Originally Posted by Odin

OMG, this is funny, the Corporatist Media is finally ignoring the Rovian talking points and are letting the talking heads state the obvious (that Iraq is is civil war) and John is criticizing them for it.

You can call Iraq whatever you want. It depends on your definition of civil war. Several terms can apply. What annoys me is the way they did it and their reasons for doing it.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO Iraq (and the Middle East in general) was in a 3T when the US invaded. The growing violence seems to be sending Iraq into an early 4T that will lead to a split-up of the country, sending convusions throughout the Middle East and sending the rest region (except Turkey, which seems to be in a different saeculum then the rest of the ME) into Crisis.

Would you mind giving a timeline for Iraq, with evidence to support 1T, 2T, 3T, and the previous 4T (you can go back further if you wish)?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This sort of makes GD useless. In 2003 you predict there would be no civil war in Iraq. This means that if the US withdraws open war between the Sunnis and Shia will not happen. The recent horror of the Iraq-Iran war will prevent the Sunni and Shia belligerents from escalating the violence. Isn't this what GD is all about?

The Iran-Iraq war was a crisis war, placing Iraq in a 2T today. At its barest, we know that Iraq will not be in a crisis. They may be in a crisis war, but it won't be their crisis war. It won't have the same effect on the population that a normal crisis war.

For Iraqi belligerents, the rate of violence may increase or decrease over a period of time, but you will not see any escalation which includes several massacres and much 'genocidal fury' against opposition. You won't see two armies heading it off on a battlefield leaving tens of thousands dead in one day. No, car bombs are the weapon of choice.

There you have it. Violence may increase or decrease (its hard to see how it won't increase however.. and you don't need GD for that), but Iraq is still 2T. That is what GD is about.

But no, you say that the two sides can engage in a full scale civil war, it just won't be a crisis civil war. But this doesn't make sense. If Iraq splits into two or more states this makes the Iraq war historically significant. And by rule 1 that determines that it is a crisis war.

That just isn't true. This may or may not be civil war, depending on your definition. And it seems that definition falls along party lines. Full-scale civil war, is a different thing. EVERYONE would know it if they saw it. GD says that this cannot happen.

OF COURSE the Iraqi war is significant for Iraq. That is certain. Even if it stopped now it would be significant. It DOES NOT determine that it is a crisis war. It suggests it. Where are you getting this from?

The only way an increase violence between Sunni and Shia post-withdrawal will not lead to a crisis war is if you define the outcome as not significant. Then by rule 1 it would not automatically be a crisis war.

No. Re-read the algorithm.

In this case all GD is predicting is that you will not call the Iraq war a crisis war no matter what happens. But from the viewpoint of a future observer surveying the hundreds of thousands dead and the shards of Iraq, the 2003 prediction of no civil war in Iraq will look false.

If the Iraqi war stopped now, would it be a crisis war? I think the future observer is going to have to dig a little deeper on this one. It isn't too easy apparently, and it is marred by politics.

Now if you used GD to predict that if the US withdrew, the violence would decrease, and then when the US pulled out the violence did decrease, that would be a powerful validation of the GD model. Nobody is currently predicting that the violence will decrease if the US leaves--so this would be a real surprise if it happened and a good test of GD...... The Baathists, Iraqi Sunni zealots, Mahdi army and Badr militia all experienced a recent crisis war. Left to themselves violence between them should subside according to GD.

Come on Mike. You know that you couldn't predict this using GD. There is no way GD could say that "if a foreign power leaves during a 2T, violence decreases, with certainty."

The key assumption that has to come true for this scenario to happen is for the native Iraqi Sunni and Shia forces to step back from full-scale war.

We fought a full-scale war in Korea, right? How about full-scale, genocidal, civil war. But fine.

This is exactly what GD says is the effect of a recent crisis war. If the Iraq-Iran war is truly a crisis war and the theory behind GD is valid, then violence should decrease if the US pulls out.

This has no connection to the above. You're assuming that Iraq is already in a crisis war. If it isn't, then there is no reason that the rate of violence cannot increase. It just won't be a genocidal crisis war in nature.

Matt

Originally Posted by Odin

OMG, this is funny, the Corporatist Media is finally ignoring the Rovian talking points and are letting the talking heads state the obvious (that Iraq is is civil war) and John is criticizing them for it.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

John, like HC, will create all sorts of Ptolmaic epicycles in his worldview in order to avoid an application of Occam's razor. Mike has been trying to lead him to a Copernican epiphany for years, but his ego won't allow it. And man, what an ego!

My mother permanently expelled one of my father's brothers for saying that I was an ugly baby. Guess what - I was! In fact, I looked kinda lame for most of my youth. Nonetheless, Uncle Gerald was banished forever.

It's hard to accept that you might have produced an ugly child ... but it happens. It's also not a permanent tragedy.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Would you mind giving a timeline for Iraq, with evidence to support 1T, 2T, 3T, and the previous 4T (you can go back further if you wish)?

