On 2002-02-20 23:40, Justin'79 wrote:

seriously, why am i even here?

Because you are waiting for something to happen.

Pindiespace writes... The real test would be the US response another attack comparable to Sept. 11, or something of similar magnitude. If we're still 3T, there would be a bit of 'ho-hum' about it. The reaction of the country would seem "staged" to some extent -- exactly what Xers continue to point out about our present-day mood. But if we're 4T, things would really hit the fan and beome horribly *real* all over again -- and stay that way.

On page 2 of this thread, I suggested September 11th is far more comparable to the 29 Crash than Pearl Harbor. At the time, I thought the 2004 elections might become a referendum on Crisis policy, but now it wouldn't surprise me if it delays to 2008 or beyond. I might propose a series of statements or questions, a progression.

1. What hit us?

2. Can we get back to normal?

3. Assuming we can't get back to normal, what is the fix, and who do we trust to fix it?

4. That does it! Let's get down to it!

If this is roughly right, 1 would be the preliminary catalyst, 2 the pregnant pause, 3 the regeneracy proper, and 4 the final Pearl Harbor / Lexington Green final commitment. I would put us at step 2. Arguably, we are in step 3, we have decided to trust Dubya, and the fix is to use military force to suppres those seeking change.

From my perspective, we blew step 1. The establishment has gotten away with declaring the opposition evil and keeping base causes of the conflict off the agenda. They are attempting to maintain the established patterns using military force, which isn't a good idea come a Crisis. We've got three generations of stagnation that needs to be released. So long as we buy into no need to change, sticking with purely military solutions, we can pretend pseudo-normalcy. The question of how to change is never answered, never really asked. Of course, George III and Jefferson Davis never saw the point in changing, either. It is natural and expected that those who benefit most from the established world order will use force in a futile attempt to maintain the established world order.

The key question is whether there will be a step 3, a regeneracy, an earnest attempt to solve the problems confronting us. It is entirely plausible that we will cling to old values, old social structures. Fourth turnings are times for radicals, when the new and downtrodden ally to overthrow establishment privilege and power. Again, we are more apt to play the role of the privileged and powerful.

On 2002-02-21 07:21, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
I might propose a series of statements or questions, a progression.

1. What hit us?

2. Can we get back to normal?

3. Assuming we can't get back to normal, what is the fix, and who do we trust to fix it?

4. That does it! Let's get down to it!

If this is roughly right, 1 would be the preliminary catalyst, 2 the pregnant pause, 3 the regeneracy proper, and 4 the final Pearl Harbor / Lexington Green final commitment. I would put us at step 2.

Arguably, we are in step 3, we have decided to trust Dubya, and the fix is to use military force to suppres those seeking change.

I agree with your assessment. Assuming we are in 4T at all (only time will tell), IMO we are at step 2.

Remember that Hoover took definite steps to "return to normal" in 1930 and 1931. They didn't work and they weren't the Regeneracy.

Very good posts, Bob. That was not a useless "platform" at all -- I agree with you in where society is headed -- and where it is heading. There are problems out there, and at the same time people are not connecting the problems, with the generational alignment in no doubt playing a part. Only if and when a critical mass # of people have made the connection can changes begin. The wave of national mood changes brought on September eleventh was brought by the terrorist attack and the perceived threat at the time. With the wave receding as the war on terrorism is fought, the people who expect or hope for a permanent instituting of mass patriotism or 4T-feel are trying to pin the aqueous wave down. This will of course require something else that will allow us to staple to wave down first before it has a chance to recede, and people aren't recognizing it because of the generational placement. A terrorist attack like that, anyone can recognize, whether we're in 2005, 2001, 1995, 1985, or 1970. The American dream, as you equated it, IS the Third Turning, and delusion or not, a true blindness to any problems beyond attacked buildings and a Taliban is the lifeblood and curacao of the deckchaired American dreamer ready to go back to sleep.

Robert: The Boomers don't look at all "there" yet, or even ready to change. There are still the Red and Blue Zone divisions that existed before the attacks, and with these the stances on gun issues are even abortions are focal in debate and will be critical in elections. Whatever things "really matter", I doubt everyone would agree that the age-old abortion debate continued in the present fights over when life begins or the questions over whether Harry Potter promotes Satanic or anti-Christian values is one of them and not matters of "petty squabbles" continued from before the attacks. So while terrorism is dealt with, it's still in addition to other topics that hang along simultaneously and that their proponents agree do matter while not everyone may agree: whether the Democrats/Republicans are corrupt and are just using a bill or collecting money to further their campaign . . . fighting the War on Drugs . . . and so on. The partisan accusations and accusations of party "treason" flying around the Shays-Meehan bill exemplify this. The Boomers are simply too old to enter elderhood. The age of 65 is seemingly years and years away for the oldest Boomers, and a change in Social Security policies may even change the transition this time around to age 67. Boomers are not showing the "Zen-like" wisdom of an elder, as Strauss and Howe put it, because for chronological reasons they don't identify themselves as entering what people recognize as "elderhood". The Prophet type will make the vision calls and is actually the real spearheader of Crisis; if the vast majority of Prophets are still unwilling due to age to see a vast reform and call for a complete paradigm shift -- when they're not even close to coming up with it -- the nation will not be dragged along into Crisis by them. Thus far I've seen very few of the Boomers, especially influential Boomers, experimenting with vision beyond a war on terrorism or flag-waving mouthing, at least any more than they've been doing lately. In 1919, when the oldest Missionaries were only 59, nothing could cause a Crisis because the Missionaries weren't ready to start one, and they weren't ready to start one because they hadn't gone on the vision quest that comes when one realizes one has hit old age.

