderless. As I've said,
the Mideast is headed for a major war along numerous fault lines --
Sunni versus Shia, Arab versus Jew, Arab versus Arab (Saudi Arabia
versus Qatar), just to name a few. As we continue to relive the late
1930s, the only thing we can be sure of is that we're headed for the
worst world war in the world's history. And all we can do is hope the
country survives. BBC and Irish Independent

****
**** Would America not defend Israel after all?
****

Since WW II, we've signed mutual defense treaties with numerous
countries, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and New
Zealand (ANZUS treaty), the Philippines, Israel, Europe, Iceland, and
others.

President Obama made the point, quoted above, that when our
close ally, Britain, was being brutally bombed by the Nazis,
it was extremely unpopular for America even to consider helping
our close ally, and so we didn't.

So are any of the treaties we've signed worth the paper they were
written on? If Israel, or the Philippines, or Japan, or any other
country with whom we have a treaty were attacked and asked for our
help, would providing that help be so unpopular with the American
people, that America would be completely paralyzed?

Here's a quotation of unknown origin that I heard today on the BBC:
"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands
around reloading."


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, John Kerry, Neville Chamberlain,
Adolf Hitler, Munich, Jeremiah Wright,
Russia, Vladimir Putin

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 9-Sep-13 World View -- Poland confiscates private pension funds to pay public debt

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Egypt launches military operation against Sinai militants
• Egypt - Israel alliance grows with Sinai attacks
• Syria may have used chemical weapons without Assad's permission
• Poland confiscates private pension funds to pay public debt
• Nasa satellite pictures show a switch from global warming to cooling

****
**** Egypt launches military operation against Sinai militants
****


Egyptian soldiers stand guard on top of a minaret in Sinai (AFP)

Egypt's police and armed forces launched on Saturday the largest and
most violent military operation yet seen in the Sinai Peninsula. The
clashes took place near the borders with Gaza and Israel.

Ground forces raided a number of houses, accompanied by a number of
Apache helicopters. Armed forces also bombed militants’ locations in
Central Sinai with reports of casualties in the region.

A security source stated that the initial attack resulted in the death
of 10 militants and injuring of 20 others, in addition to the arrest
of 15 armed assailants. Eye witnesses stated that during the campaign,
armed forces employed nearly 30 different types of tanks and armoured
vehicles, along with 6 Apache helicopters which were used to pursue
militants attempting to flee the area.

Eye witnesses stated that Apache helicopters launched strikes against
militant locations, accompanied by tanks and armored vehicles.
Witnesses further described loud explosions being heard in the area,
along with rising clouds of smoke, after a number of four-wheel-drive
pickup trucks had been attacked, which led to the death and injury of
a number of individuals.

The Egyptian attack was triggered by an al-Qaeda linked group, Ansar
Beit al-Maqdis ("Partisans of Jerusalem"), which claimed
responsibility for a suicide bomber attack in Cairo that targeted the
convoy of Egypt's interior minister Mohamed Ibrahim, whom the
terrorists blame for killing and arresting of hundreds of Islamist and
Muslim Brotherhood supporters of Mohamed Morsi, overthrown by the
military in a popularly backed coup on July 3. Daily News Egypt and AFP

****
**** Egypt - Israel alliance grows with Sinai attacks
****

Although not discussed publicly, the growth in Sinai attacks is
resulting in greater cooperation between Israel and Egypt. According
to Israeli army figures, more than 300 attacks were launched against
Egyptian troops in Sinai over the past few weeks. Last month, 25
Egyptian policemen were shot to death execution-style in the Sinai,
prompting widespread anger in Cairo. Israeli military sources say
there are hundreds of terrorists in Sinai, in jihadist groups
supported by local Bedouin tribes. Cooperation between Israel and
Egypt will get even closer if jihadists launch attacks on Israel from
Sinai. The Media Line

****
**** Syria may have used chemical weapons without Assad's permission
****

One of the puzzles of the massive August 21 chemical weapons attack by
Syria's forces is why the attack took place when the United Nations
inspectors were in the country. I speculated at the time that perhaps
president Bashar al-Assad did not personally order the attack, and
that it might have been ordered by one of his lieutenants who didn't
even know that the U.N. inspectors were in town. Now German
intelligence is saying that it may have happened that way. The
intelligence was obtained from radio traffic intercepted by a German
naval reconnaissance vessel sailing close to the Syrian coast.
Reuters

****
**** Poland confiscates private pension funds to pay public debt
****

Poland announced that it will confiscate private pension funds and
transfer them to the national government in order to alleviate public
debt. Although some pension reform was expected, total confiscation
caught investors off guard. By putting the private funds on the
government balance sheet, the debt-to-GDP ratio is lowered enough so
that Poland can borrow more money. This is the latest of European
policies that began with the Cyprus confiscation of private bank
accounts where countries confiscate private assets to pay public debt,
in order to keep borrowing. Reuters and ZeroHedge