I'm not very knowledgable about Iraqi history, but in the MIddle East generally I see the Suez Canal Crisis in Egypt and the Iranian Shah retaking power after the coup against Mossedgh as the end of a ME 4T. The 50's and 60's were when secularism, rationalism, secular nationalism, and statism were popular among the Middle-Eastern inteligensia, indicating, IMO, a 1T atmosphere. The rise of Islamism in the 70's marks the begining of the 2T (which wad greatly muted in Iraq because of repression by the Baathists). The 3t started when millitancy began to decline in the early 90's.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

The Iran-Iraq war was a crisis war, placing Iraq in a 2T today. At its barest, we know that Iraq will not be in a crisis. They may be in a crisis war, but it won't be their crisis war. It won't have the same effect on the population that a normal crisis war.

For Iraqi belligerents, the rate of violence may increase or decrease over a period of time, but you will not see any escalation which includes several massacres and much 'genocidal fury' against opposition. You won't see two armies heading it off on a battlefield leaving tens of thousands dead in one day. No, car bombs are the weapon of choice.

There you have it. Violence may increase or decrease (its hard to see how it won't increase however.. and you don't need GD for that), but Iraq is still 2T. That is what GD is about.

Your comments border on religous zeal, and zealots are rarely right. You might step back, take a deep breath, and read what you wrote. It's all assertion, with only belief to back it up.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

That just isn't true. This may or may not be civil war, depending on your definition. And it seems that definition falls along party lines. Full-scale civil war, is a different thing. EVERYONE would know it if they saw it. GD says that this cannot happen.

As far as I can tell, GD doesn't say anything. It's an historical theory, nothing more. John X plays prophet at times, but that doesn't make him one.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

OF COURSE the Iraqi war is significant for Iraq. That is certain. Even if it stopped now it would be significant. It DOES NOT determine that it is a crisis war. It suggests it. Where are you getting this from?

This argument is similar to the famous to-may-to, to-mah-to discourse. Merely defining something as rightdoesn't make it so. Follwo the evidence extant.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

We fought a full-scale war in Korea, right? How about full-scale, genocidal, civil war. But fine.

I'll wager the Korean Conflict qualifies as a crisis war to the Koreans - moreso even than the Japanese occupation during WW-II. Can you argue that the North Korea/South Korea split is totally defining of that duality?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You can call Iraq whatever you want. It depends on your definition of civil war. Several terms can apply. What annoys me is the way they did it and their reasons for doing it.

Would you mind giving a timeline for Iraq, with evidence to support 1T, 2T, 3T, and the previous 4T (you can go back further if you wish)?

Much of the Islamic world clearly experienced an awakening during the last 20+ years of the 20th century. It goes by several names in the West; the "Islamic Awakening" and the "Islamic Resurgence" come to mind. An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_resurgence. It's known as a few things within the Muslim world, one of those being the "Salafist Movement".

Middle Eastern scholars will tell you that something similar to the Protestant Reformation is under way in Islam, and that it seemed to have really taken off with the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Since most if not all of these scholars would be unaware of saecular theory, we can assume that such an awakening would end after 20ish years and is therefore probably over now, meaning a third turning has begun in most Islamic nations.

I submit that the "Mujahideen generation" are the Prophets and include the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden and Muqtada Al-Sadr (those born roughly from the mid 50's to the mid or late 70's).

It makes sense that a fundamental upheaval in the Islamic world's "inner-world" would occur in the late 20th century, considering that there was a complete revamping of their "outer-world" structure in the mid-20th century. This was a period of decolonialization, nationalization, and secularization. These three aspects were institutionalized by c. 1960, ending a fourth turning (including in Iraq), and inaugurating a 1T.

[Please note: A main difference between S&H and GD is that S&H's is not a mere war cycle and does not require a GD-style "Crisis War" for a Crisis Era to occur (though S&H agree that such wars are much more likely then than at other times). What is required though is a comprehensive and fundamental reordering of outer-world institutions.]

It is known that Iraq was not immune to the awakening, even if it was stifled by Saddam Hussein's repressive political style. Many snuck in cassette tapes and the like that made the rounds and many learned of the awakening that was occuring in the nations around them.

But even if Iraq's 2T was attenuated, Iraq is now reintergrating with the rest of the Islamic world. I actually agree with Xenakis that a 4T-type civil war is unlikely, I just think it's one turning too soon as opposed to his two. That said, it is not unknown for very nasty wars to take place in 3T's. World War One (for the West at least) is a prime example.

So it seems Iraq has descended into the early stages of a 3T civil war, and as S&H say, 3T wars are typically fought with passion and intensity, but also usually without wide consensus, totality, finality, and follow-through. We are probably just going to see a lot of particularly pointless slaughter.