As for the deferment of problems, how much talk have we seen inspired by the events of September eleventh that calls for changes about homelessness, or poverty in the U.S. or China, or even the threat of NUCLEAR weapons in war? Not many issues can boast an increase in focus -- a noticeable change in amount of attention given to them -- after the attack as measured against before. There are airport security and issues that tie in immediately, and libertarians of a heavily non-Boomer composition speaking out against curtailment of civil liberties under the war on terrorism, but nothing that really goes beyond. If the war on terrorism vanished, any remnants of mood of crisis would likewise vanish within the political sphere, at least to such a degree as to be heard. As for whether Bush will totally beat up the Silents and continue this into waging World War III, no one can say for certain how this will turn out, and the extent of his war could be pivotal. After the immediate threats -- Taliban-related countries, etc. -- are defused, other Cabinet members will of course be much less inclined to listen to him and favor expanding the war.

And, of course, HOW MANY Prophets make or even consider a change after an event like the WTC attacks has an effect on where that generation goes, and where the turnings will continue to go. Just about every event changes SOME people's minds, but if all that happens in the end is 2% of Boomer SUV owners changing their ecological awareness, the ball will not keep rolling and gathering.

As for Millennials, they have been learning how to work in teams from the beginning. Millennials weren't changed into team-workers by these events -- they WERE team-working! No one can argue that this generation hasn't organized in high school canned food drives or blood drives, in 1998, 1999, 2000 . . . or figured out how to organize protests long before the first airplane rammed into the first of the two towers. All positive Millennial teamwork efforts were simply applying what they had done many times before, this time around to yet another event that demanded solutions. (Assigning unprecendently momentous significance and emotional reactions to this event, however, was a Boomer thing. Younger generations didn't see this as a break-out point.)

You probably have a good point about the military. There was indeed a LOT of deal about pacifism being made by GI's in the Depression, and the pro-war attitudes were not started until well into a Fourth Turning. However, they never really got an opportunity to enter an important war until 1939 (the event that hit U.S. soil was deep into the turning). If drafted, Millennials are predicted to serve and stop protesting war (not yet! -- not yet meaning they aren't willing to serve yet). The government, however, is currently unwilling to institute a draft in the first place and I don't know if that's BECAUSE of current youth feelings about the draft. Even despite all these variables, Strauss and Howe still expect an uprise in the interest in the military that comes associated with civic duty, if only because they see it as a venue of civic participation, and that we should be able figure out shortly after a might-be Catalyst whether the Fourth Turning has arrived by use of a draft and willingness of both government and youth to pay a huge human-blood price to fight whatever wars come up.

Strauss and Howe say one of the defining markers of Heroes entering a new life stage will be in the general perception of youth their age, good versus bad. That's what Strauss and Howe say, and in fact they consider it one of the biggest markers of a move into Fourth Turning, and it should help us figure out soon what turning we're really in. As for Mike Males' findings . . . I don't know how they fit into this. Nearing half a year after The Day That Was Hyped As Changing America, I read and listen to more criticisms of youth than just about anything else. To match the criticism of the Super Bowl terrorism/drug ads, there were the adults and interests that put the ad on the air in the first place (and, as an aside, the continuing policy of the ideology-driven War on Drugs that White House powers can keep in place). But the media will write and say about youth what sells, and they have been continuing to talk about school shootings or attempted school shootings where they can find them (as long as they're of the suburban or rural variety -- no change from the bias in coverage shown before), and more often than not talk about individuals rather than generation, or sometimes simply cover an individual and generalize him to the worldbeat of his generation. They look for youth they can make interesting celebrities of. There hasn't been any dramatic decrease after this period that gives shocking evidence of a change in youth perceptions -- kids are perceived as evil, and that's still often agreed with. Almost every week in my newspaper I can find an editorial stating this "this generation" of youth has been screwed up, and usually the newspaper doesn't even print any dissenting letters that may have been written. Just the other day I saw an editorial stating that today's teens will cause the world to end by doing nothing, in cause partly to their lack of education, that they have "a one-word vocabulary" -- the word "like".