****
**** Nasa satellite pictures show a switch from global warming to cooling
****

Six years ago, global warming scientists predicted that there would be
no Arctic ice left by 2013, but Nasa satellite pictures show that
after a chilly Arctic summer there's 60% more Arctic ice this summer
than in 2012. In the 1970s and 80s, the term "climate change"
referred to global cooling and a "nuclear winter." In the 1990s, it
changed to mean "global warming." Now it's apparently back to "global
cooling." Daily Mail (London)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Egypt, Sinai, Gaza, Israel,
Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, Mohamed Ibrahim,
Mohamed Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, Israel, Bedouin,
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Poland, Cyprus,
Nasa, global warming, global cooling, climate change

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 10-Sep-13 World View -- New Kerry gaffe leads to further political chaos over Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• New Kerry gaffe leads to further political chaos over Syria
• An example of the intelligence of today's college professors

****
**** New Kerry gaffe leads to further political chaos over Syria
****


John Kerry

U.S. Secretary of State made a major new gaffe on Monday, when he was
asked in London what Syria's president Bashar al-Assad could do to
prevent an American strike. He said:

<QUOTE>"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his
chemical weapons to the international community in the next
week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and
total accounting for that, but he isn't about to do it and it
can't be done, obviously."<END QUOTE>

This remark was completely off-script, and the last phrase was
apparently a failed attempt to recover. Too late. Russia's foreign
minister Sergei Lavrov immediately asked Syria to promise to turn over
his chemical weapons to the international community, and Syria
immediately said they accepted the proposal, though they never said
they would implement it. United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon
immediately approved the plan to launch a project to transfer chemical
weapons to "places inside Syria where they can be safely destroyed."
He said that the "international community will have a very swift
action."

That's all that President Barack Obama needed to apparently back off
completely from the threat of a Syria strike. According to one
commentator, President Obama appeared to be breathing a sigh of
relief when he said that he would take the time to consider
the "Russian proposal."

This all would be laughable if it weren't so serious. I've written
before about my utter astonishment at what's going on -- a return to
1938-type appeasement, when Adolf Hitler snookered Britain's prime
minister Neville Chamberlain into declaring "Peace in our time," at a
time when Hitler was already making preparations for a war with
Britain. I never dreamed that I would see a repeat of that scenario
in my lifetime, but here we are. Kerry bumbled and made a gaffe, and
Russia turned it into a "Russian proposal," Ban Ki-moon turned into a
"U.N. proposal," and Obama did a flip-flop. It's hard to believe.

Obama will be addressing the nation on Tuesday evening. Atlantic Wire and Telegraph (London)

****
**** An example of the intelligence of today's college professors
****


Columbia University Political Science Professor Kimberly Marten

As I was writing this column, Al Jazeera aired an interview with
Kimberly Marten, Professor of Political Science at the Saltzman
Institute of War and Peace Studies at Barnard College, Columbia
University. I decided to transcribe what she said, as a shining
example of the level of intelligence and scholarship of college
professors today, and also an example of what our college students are
being taught.

Marten was asked what she thought of the "Russian proposal" to ask
al-Assad to turn its chemical weapons over to the international
community. She praised Russia's president Vladimir Putin:

<QUOTE>"I think it was a BEAUTIFUL proposal.

It was a BRILLIANT move by Putin. He looks STRONG before his
domestic audience because he SOLVED this problem. He's actually
done a FAVOR for Obama, by getting Obama out of a jam, which I
think maybe he was looking to do, because there were indications
earlier in the summer that he wants a good relation ship with
OBAMA.

And you know he looks like the GOOD guy in all of this. He gets
support throughout the WORLD for not being the warmonger.

I think it gets ASSAD out of a jam too. It's a way of insuring
that there are no STRIKES on his TERRITORY - he doesn't actually
NEED chemical weapons to accomplish anything. Chemical weapons
are not the most effective weapons to use. So it makes HIM look
like not such a bad guy either.

I don't think [Assad is getting away with anything], because there
are other ways you can punish Assad. you could take him and his
regime to the International CRIMINAL Court. So I don't think it's
the end of the story.

But I think, you know, PUTIN is a JUDO master. And I think this
was a JUDO move. You don't win in judo games by being the
stronger player. You do it by having SURPRISE attacks that throw
your opponent off balance."<END QUOTE>

Well, I do agree with this moron about one thing: Putin did win on
Monday, and Obama and the United States lost big. Al-Jazeera


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, John Kerry, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Russia, Sergei Lavrov, Vladimir Putin, Neville Chamberlain,
Ban Ki-moon, Kimberly Marten

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Reflecting Xenakis "pro-American" bias, I see.