What makes this more complicated is that the West (and Israel) are nearly a full turning "ahead" of the Islamic world, and for the former it's time for a 4T to start. So were not just dealing with a "clash of civilizations" but a clash of saecular moods as well.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm not very knowledgable about Iraqi history, but in the MIddle East generally I see the Suez Canal Crisis in Egypt and the Iranian Shah retaking power after the coup against Mossedgh as the end of a ME 4T. The 50's and 60's were when secularism, rationalism, secular nationalism, and statism were popular among the Middle-Eastern inteligensia, indicating, IMO, a 1T atmosphere. The rise of Islamism in the 70's marks the begining of the 2T (which wad greatly muted in Iraq because of repression by the Baathists). The 3t started when millitancy began to decline in the early 90's.

And yet once again, we are jiving!!!

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

And yet once again, we are jiving!!!

LOL!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

OF COURSE the Iraqi war is significant for Iraq. That is certain. Even if it stopped now it would be significant. It DOES NOT determine that it is a crisis war. It suggests it.

You are right. I misremembered, the absence of signficance determines N. The war definitely has genocidal fury, far more than the F-P war or the American Revolution (both crisis wars), and that does determine C.

Come on Mike. You know that you couldn't predict this using GD. There is no way GD could say that "if a foreign power leaves during a 2T, violence decreases, with certainty."

Why not? What is invalid about the application? Doesn't GD say that the recent experience of a crisis war "protects" a society from engaging in another one soon. What is going on in Iraq either is a crisis war or is pretty damn close. It certainly fits the four criteria better than either the F-P or American Revolutionary wars.

How can there be a crisis war in Iraq? It only takes one side to create conditions for genocidal fury. Both the Americans and al Qaeda have no recent crisis war so they are free to generate genocidal fury (and have). The Iraqis have no choice be to be involved (its happening in their country). Now if we pull out and the Iraqis get rid of al Qaeda, then its just Iraqis left, all of whom have had a recent crisis war. GD says that the Iraq war should then diminish and move away from genocidal fury.

You're assuming that Iraq is already in a crisis war. If it isn't, then there is no reason that the rate of violence cannot increase. It just won't be a genocidal crisis war in nature.

Just how can the F-P war be a genocidal crisis war and not Iraq? Heck, the F-P war is considered a genocidal crisis war for Britain(!) which wasn't even involved in the war at all. It is ludicrous to think that what is going on in Iraq is not a crisis war if the F-P war can be one. You are focusing on where the Iraqis are in the cycle. The Iraqis are not in control of the situation, the Americans and al Qaeda are.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Your comments border on religous zeal, and zealots are rarely right. You might step back, take a deep breath, and read what you wrote. It's all assertion, with only belief to back it up.

You're right that's it's all assertion with belief backing it up. But that belief is backed up by some experience. I'm not stupid nor gullible.

As far as I can tell, GD doesn't say anything. It's an historical theory, nothing more. John X plays prophet at times, but that doesn't make him one.

OK, does TFT say nothing? After all it is a historical theory, nothing more.

This argument is similar to the famous to-may-to, to-mah-to discourse. Merely defining something as rightdoesn't make it so. Follwo the evidence extant.

You misread me. I was clarifying, not stating my beliefs. The crisis war algorithm says that if the war is significant, it SUGGESTS it is a crisis war. It does not DETERMINE that is a crisis war, contary to what Mike says. I said nothing about what I believed (what I do believe is a whole 'nother story).

If Mike wants to use John's own work to show a contradiction so that John has an epiphany, he has to get it right.

I'll wager the Korean Conflict qualifies as a crisis war to the Koreans - moreso even than the Japanese occupation during WW-II. Can you argue that the North Korea/South Korea split is totally defining of that duality?

I can't help you with that. I believe John states the crisis as World War Two.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

... OK, does TFT say nothing? After all it is a historical theory, nothing more.

I believe that T4T is correct as a model, but I never ascribe precision to it. Things happen in cycles, because the cycle is self reinforcing. I see similar cycles in nature. What I don't accept is the idea that something as amorphous as our emerging history can be predicted with greater than rough precision, and that's fully adequate to justify my interest in the theory.

I don't expect prophecy, just guidance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I believe that T4T is correct as a model, but I never ascribe precision to it. Things happen in cycles, because the cycle is self reinforcing. I see similar cycles in nature. What I don't accept is the idea that something as amorphous as our emerging history can be predicted with greater than rough precision, and that's fully adequate to justify my interest in the theory.

I don't expect prophecy, just guidance.

Yes. The saecular theory does not pre ordain outcomes, people have free will, they are not automatons. Knowing when winter is coming is not the same thing as predicting snowfall in South Carolina, which happens in some years but not in others, in any given year. It is enough to know that you will need your warmest clothing during that season.
Similaraly, a 4t does not 'have' to go a certian way to make this theory useful, there may or may not be a depression or a crises war in this 4t, but the memory of how to prevent or survive such things is at its lowest point in the cycle and more likely to happen than in other turnings.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why not? What is invalid about the application? Doesn't GD say that the recent experience of a crisis war "protects" a society from engaging in another one soon. What is going on in Iraq either is a crisis war or is pretty damn close. It certainly fits the four criteria better than either the F-P or American Revolutionary wars.