Whether the trend in anti-civic attitudes will stay, whether there will prove to be any "reversal of civic decay" we can pin down, is unknown but it is doubtful that it can keep with our current generational constellation and the media convincing people that "Terrorist rogue states are all of the problem". Look for the next time the pollsters ask Americans how often they can trust their government. We can expect a continuing decline from the last time around, after the mood, after all, has calmed down. Strauss and Howe write, after all, in their opening essay what what to look for is these trends "deepening". The wearing off of tower shock will no doubt cause all of the 4T indicators to become less and less likely, as lately we have seen in these trends "shallowing" instead of "deepening". Airline convenience has already sped up. National ID cards . . . who's Larry Ellison, again? In the pop culture we've tasted the first fruits of the post-911 surge of patriotism . . . along with pop culture similar to that created before September 2001. I sure don't hear much about any but the latter type of pop culture being in progress now. But by the way the mood is going I wouldn't be surprised if the films we were tasting three months from now were unabashedly violent and even had a few gross-out features in the mix, or if not unabashedly violent would show the same degree and frequency of violence as the films made in early 2001. As Bob so wonderfully put it, the arms on the clock have been moving backwards. The mere presence of a mood of shock and grief is no proof that the mood won't fizzle. By the time we're ready to know, there will be no question that any 4T-like trends will have been doing more and more undoing of their deepening.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jensen B. '78 on 2002-02-21 21:44 ]</font>

If this bloke is right, the 4T is not in sight. He cites evidence that our generals let Bin Laden slip away because of their fear of casualties.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...-02-16&id=1585

"So long as we buy into no need to change, sticking with purely military solutions, we can pretend pseudo-normalcy. The question of how to change is never answered, never really asked. "

That's because we are not even in step one. 9/11 does not challenge our society to change. What needs to change was, moreoever, not a cause of 9/11.

Eric

Susan:

I'm glad you comprehend my generational analysis. And that this board is really so wonderfully addicting as I wondered if it was! Can't say my post count is ever going to catch up with some of you guys, though.

That's an interesting thought about the Millennials; you have a good point about the Millennials you see and WHY they might be useful even if they're not acting the way they're supposed to be yet. When S&H missed anything, who knows. What I initially took into mind (and mentioned briefly in the last post) is that Millennials are supposed to change their X-ish trappings. As soon as the Crisis comes, it will be their true calling, and they'll find their "true self". Even if it is expected for them to be wild, indistinguishable from the Xers in fashion and music, etc., throughout the Third Turning. The book says that where Millennials are now is where Boomers were in the "American Graffiti" era, that every generation copies the previous generation, but will shed it come the turning where the respective generation comes into its own. The holding of political beliefs and attitudes towards rules and wearing of clothes more associated with rebellious Xers than with a Hero generation is therefore supposed to be a sign that these kids have not yet heeded their true generational calling, just some reveling in the Third Turning around them -- if it were a Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe's definition, they would have changed out of it. No more than a small minority terribly out of step with their generation would fail to show the soldierly Hero persona. So by their criteria, the Millennials are definitely of now in their Unravelling condition.

There are of course thirtysomething Xers who have settled down and married, and there even exist rather early twentysomethings who are doing this (I know some, but it's still a very small proportion of this age group as a whole, and I also know just as many people in their early twenties who hold the Boomer youth belief that marriage is an antiquated and moribund social convention that's for square, old-fogey proponents of "family values"!) But 13ers, who "date and marry cautiously", have often been treating marriage and family-raising as a daily and natural part of life right through the early 1990s. There've always been a few (if "always" began with the dawn of time in the late 1970s): Kurt Cobain, who got "married and buried", fell in love with and married Courtney Love early in his musical career and even had time to have a daughter in 1993. Kurt is the most famous example, there have been other grunge rockers who have shown off their parenting skills. Far from all did that in the 1990s, of course, and there were many who continued to party as well. (Courtney Love herself, 1964, is certainly staying pretty young at 37, and only those born in the 1961-1963 are really looking at midlife, approaching 42; and they're sometimes even classified as Boomers!) Focusing STRICTLY on family, or centering on family as a no-nonsense, domestic, Heim-und-Herd guardian as is the key to defining whether a change has occurred, hasn't shown up much at all. Then of course we have the Xers (both in their thirties and in their twenties) who party and haven't even gotten married. We also have a significant portion of thirtysomething Xers who are raising children but not within marriage -- they've never formally gotten married. Let's not forget about them! And after September eleventh, marriage rates have actually going down while the reports of divorces have gone up -- in fact you could say there was a reversal or slowing-down of the trend among 13ers that pushes them more away from their Fourth Turning role!

The firefighters and rescuers were heroized Xers, but no one's heroizing generation X as a whole. As I mentioned originally, of course, the only reason these people became heroes is because these individuals happened to hold the jobs at the time the inflammatory damage to New York's buildings came along. Of course, what age bracket but the Xers would fill the bulk of these positions? The individuals who saved everyone on that day in September got rewarded -- as individuals, or at most, as members of a certain occupation -- but the entire rest of the Gen-X population has not been thanked by the patriotic establishment, or participated directly in patriotism themselves (unless they did, that is). And even the firefighters or rescue workers were helping to save individual people -- some disadvantaged -- rather than doing anything because of a love of country.