Xenakis' site is well-written, engaging and concise. I looked at his site for the first time. I tend to see what is lacking in it though, from my point of view as a fellow prophet and author.

What is lacking in my views though is probably his greater understanding of how generational theory applies to other nations and times. I am more informed about modern times, and though I am familiar with history worldwide, I have not analyzed it much to discern generations and turnings, or studied much biography. So I may have something to learn from him and others such as mikebert who have studied these things more. From what I can tell though, the generational cycles of earlier times and far-away places from us tend to be quite irregular and full of anomalies, and there is less info to go on to discern these cycles. And they have all been warped to fit into the worldwide saeculum that seems to have developed now.

Xenakis claims to be politically and religiously unbiased, as if you could really understand history through generations alone, and stand apart from the real conflicts and inspirations that move us, not to mention physical and economic/ecological challenges. I on the other hand am immersed in politics and spirituality alike, and I think only a deep understanding of these movements can tell you what is moving humanity through history, and what will move it in the future. Since I know that history is shaped by visions and ideas, it is not simply a repeating pattern determined by a tsunami of unstoppable forces.

His pro-American bias is obviously political anyway, and his comments above about global warming show an ignorance of the real challenge humanity faces in this era that may be politically motivated.

He is obviously younger than me, probably a Gen Xer or very late Boomer, and his understanding of generations is superficial, emotional and exaggerated. Like most Gen Xers, his dislike of boomers is poorly disguised, and his admiration of civics is unmistakeable. He shares this with Strauss and Howe. As a Boomer who grew up under these "heroes," I could never agree with their opinion. No generational archetype is better than another; each has its talents and foibles.

If patterns repeat themselves and nothing moves forward, then we are about to be destroyed as a species. That seems to confirm his identity as Gen X, according to his own analysis of them as "nihilistic." Obviously, another genocidal war would be suicidal now. It is time to move beyond war. This fact calls into question the notion that the crisis of our current turning will become a genocidal war, especially anything like the outdated notion of a "clash of civilizations." Boomers may not have fought World War II, but they fought and protested the War in Vietnam, which was almost as huge, and in many ways more so than the American participation in World War Two. They fought it, and they stopped it. I don't know another prophet generation that did this. The peace movement is woven into their souls. It was the main even of boomer youth, just as WWII was for the GIs.

Still, the traits of the generations described by Xenakis and S&H hold some truth. We Boomers are arrogant and we want our way. But many of us blue ones and many others also know that we must change our ways as a human species. We must learn to live with nature and with each other. But some "red" Boomers and others were caught up in the reaction to these movements and realizations, and were led astray by Ronald Reagan. They are arrogant and want their way too. In my view, most of the supposed "boomer incompetence" (at least in politics) is adherence (actually by conservatives of all generations) to this unnecessary and destructive ideology, and this ideology (and not boomers or Xers) is the cause of our current problems. So there is a conflict between us, such as Bush v. Gore, or Boehner and Obama or Warren, and the other generations must decide how to deal with the issues that conflict us. It will not be enough to blame boomers and want them out of the way. That won't happen. They may have to choose sides and fight the "boomers' fight," as heroes typically do. A war could still happen; probably a civil war/revolution. But it must be contained and limited. It must be non-violent if possible. There must be enough boomers who remember the peace movement and its lessons, since there aren't any left who remember WWII.

I was
only attempting to contrast Egypt, where a crisis civil war is a
possibility, with Syria, where a crisis civil war at this time is
definitely not.

If what's happening in Syria now is not a crisis civil war, then there has never been one.

I still challenge anyone to find a journalist,
analyst, web site or politician with anything close to the predictive
success of Generational Dynamics.

http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He is obviously younger than me, probably a Gen Xer or very late Boomer, and his understanding of generations is superficial, emotional and exaggerated. Like most Gen Xers, his dislike of boomers is poorly disguised, and his admiration of civics is unmistakeable. He shares this with Strauss and Howe. As a Boomer who grew up under these "heroes," I could never agree with their opinion. No generational archetype is better than another; each has its talents and foibles.

Hilarious!

Originally Posted by Eric Meece

> Where do you give Strauss and Howe credit for "your" theories?

** Book 1 - Chapter 3 -- The Principle of Localization I
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...alization1.htm

** Book 2 - Chapter 10 - Strauss and Howe's Fourth Turning Model
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...2.tftmodel.htm

** 3-Jan-11 News -- Britain celebrates the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...gd.e110103.htm

Originally Posted by Eric Meece

> Where do you give Strauss and Howe credit for "your" theories?

Google the words "strauss howe site:generationaldynamics.com". You
get dozens of hits.


https://www.google.com/search?q=stra...aldynamics.com