You're getting into the nitty-gritty here comparing genocidal violence between two different wars. I don't believe this is the proper way to do it. First of all, you have two different time periods, two different places, and two different types of warfare. I know you like ridigity, but it just won't work that way. Better comparisons would be civil wars, especially recent civil wars.

Let me fill out my opinion Iraq, to date:

Historical Significance- This is separate from the resolution, having more to do with how the public views this war. Already, you can tell that this will have a major impact on Iraqi life. Supports C

Genocidal Violence (obviously most important factor) -This may change, but as of now, as far as I can tell, this seems like mass gangsterism and terrorism rather than a real civil war. Little has changed since 2003, except that the rate of violence has been increased. Terrorism is not a crisis war. People here are still waiting for "full-scale civil war" to break out. Supports N

Political Considerations - Many are in it for profit or political gain. Gangsterism and terrorism again, not a real civil war. I'm sure most Iraqis are just wishing it would stop. Determines N

4th factor is unnecessary, since there is no contradiction and enough information is there. But for kicks,
Resolution - Government change, future uncertain. Easy. Supports C

*****

As of today, I see it as a non-crisis war. Now, if it spirals out of control and there is full-scale civil war, which everyone is saying will happen, genocidal violence and political considerations would change. We've been seeing the same stuff since late 2003, but there is just more of it right now.

How can there be a crisis war in Iraq? It only takes one side to create conditions for genocidal fury. Both the Americans and al Qaeda have no recent crisis war so they are free to generate genocidal fury (and have). The Iraqis have no choice be to be involved (its happening in their country). Now if we pull out and the Iraqis get rid of al Qaeda, then its just Iraqis left, all of whom have had a recent crisis war. GD says that the Iraq war should then diminish and move away from genocidal fury.

Diminish? Not necessarily. Why do you insist on GD predicting that violence will decrease? If this isn't a trap, then what is it? There will be little genocidal fury, sure, but I see no reason why the status quo cannot be maintained, nor can I see a reason why the horror can't increase, just so long as there is little genocidal fury.

Just how can the F-P war be a genocidal crisis war and not Iraq? Heck, the F-P war is considered a genocidal crisis war for Britain(!) which wasn't even involved in the war at all.

This is a completely different situation than with Britain. It wasn't considered a "crisis war" with Britain, but maybe more of a crisis. I've always been puzzled by that one.

It is ludicrous to think that what is going on in Iraq is not a crisis war if the F-P war can be one. You are focusing on where the Iraqis are in the cycle. The Iraqis are not in control of the situation, the Americans and al Qaeda are.

Can you elaborate on this last sentence? I'm not sure of what you are trying to get at.

Thanks,

Matt

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I believe that T4T is correct as a model, but I never ascribe precision to it. Things happen in cycles, because the cycle is self reinforcing. I see similar cycles in nature. What I don't accept is the idea that something as amorphous as our emerging history can be predicted with greater than rough precision, and that's fully adequate to justify my interest in the theory.

I don't expect prophecy, just guidance.

Let's use some rough precision. Tell me when I go too far.

Since America's last crisis was WWII, and it is 61 years after the end of WWII, America should be in a crisis around this time.

Since Iraq's last crisis was the Iran-Iraq war, and it is 18 years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq should not be in a crisis around this time.

I suppose that is something.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I believe that T4T is correct as a model, but I never ascribe precision to it. Things happen in cycles, because the cycle is self reinforcing. I see similar cycles in nature. What I don't accept is the idea that something as amorphous as our emerging history can be predicted with greater than rough precision, and that's fully adequate to justify my interest in the theory.

I don't expect prophecy, just guidance.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Let's use some rough precision. Tell me when I go too far.

Since America's last crisis was WWII, and it is 61 years after the end of WWII, America should be in a crisis around this time.

Since Iraq's last crisis was the Iran-Iraq war, and it is 18 years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq should not be in a crisis around this time.

I suppose that is something.

To be perfectly honest, I can't say that the Iran-Iraq War was a crisis war, because I don't believe in the concept. Wars during crises produce different results than wars at other times, but I don't insist that crisis = war = crisis.

That said, I don't know if the Iraqis will have another devastating war, or merely one that kills a lot of people and accomplishes nothing. I do know that the ME is not in full control of itself, so meddling by the hegemon can change the rules pretty fast and permanently. We'll see how it plays in the next year or two. My prediction for Iraq is something akin to the Lebanese Civil War, with a decade or more of wanton slaughter and general mayhem leading to peace out of exhaustion. I expect the country to be partitioned into autonomous enclaves, with a weak central government that delivers the mail, handles official diplomacy, and operates the military to the extent that one actually exists.