And, of course, many of the libertarian commentators who lash out at the Boomers' flag-waving are Xers, and many other Xers continue to support the same causes they did before -- these are the Xers who are getting told by hive-minded Boomers that they are unpatriotic and should be ashamed of themselves for "questioning policy in a time when we need unity and bringing up petty issues that should be put on the back-burner and blah-blah-blah". The Xers, of course, don't care at all. The reason you don't see many waving flags is because they don't LOVE THEIR COUNTRY -- how most of us define patriotism.

13ers are still cynical? Is that supposed to change in a Fourth Turning, too? Maybe. But one thing that is clearly ascribed to Nomads entering a Fourth Turning is strictness, repressiveness and a return of social rules into American life. That hasn't been happening (it's the Boomers who are still taking up that role, of course), but it's supposed to be one of the key changes of a Nomad generation identified by Strauss and Howe, arguably being the biggest key change of all. Others, of course, include the feel of a need to "save" society, a birddoglike "faithful" guardianship, a new absence of "cool", and of course more family orientation. And as for the last, 911 hasn't sped up the move in 13ers' roles as visible, now, in the long run. (I heard some single people talk about getting married immediately, shortly after the attacks, and ALL of them have since defused that promise.)

As for the paragraphs, when I sat down and wrote my first note, my plan was to write five paragraphs: the first one would introduce myself; the second one would explain how I came to be familiar with this theory and the book _The Fourth Turning_; the third one would mention that we are still in the Unravelling and explain how I came to that conclusion; the fourth one would discuss the direction in mood away from Fourth Turning developments because the generations aren't ready; and the fifth one would sum it up, maybe give my first impressions of this forum. As it turned out, I had to go into quite a lot of detail to explain the position of each of the four generations to look out for and how they're manifesting their Third Turning roles, and that third paragraph sort of ended up taking on a life of its own.

I'll write in with more insights in the changes back and forth since 911 later.

Well, here goes my first attempt to copy and paste:



SEARCH:
Advanced SEARCH










Country Afghan. Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Argen. Armenia Austral. Austria Azerb. B. Faso Bahamas Bahrain Bangla. Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burundi C. Verde C.A.R. Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa R. Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech R. D.R.C. Denmark Djibouti Do. Rep. Dominica E. Timor Ecuador Egypt El Sal. Eq. Gui. Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France G. Biss. Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatem. Guinea Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary I. Coast Iceland India Indones. Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakh. Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyz. Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liecht. Lithuan. Luxem. Macedo. Madagas. Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marsh. I. Maurita. Mauriti. Mexico Micron. Moldova Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozamb. Myanmar N. Korea N. Zeal. Namibia Nauru Nepal Nether. Nicarag. Niger Nigeria Norway Oman P.N.A. Pakistan Palau Panama Papua Paraguay Peru Philip. Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda S. Afri. S. Arab. S. Korea S. Leone Samoa San Mar. Sao Tome Senegal Seychel. Singa. Slovakia Slovenia Sol. Is. Somalia Spain Sri Lan. St. Kit. St. Lucia St. Vin. Sudan Suriname Swazi. Sweden Switz. Syria Taiwan Tajik. Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad Tunisia Tur. Rep. Turkey Turkmen. Tuvalu U.A.E. U.K. U.S. Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbek. Vanuatu Venez. Vietnam W. Saha. Yemen Yugo. Zambia Zimbab.







Discuss global
events with fellow
STRATFOR members


To be announced...
Seminar Archive








The Intensification of Global Instability
21 February 2002

Summary

With the outbreak of civil war in Colombia, another country has fallen deeper into the ranks of the unstable. This has been a week of destabilizations. Iran appears to be moving toward internal crisis, Venezuela's political problems are deepening and conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is entering a new era. This troubling spread of instability is rooted in the current structure of the international system. As the world's only superpower, the United States' inevitable obsession with al Qaeda has contributed to this process of destabilization.

Analysis

Late Feb. 20, the Colombian government announced that it was abandoning its truce with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and launched what appears to be a coordinated and substantial attack on FARC-held territory. With that, another small portion of the world went from the brink of instability directly into war and potentially into chaos. Clearly, this situation has its roots in uniquely Colombian circumstances and, though it has some regional significance, is of limited global significance in and of itself.

What is important about Colombia is that it represents another small destabilization of a country in a global system that is undergoing numerous small destabilizations at roughly the same time. When we step back, we see a pattern of intensifying destabilization around the world. Taken together, we see the emergence of a pattern of instability that is interesting precisely because it appears to lack any coherent pattern, model or cause. It varies geographically. It varies in the nature of the crises. It varies by causes. Only two things are constant: there is a dramatic increase in instability, and the unstable areas appear to have only the most tenuous connections with each other.

Consider the events of the past week, in no particular order:

? Colombia has plunged into civil war.
? Venezuela, a major oil producer, is experiencing a major political crisis over its president, Hugo Chavez.
? In Afghanistan, the CIA has issued a report (published on the front page of the New York Times) warning that internal chaos is looming.
? In the Middle East, Palestinians have shifted tactics toward waging guerrilla war, and Israel is contemplating a major shift in its own strategy.
? In Iran, a majority of the Majlis has signed a petition demanding an investigation of U.S. charges that elements in Iran have aided al Qaeda members in escaping Afghanistan. This action creates a massive internal confrontation between forces around the Ayatollah Ali Khameni and those around President Mohammad Khatami, with a very uncertain outcome.
? What has emerged from U.S. President George W. Bush's meeting with the Japanese prime minister is that Japan has no idea how to manage its intensifying financial crisis. One of the world's major economies appears to be inching toward meltdown.

Add these to the U.S. war on al Qaeda, the India-Pakistan confrontation, the Iraqi crisis, the ongoing Balkans puzzle and the Argentine default and the rest. Clearly, the destabilization process is intensifying and spreading. The instability can be found on each continent (even the United States is gripped by a destabilizing fear of al Qaeda) and in all possible areas, from political crises to military confrontations to economic turmoil.

The world has always been a dangerous place. The 1990s represented an interregnum in which it appeared that the end of the Cold War had ushered in a new, more stable world. In a very few years, we have moved from a world in which it appeared that most crises were marginal to the international system and easily containable, to a situation where marginal crises cannot be contained and not all crises are marginal.

Nothing moves in a straight line, and nothing moves in tandem. Nevertheless, if we were envision all these issues continuing to deteriorate, we could easily imagine that six months from now, Japan would be in economic and political chaos, an Indo-Pakistani war would be raging, Afghanistan would be experiencing a civil war of epic proportions, Iran would be fragmenting under internal pressures, the United States would be at war with Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians would be locked in a guerrilla war, the northern tier of Latin America would be in bloody chaos and U.S. forces would still be mired in a global struggle against al Qaeda. Meanwhile, other regions would be falling into chaos.

It is therefore comforting to know that simple extrapolation is useless in predicting the future. At the same time, it is hard to locate the countervailing, stabilizing forces. It is difficult to see what force will save Japan from its fate or Colombia from its conflict. The problem with the current wave of instability is that its lack of a coherent pattern or organizing force makes it difficult to perceive the force that will limit the destabilizing process.

During the Cold War and prior great power confrontations, the confrontation itself helped order emergent conflicts. Since any conflict potentially affected the interests of major players or the stability of the international system as a whole, conflicts that were inherently local and idiosyncratic were absorbed into the general confrontation. The downside was that any local issue, like Cuba, could be a friction point that would lead to war between the great powers, such as the United States and the Soviet Union. The upside was that fear of such a war caused the great powers to suppress the local issue. The threat of general war and the existence of great powers tended to stabilize local conflicts for extended periods.

We are in a period in which there is only one global power, or superpower, and a series of regional powers, or great powers. The superpower has become absorbed in a confrontation with a non-national force, al Qaeda, which has shown that it can strike directly at the American homeland. Therefore, the threat from al Qaeda has become a unique focus of U.S. foreign policy, around which all other policies are subsidiary.

Al Qaeda is a sparse but global network. This makes its members difficult to identify. It also makes it necessary for the United States to act globally, inevitably intruding on local powers. The United States has shaped its relations with other great powers around this issue. This has put three processes into place:

? The United States is intruding in a wide range of countries on an unpredictable basis, built around al Qaeda's behavior. This is creating unintended tensions and consequences.
? Countries and issues that are not directly tied to the war are receiving limited attention, regardless of potential consequences.
? Great powers are either recoiling from cooperation with the United States out of fear of being drawn into conflicts in which they have no interest, or they are using the coalition as a cover for pursuing their own interests.

The solution to instability is the imposition of order by a great power in competition with other great powers. However, the United States today does not compete with any great power but is at war with an international network. Unconstrained by other powers and driven by its war, the United States inevitably destabilizes some countries, lacks the interest or resources to stabilize other countries and creates opportunities for destabilization by other great powers. At the same time, it provides few incentives for other great powers to take risks in stabilizing the situation.

Thus, if we look at the list of recent crises, the most important issue is Japan. Japan does not intersect al Qaeda, and therefore the United States does not have the focus to manage that crisis. Similarly, Washington has a set policy regarding Colombia, but no bandwidth to definitively reevaluate that against the backdrop of Venezuela. The policy is on automatic. In contrast, the question of Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq is of fundamental interest to the United States, with the net result that each of them is being destabilized.

The instability we are seeing, therefore, has no common root, but neither is its intensification accidental. The United States dominates the international system, and since Sept. 11 the United States has been focused on al Qaeda. That focus has not caused local instability. It has, however, created the conditions in which local instability can intensify and in which there are few external forces to manage that instability. It therefore follows that local instability is intensifying on a global basis.

In terms of policymaking, there is little that can be done. The United States cannot avoid its obsession with al Qaeda. Certain things follow from that: Europe has no appetite for the global war that the United States must wage, and Russia and China cannot help but use the war as an occasion to improve their own relative positions. Therefore, the United States will intrude and destabilize where it needs to, and ignore other issues. This will create unstable situations as well as situations in which instability will grow because of inattention.