As far as the US is concerned, I just don' see us getting into a real war during this 4T. We have a couple of saecula of old business to finally settle, and this may the time to get it done, That this may be forced on us by our own fiscal stupidity is aggravating. In short, don't count on a crisis war this time.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

You're getting into the nitty-gritty here comparing genocidal violence between two different wars. I don't believe this is the proper way to do it. First of all, you have two different time periods, two different places, and two different types of warfare. I know you like rigidity, but it just won't work that way.

Wait a minute now. If GD is to be useful a war either is or is not a crisis war. Otherwise GD isn't a method but a matter of taste. You and I can go see a movie which you like and I think sucks. That happens all the time, there's even an expression, "there's no accounting for taste" to explain how people can have diametrically opposed opinions on the very same movie. But if the concept of crisis wars is to have real scientific value then we have to agree on whether or not a war is a crisis war.

You cannot answer the questions for each war in isolation. Otherwise you could be applying the rules inconsistently, in such a way to (unconsciously) get the answers you want. You will be unaware that you are doing it. To avoid unconscious bias you have to make the evaluations objective by using past results (particularly borderline cases like the F-P war) as "reference standards" of "crisisness"

For example, on point 2 you don't compare the war to Rwanda, because that has more genocidal violence that most bonafide crisis wars. Obviously a war can be a crisis war without having Rwanda-style violence. So to evaluate point 2 you pick a mild war that is nevertheless a bonafide crisis war. The F-P and American Revolution wars are good choices for mild crisis wars so they are a good choices as standards for genocide.

You then compare the Iraqi violence against civilians to that in the reference wars. There is very serious violence occurring to large numbers of civilians in Iraq. Civilian militia of one religious group are killing civilians of the other group in horrible ways. People dragged out of their cars or homes, hauled up and tortured to death in horrible ways. How is chopping off heads and drilling holes in skulls different from hacking someone to death with a machete? Nothing remotely like this happened in the F-P war or the American revolution. Objectively, Iraq is much, much more C in the genocide category than the F-P war or the American revolution. How can anyone say otherwise?

You use category 3 to make the claim that Iraq is a non crisis war.

Political Considerations - Many are in it for profit or political gain. Gangsterism and terrorism again, not a real civil war. I'm sure most Iraqis are just wishing it would stop. Determines N

Here you need to show how the Iraq war is less crisis-like in this department than a reference war. Most wars, including crisis wars are about politics. So if you aren't careful about this point all previous crisis wars will be "determines N" in this department, which is a contradiction. So we have to evaluate the war against carefully chose crisis wars that were "pretty political" yet still were evaluated as crisis wars. A good choice is the Armada.

What you say here about Iraq doesn't evaluate to an N, because the same thing was true for the Armada. Just what were privateers? Gangsters out for profit. What was Queen Elizabeth's angle for helping the Dutch? Political gain. (Note: the Armada showed no massive genocidal violence directed against civilians, that came later during the Anglo-Irish war of 1594-1603, which is NOT part of the crisis. So the Armada war does not get a determines C on point 2. Therefore, it must NOT have gotten a determines N on point 3)
Consider, the Iraq war is a religious war between Islamic versions of Protestants and Catholics. It's like our Thirty Years War. It is less political than most wars that are typically fought for political reasons. Like Iraq, the Armada was in part a religious war. The religious overtones of the Armada are enough to keep it from being assess as overly "politicized". The same should be true for Iraq.

Since the Armada war gets a supports C on this question, so should the Iraq war.

As someone who would've called it a Civil War before reading this discussion, it definitely doesn't appear to be one in hindsight.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> John, are you in a state of shock?

Public debt is still growing exponentially, the trade deficit keeps
growing exponentially, and the major global imbalances keep
increasing.

Mainstream macroeconomics has completely failed in predicting or even
explaining what's happened in national and global finance since 1995,
when the stock market bubble began.

For that reason, I would claim at this point that the burden of proof
has shifted, from me to mainstream economists. The economy has not
"self-corrected," as they predicted it would, and they don't have the
vaguest clue how the imbalances are going to be corrected, except
through a major financial crisis. It's their burden now to explain
how a major financial crisis will be avoided.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> But no, you say that the two sides can engage in a full scale
> civil war, it just won't be a crisis civil war.

Oh, for heaven's sakes. Iraq isn't headed for civil war. It's
headed to being a theatre of war in the crisis war that will envelope
the entire region, because the of the Palestinian/Israeli issue, the
Kashmir issue, the Afghan war issue, and the Caucasus issues.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

> The key assumption that has to come true for this scenario to
> happen is for the native Iraqi Sunni and Shia forces to step back
> from full-scale war. This is exactly what GD says is the effect of
> a recent crisis war. If the Iraq-Iran war is truly a crisis war
> and the theory behind GD is valid, then violence should decrease
> if the US pulls out.