No other power can bring order. The United States is protecting its own cities from devastation. The list of crises will grow.




Subscribe to STRATFOR
Take a FREE Tour


U.S. Forces in Northern Iraq? Feb 22

Iran's Reformers Divided Under U.S. Pressure Feb 21

Myanmar: Anti-Terrorism War May Raise Strategic Value Feb 20

Argentina: Need To Shave Spending Puts Provinces, Capital at Odds Feb 19

The Iraq Problem: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Balance Feb 18

Email me the latest FREE intelligence












Home | GeoEconomics | GeoPolitics | GeoSecurity
HotSpots | WorldView | YourView | Forecasts | Special Reports
About STRATFOR | Consulting | Media | Member Services | Subscribe | Contact Us | Site Map

Copyright 2002 Strategic Forecasting LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Justin '79 writes:
theres a great post by Jensen B '78 on why we are still in 3Tne of us are ready to accept new roles.
Maybe this was like WWI. Maybe we have a ways to go.

Hey, you're right! I found this post and it was great!

That's a great post, Jensen, and I agree with you. If you look at the way today's teens are acting (and being perceived), and the way Xers are acting right now, or the way Boomers are acting, or the way Silents are acting, it becomes clear that they're behaving in a Third Turning way -- what are their Third Turning roles. As for the Boomer patriotism and hopes to "annihilate Afghanistan" which some have said are evidence of a Third Turning...well, they're still carrying that off in a backstabbing, moralistic way. Not to say Boomers weren't singing the virtues of patriotism prior to last year, either. (The annual Fourth of July parades in town would always be full of Boomer moms and dads, who were bringing their small kids with them, along with lots of volunteering seniors putting the festivals together. The people who organized would always complain about how hard it was to get teens interested in the celebration.)

As for the question of "scout-like teens", I completely agree with those who say they missed something or may not have gotten everything right. S&H just predicted 10 years ago that the children would grow up to be teens who looked up to and obeyed adults, and exerted peer pressure to stay AWAY from drugs instead of to do them. This was based on their place in the cycle, as well as school uniforms and the love that they got when they were babies. It hasn't quite turned out that way, and I really have my doubts that the "emulating Gen X before their coming-of-age turning" argument explains it all. When you have 20-year-olds who say they're too smart to be duped into standing up for authority figures or backing rules of decorum, it sounds dubious that the generation is going to suddenly snap into a scout-like mode and completely change their minds just because a turning changes, as if suddenly they're the right age to turn into yes-sir soldiers. The Woodstock Generation didn't do this until they were around 40.

On 2002-03-08 14:05, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
Justin '79 writes:
theres a great post by Jensen B '78 on why we are still in 3Tne of us are ready to accept new roles.
Maybe this was like WWI. Maybe we have a ways to go.

Hey, you're right! I found this post and it was great!

That's a great post, Jensen, and I agree with you. If you look at the way today's teens are acting (and being perceived), and the way Xers are acting right now, or the way Boomers are acting, or the way Silents are acting, it becomes clear that they're behaving in a Third Turning way -- what are their Third Turning roles. As for the Boomer patriotism and hopes to "annihilate Afghanistan" which some have said are evidence of a Third Turning...well, they're still carrying that off in a backstabbing, moralistic way. Not to say Boomers weren't singing the virtues of patriotism prior to last year, either. (The annual Fourth of July parades in town would always be full of Boomer moms and dads, who were bringing their small kids with them, along with lots of volunteering seniors putting the festivals together. The people who organized would always complain about how hard it was to get teens interested in the celebration.)

As for the question of "scout-like teens", I completely agree with those who say they missed something or may not have gotten everything right. S&H just predicted 10 years ago that the children would grow up to be teens who looked up to and obeyed adults, and exerted peer pressure to stay AWAY from drugs instead of to do them. This was based on their place in the cycle, as well as school uniforms and the love that they got when they were babies. It hasn't quite turned out that way, and I really have my doubts that the "emulating Gen X before their coming-of-age turning" argument explains it all. When you have 20-year-olds who say they're too smart to be duped into standing up for authority figures or backing rules of decorum, it sounds dubious that the generation is going to suddenly snap into a scout-like mode and completely change their minds just because a turning changes, as if suddenly they're the right age to turn into yes-sir soldiers. The Woodstock Generation didn't do this until they were around 40.

Truthfully, the G.I. Generation wasn't known for obedience and conformity before 1929, either. Probably, the Millennials are just as much in 3T mode as the other Generations right now.

It could be the 4th although the generations might be too young to fully apply the new mood yet. The era right after JFK whitnessed a short intensification of High-era trends with GI's building more than ever and Lost that remained doing everything possible to block it. The Lost lost (no pun intended) the argument because the Gi's had the political muscle to cast away any generation standing in the way of their goals. I think a lot revolves around how fast the Silent fade into full retirement.

If the Boomers muscle Silent out of office then we will undoubtedly see many more crusades soon. If not, though, and that's also possible considering Silent strength in activism, the Crisis will at an initial stage for awhile with no solution to mounting problems in sight.
The return to Third Turning-era behaviour patterns is illusory because people really are worried deep down and do recognize problems unlike the Third. But they are more determined than ever to repress it.

Since the late Silent are still largely in the work force and many hold political office they are putting a real break on any kind of issue that threatens to develop into a Crisis confrontation. Even if Boomers are ready to advance to visionaries for society and Xers are ready to advance to midlfe managers par excellance the Silent with their "hip" attitude mixed with nostalgia for their Awakening era "mistakes" holds back society from progressing. Most Silent still rue Vietnam and they are doing everything possible to avoid conflict and if a conflict should come to avoid casualties as much as possible. This is not a recipe for Fourth Turning confrontation. Boomers also have little reason to want to abandon thier "youthful" image of themselves even though they are approaching 60. This primarily relates to the Silent image of themselves as being "hip" and "up to date" elders. Silent grandparents are also spoiling Millenial kids which is why Mills have little appetite for mobilization.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that any of this is bad. I think it's highly constructive because it freezes the situation in place. At least until the generations have matured enough to face their problems with diginity and avoid either a Boomer "screw them all" mentality or an Xer "screw it all" mentality.

On 2002-03-09 00:35, JayN wrote:
It could be the 4th although the generations might be too young to fully apply the new mood yet. The era right after JFK whitnessed a short intensification of High-era trends with GI's building more than ever and Lost that remained doing everything possible to block it. The Lost lost (no pun intended) the argument because the Gi's had the political muscle to cast away any generation standing in the way of their goals. I think a lot revolves around how fast the Silent fade into full retirement.

If the Boomers muscle Silent out of office then we will undoubtedly see many more crusades soon. If not, though, and that's also possible considering Silent strength in activism, the Crisis will at an initial stage for awhile with no solution to mounting problems in sight.
The return to Third Turning-era behaviour patterns is illusory because people really are worried deep down and do recognize problems unlike the Third. But they are more determined than ever to repress it.

Since the late Silent are still largely in the work force and many hold political office they are putting a real break on any kind of issue that threatens to develop into a Crisis confrontation. Even if Boomers are ready to advance to visionaries for society and Xers are ready to advance to midlfe managers par excellance the Silent with their "hip" attitude mixed with nostalgia for their Awakening era "mistakes" holds back society from progressing. Most Silent still rue Vietnam and they are doing everything possible to avoid conflict and if a conflict should come to avoid casualties as much as possible. This is not a recipe for Fourth Turning confrontation. Boomers also have little reason to want to abandon thier "youthful" image of themselves even though they are approaching 60. This primarily relates to the Silent image of themselves as being "hip" and "up to date" elders. Silent grandparents are also spoiling Millenial kids which is why Mills have little appetite for mobilization.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that any of this is bad. I think it's highly constructive because it freezes the situation in place. At least until the generations have matured enough to face their problems with diginity and avoid either a Boomer "screw them all" mentality or an Xer "screw it all" mentality.

I definitely see what you're saying. I find myself waiting for the other shoe to drop, too. Also, hoping it doesn't until the various generations are more ready to face their 4T tasks. After all, if 9/11 was the catalyst, it did come several years too early. In any case, 9/11 showed both us and the world that we're *almost* there.

I'm glad you liked my post, Jesse, Justin, Jay, Tim (whom I probably missed last time), and anyone else I'm forgetting.

Yes, I agree that hardly anyone right now wants a Fourth Turning. (Although I'd like to ask flag-flying Boomers, if they so much want to get back to normal as Bush is encouraging, why don't they all stop waving your flags? You didn't see flags galore prior to September 11, 2001.) Of course, Crises aren't the happiest or most carefree out of the four turnings, but people are going to want a Fourth Turning even less when the collective brains of their generation haven't matured to the point to take the next step. Plus nothing feels exhausted about the Third Turning yet. There are still so many more songs to listen to, culture wars to win, fights to resolve, food and drink to order, and gripes with the system. Plus some generations aren't looking forward to an atmosphere of forced conformity, return of the traditional in values and virtues, and enraging arrest of people who insist of having liberty...all done in the name of protection, that characterizes a Fourth Turning. The Nomads certainly aren't ready to do that yet. In fact, with everyone being in their Unravelling generational roles, the things that will be done will be Unravelling-type actions. Unravelling actions make for an Unravelling.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jensen B. '78 on 2002-03-11 20:46 ]</font>

On 2002-03-11 20:45, Jensen B. '78 wrote:

Yes, I agree that hardly anyone right now wants a Fourth Turning.

i don't know if "want" is the right word, but if there must be a crisis, a significant part of me would like to just get it over with.

Plus nothing feels exhausted about the Third Turning yet. There are still so many more songs to listen to, culture wars to win, fights to resolve, food and drink to order, and gripes with the system.

huh. speak for yourself. the whole damn lot seems pretty spent and played out to me. the culture wars have been nothing short of annoying for at least half a decade by now.

and "so many more songs to listen to"? i'm having a hell of a time finding anything new worth listening to. the radio sure doesn't have anything worthwhile (not that that's anything new), and i have to rely on the advice of my obscurist friends to find anything good.