> But you don't make this prediction. Instead you go with the
> conventional wisdom that Iraq will fall into civil war if the US
> withdraws. You simply won't call it a civil war and so you will
> still claim that your 2003 Iraq prediction of no civil war in Iraq
> will have come true no matter how bad the violence gets.

The "conventional wisdom," as proferred mainly by the Democrats, is
that Iraq is a peaceful country that has become increasingly violent
and is currently in a civil war because of the American invasion, and
that if America withdraws, then the reason for the violence will stop
and Iraq will become peaceful again. I heard a Democrat (Chris
Shays) make this argument again this very day.

The concept that an American withdrawal will cause a civil war is a
very recent political offering, this time by the Administration, who
are (sometimes) now claiming that if America withdraws, then Iraq
will head for all-out civil war, and so we can't withdraw.

Both Republicans and Democrats are completely wrong, for the same
reason that your analysis is wrong: The unstated assumption is that
Iraq is an island unaffected by what's going on around it.

The stupidity of the journalists, analysts and politicians of both
parties in Washington was exposed last weekend when King Abdullah of
Jordan had to lecture the pundits on the Israeli/Palestinian issue
being the core issue in the Mideast, affecting all the countries in
the region, including Iraq. Abdullah had to explain this five times,
but the morons still couldn't figure it out.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061126#e061126

Once again, there is no civil war in Iraq, and there won't be. Iraq
has been turning into a theatre of war in the growing regional war
over the Palestinian/Israeli issue, the Kashmir issue, the Afghan war
issue, and the Caucasus issues.

By the way, take a look at my article on the NBC "civil war"
announcement, and note that Moqtada al-Sadr blames al-Qaeda, not the
Sunnis, for the multi-suicide-bomber terrorist act that killed 200 of
his followers a couple of weeks ago. He doesn't think that there's a
civil war going on. Only the Democrats do.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061129#e061129

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> So if the US pulls out, then the violence will increase, but if
> the US doesn't pull out, then the violence will increase. This
> sort of makes GD useless.

On the contrary, and this exactly the point: Generational Dynamics
gives you information that can't be obtained any other way, and this
information affects policy decisions.

If you believe that a withdrawal will reduce violence (the Democratic
Party conventional wisdom, at least until recently), then that
implies one policy. If you aren't sure whether it will reduce
violence, then that implies another policy. But if you know for sure
that violence will increase, then that implies a completely different
policy.

Sometimes Generational Dynamics tells you what's going to happen,
other times it tells you what ISN'T going to happen. But even the
last scenario is still valuable information, because it allows you to
narrow down the policy alternatives.

Here's what I wrote on August 19, 2003, just after a suicide bomber
blew up the United Nations building in Baghdad:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis on August 19, 2003

> Terrorist acts during this period can thus have the effect of
> backfiring against the terrorist. The young people taking part
> in massive demonstrations and riots sometimes take a deep breath
> and say, "Whoa! This is farther than we wanted to go." The result
> is that public opinion begins to turn against the terrorists
> rather than (in this case) the Americans.

> That's not to say there aren't dangers, and here we'll point out
> two major ones:

> First, the terrorist attacks may continue and get worse.
> Terrorism is more a political technique rather than a military
> technique. Al Qaeda may succeed in increasing the level of
> terrorist attacks in order to influence American public opinion.

> And second, the terrorist acts may presage a larger regional war
> involving the Palestinian Arabs and the al Qaeda against Americans
> in Iraq. Iraq is in an awakening period, but the Palestine region
> is just about to enter a crisis period. Some analysts claim that
> the terrorist acts are being perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs and
> "Mujahadeen" being paid thousands of dollars each, funded by
> Saddam and Osama bin Laden, arriving from Syria and Saudi Arabia.

> The really dangerous scenario is that large numbers of
> Palestinian and "mujahadeen" terrorists will be motivated by
> identity group relationships to move into Iraq as a theatre of war
> against the Americans. That isn't happening now, but it's one of
> several possible scenarios that may unfold in the Mideast region
> during the next few months and years.

> http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...ww2010.i.aug19

This analysis has turned out to be almost perfect. You might point
out a place or two where it could have been sharper, but given the
information available to me in 2003, I can't think of anything I
might have said that would be more accurate.

And now, even the "backfiring against terrorists" part might well be
coming true. Not only is al-Sadr blaming al-Qaeda for the latest
terrorist act, but take a look at my 12/1 article on the massive
Hizbollah demonstrations in Lebanon. Al-Sadr is in there, and now
he's forming a political alliance with Sunnis and Christians in a move
to challenge the government. Some civil war! This is EXACTLY the
stuff of Awakening eras.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061201#e061201

So my 2003 analysis seems prescient.

And I didn't come up with it by magic. I have no psychic powers, I
don't have a crystal ball or a ouija board. I have nothing but TFT's
description of how countries act during Awakening eras.

So I came up with the 2003 analysis by asking myself the following:
"I know that Iraq is in an Awakening era, and I know what Strauss and
Howe describe about how nations act during Awakening eras. Assuming
that Strauss and Howe are correct, and given what I know about Iraq
today, then what can I predict about what's going to happen in Iraq?"

That led to the 2003 analysis, which has turned out to be completely
correct. And it's worth mentioning that this is a MAJOR boost for
the validity of Strauss and Howe's work, since it's being used
successfully to make predictions and analyses about current events,
producing valid, non-intuitive conclusions that can't be reached in
any other way.

By the way, are you going to go to a bookstore or library and spend a
few days learning what's actually going on in the Mideast today, or
are you just going to continue to express uninformed opinions?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Odin

> OMG, this is funny, the Corporatist Media is finally ignoring the
> Rovian talking points and are letting the talking heads state the
> obvious (that Iraq is is civil war) and John is criticizing them
> for it.

If you check my web site, I doubt that you'll much there that either
Karl Rove or Nanci Pelosi would support. Pretty much every analysis
I do is counter-intuitive and not in agreement with anyone.

But my question for you is: Why are you so thrilled with NBC's
announcement? Several news organizations had already been using the
term "civil war," and NBC could have done the same without making it
a big publicity stunt. Their admitted intention was to create a
"Walter Cronkite moment" by giving a political advantage to America's
enemy, to cause support for the war to "erode," so that America will
lose the war. Why do you want America to lose the war?
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...061129#e061129

Originally Posted by Odin

> IMO Iraq (and the Middle East in general) was in a 3T when the US
> invaded. The growing violence seems to be sending Iraq into an
> early 4T that will lead to a split-up of the country, sending
> convusions throughout the Middle East and sending the rest region
> (except Turkey, which seems to be in a different saeculum then the
> rest of the ME) into Crisis.

I don't see any reasons given here, and so I assume that your
conclusions are based on your "feelings." Now it's good to have
"feelings," and it's good to express your "feelings," but the
conclusions you reach that way may or may not correspond in any way
to what's going on in the real world.

I would make the same suggestion to you that I made to Mike: Spend a
couple of days at a bookstore or library reading four or five
histories of the Iran/Iraq war, from different points of view (Iran,
Iraq, Kurds, etc.) if possible. Just reading the American point of
view is not always useful.

For Iran, start with their previous crisis war, the Constitutional
Revolution that began in 1906. Understand the changes it brought and
how it gave rise to the Pahlavi Shahs who were allied with the West
until they were overthrown in 1979 by the Islamic revolution. At
that time, the Iranian hostage crisis turned Iran from an ally into
an enemy, with numerous repercussions lasting until today. Understand
how Iran was shocked and humiliated by the Iran/Iraq war, and how
this leads to the nuclear crisis of today.

For Iraq, start with the Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920 that
concluded Iraq's participation in World War I and the destruction of
the Ottoman Empire. Understand the political and sectarian chaos
that enveloped the country for decades, until it was brought under
control by the Baathists and Saddam Hussein. Then look at how Saddam
miscalculated when he invaded Kuwait after winning the Iran/Iraq war,
and how that gave rise to the situation today.

I know that spending a few days on something like this doesn't seem
that exciting, but it has numerous benefits. If you do this, then
you will not only understand the conclusions of Generational
Dynamics, but you'll also become an expert on what's going in the
Mideast today, and you'll know more than anyone else in your school,
as well as probably all of your teachers.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> With the regard to the 1995, I've come more and more to see the
> sequence of international financial crises (Tulipomania, South
> Sea Bubble, French bankruptcy, Panic of 1857, Wall St. crash) as
> independent of the war-based fourth turnings. Thus, the 1995
> stock market bubble would be related to the 1929 crash, but not to
> the WW II crisis, except that they happen to occur at the same
> time.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Do you think the natural differences between Artists and Prophets
> have anything to do with financial crises?

I think that the only way to look at it is that there's a separate
stream of generational changes related to global financial crises, and
the same names could be used (Artists, Prophets, etc.).

Generational crisis wars a local to a country or region, while
international financial crises are global, which means that the
"financial crisis Prophet" generation is an international generation,
while a "crisis war Prophet" generation is local to a particular
country.

As I've said before, every researcher I've seen has gotten wrong or
useless results because they've assumed that there's a single
financial cycle or a single war cycle, and that there's a single data
series in each case. Actually, there's no doubt that there are
multiple data streams and multiple cycles -- global generational
financial cycles, regional financial cycles, Kondratiev cycles, and
generational war cycles. Each of these streams must be dealt with
separately, not simply added together with the others. You can then
look, in each case, how to apply Systems Dynamics principles to each
of the cycles, and determine how to characterize the generations.

Thanks again for fielding Mike's questions. Actually, it's an
interesting discussion, and I'm enjoying reading it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear David,

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> I'll wager the Korean Conflict qualifies as a crisis war to the
> Koreans - moreso even than the Japanese occupation during WW-II.
> Can you argue that the North Korea/South Korea split is totally
> defining of that duality?

You would lose that bet. The Koreans and Americans had little desire
to fight that war. The Korean War would have been settled quickly if
China hadn't intervened.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

> As far as the US is concerned, I just don' see us getting into a
> real war during this 4T. We have a couple of saecula of old
> business to finally settle, and this may the time to get it done,
> That this may be forced on us by our own fiscal stupidity is
> aggravating. In short, don't count on a crisis war this time.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> Similarly, a 4t does not 'have' to go a certian way to make this
> theory useful, there may or may not be a depression or a crises
> war in this 4t, but the memory of how to prevent or survive such
> things is at its lowest point in the cycle and more likely to
> happen than in other turnings.

A number of people have expressed this kind of opinion, but I believe
that it overlooks something very important.

It's true that apparently some countries get a "pass" on a crisis
war. This is apparently true of Iceland and Switzerland in WW II,
and I still can't find any proof that England had any crisis war in
the mid-1800s.

One can analyze the reasons why this happens, but you soon find that
none of those reasons even remotely apply to the United States in
this Crisis era.

America is "policeman of the world." This is not something that
George Bush made up; it was enunciated by President Harry Truman in
the Truman Doctrine of 1947, where Truman said that America had to be
the country guaranteeing freedom around the world.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...ndoctrine.html

He defended the doctrine by saying that, no matter how expensive it
would be, it would be a lot cheaper than WW II was.

Every President since then has followed the Truman Doctrine. JFK
launched TWO pre-emptive wars against Cuba -- the first, based on
faulty CIA intelligence, led to the "Bay of Pigs disaster," and the
second, the blockade of Cuba, risked nuclear war with Russia.

So the view that we're going to avoid a world war is wishful thinking
based on the assumption that George Bush did something uniquely evil
in the history of humanity. Actually, what he did was no different
from what every other President has done.

You may argue that at least there's a small PROBABILITY that American
can avoid a crisis war, pointing out (as I did above) that other
countries have occasionally avoided crisis wars.

But this argument overlooks the fact that America has signed a large
number of mutual defense treaties with other countries. These
include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the ANZUS agreement with Australia
and New Zealand, Israel, and the NATO agreement with all of Europe.
And I recently learned that we have one specifically with Iceland.

Thus, if we're going to avoid a crisis war, we have to make all of
the following assumptions:

• There will be NO crisis war between the Israelis and Palestinians;
  
• There will be NO crisis reunification war in Korea;
  
• There will be NO crisis war between China and Japan;
  
• There will be NO crisis war with China over Taiwan and hegemony in
  the Pacific.
  
• Secondarily, that there will be NO crisis war between India and
  Pakistan over Kashmir, NO crisis civil war in Russia or a war in the
  Caucasus.

So, in order for America to avoid a crisis war, you have to assume
that there'll be no crisis war in all of the regions listed above,
and the combined probability that all of these crisis wars will be
avoided is, for all practical purposes, zero.

If America were alone in the world, then perhaps we could avoid a
crisis war (or maybe there'd be another civil war). But given the
world situation, the fact that we're policemen of the world, and the
numerous mutual defense agreements we've committed to, a crisis war
is unavoidable.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The "conventional wisdom," as proferred mainly by the Democrats, is
that Iraq is a peaceful country that has become increasingly violent
and is currently in a civil war because of the American invasion, and
that if America withdraws, then the reason for the violence will stop
and Iraq will become peaceful again. I heard a Democrat (Chris
Shays) make this argument again this very day.

Sorry to nitpick on my second post, but Rep. Chris Shays (CT) is a Republican.

My opinion of the conventional wisdom differs slightly. Iraq was not a "peaceful country" but yet another Arab nation with no better a record than any of its neighbors. The presence of occupying forces inspires more violence than would have been the baseline without them around. We're not going to solve animosities that have existed since long before the united states of America began to share any common culture, nor will our exit make everything come up roses over there.

Originally Posted by pkid1980

We're not going to solve animosities that have existed since long before the united states of America began to share any common culture, nor will our exit make everything come up roses over there.

People who live within the Beltway often forget they are on planet Earth.

Okay everybody. John is right. John is always right. It doesn't matter when Mike has him dead to rights. It doesn't matter that he and Matt skirt issues or engage in illogic. John is just right.

GD says whatever John says it does at any given moment, and it will be right, and with "100% certainty". His war cycle is superior to S&H because John says so. John is a genius and the rest of us (who don't agree with everything GD says) are "idiots". Anyone who challenges him is engaging in a "hack job". That's just the way it is.

Get over it. I have felt a lot better since I did.