TK

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TrollKing on 2002-03-11 21:00 ]</font>

On 2002-03-11 20:45, Jensen B. '78 wrote:
I'm glad you liked my post, Jesse, Justin, Jay, Tim (whom I probably missed last time), and anyone else I'm forgetting.

Yes, I agree that hardly anyone right now wants a Fourth Turning. (Although I'd like to ask flag-flying Boomers, if they so much want to get back to normal as Bush is encouraging, why don't they all stop waving your flags? You didn't see flags galore prior to September 11, 2001.) Of course, Crises aren't the happiest or most carefree out of the four turnings, but people are going to want a Fourth Turning even less when the collective brains of their generation haven't matured to the point to take the next step. Plus nothing feels exhausted about the Third Turning yet. There are still so many more songs to listen to, culture wars to win, fights to resolve, food and drink to order, and gripes with the system. Plus some generations aren't looking forward to an atmosphere of forced conformity, return of the traditional in values and virtues, and enraging arrest of people who insist of having liberty...all done in the name of protection, that characterizes a Fourth Turning. The Nomads certainly aren't ready to do that yet. In fact, with everyone being in their Unravelling generational roles, the things that will be done will be Unravelling-type actions. Unravelling actions make for an Unravelling.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jensen B. '78 on 2002-03-11 20:46 ]</font>

Maybe some of the flag-waving Boomers see this as a way (symbolic, as usual for them) to make up for their flag-burning days thirty-some years ago.

Possibly, jds1958xg. While they burned flags during Vietnam, they feel like now they can tout flags during this war. Of course, it sure helps that they're all too old for draft age now. Are the Boomer men still happy, deep down inside, that they've never undergone the painful experience of fighting in a war and are never going to due to their age now? Any happiness mixed in with that guilt?

Speaking of Boomers, I'm going to bet six months' worth of rent that this Christopher Hitchens fellow is a Boomer.

On 2002-03-11 21:55, Jensen B. '78 wrote:
... While [the Boomers] burned flags during Vietnam, they feel like now they can tout flags during this war. Of course, it sure helps that they're all too old for draft age now. Are the Boomer men still happy, deep down inside, that they've never undergone the painful experience of fighting in a war and are never going to due to their age now? Any happiness mixed in with that guilt?

I find that comment particularly humorous, since the last war requiring a large number of soldiers and the last to have a draft was the one fought by young Boomers and middle-aged Silents. For those not well informed on this, the Vietnam War involved American troops virtually from the minute the French departed in 1954, until the US pull-out in 1974.

I met several Silents who served there in the mid-50s. In fact, I had the opportunity (if that's an appropriate way to view it) to see first-hand the 'base' we opened in '54 - Camp Smith.

Speaking of Boomers, I'm going to bet six months' worth of rent that this Christopher Hitchens fellow is a Boomer.

No bet. I've seen him, and he looks about Boomer-age to me. Of course, the 2+ packs of cigarettes a day may make that observation a bit deceiving.

I would say that it's time to pack up and close this thread, but I know better. The thirst among some for our saviour, our Gray Champion is kind of like sex... well, you know what I mean.

Oh well, questions about the weather persists among liberal Democrats like E. J. Dionne Jr today:

Quote:
Some Democrats still cling to the hope of winning this year's elections locally, seat by seat. It's been done before. In 2000, Rep. Tom Davis, the head of the House Republicans' campaign effort, mastered the art of localizing contests wherever national issues threatened his party's prospects. But it will be hard for Democrats to win Congress this year unless they change the prevailing winds. As one Democratic strategist put it: "The weather is not on our side."


On a another front...

You won't see this story in the mainstream press today, so I'll post it here for a few brave souls willing to face the truth:

Mikhail Gorbachev: Communism was `pure propaganda'

"We, including I, were saying, 'Capitalism is moving toward a catastrophe, whereas we are developing well.' Of course, that was pure propaganda. In fact, our country was lagging behind," Gorbachev said.

It is amazing that a marxist like Hitchens is even around anymore. But I know why he is; You can sum it up in two words, guilt works.

So will the next Gray Champion be a Marxist (of sorts) like Mikhail, Hitchens, Dionne and FDR?

Probably. :smile: Maybe just a small "m" one. Here's hoping.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-12 09:23 ]</font>

This is just pathetic...

9/11 holiday, anyone?

On 2002-03-12 10:38, Marc Lamb wrote:


This is just pathetic...

9/11 holiday, anyone?

Agreed! I'm with that old WWII vet.

By the way, Jews commemorate the Holocaust by fasting on a day that usually occurs in May or June. THAT is a more appropriate way to mark the 911 attacks then by making a national holiday and spending it buying sheets and clothes on sale at the mall!

On 2002-03-12 10:38, Marc Lamb wrote:


This is just pathetic...

9/11 holiday, anyone?

People pushing for this probably won't like it if they get it...the lady who lobbied Congress to establish Mother's Day as a national holiday came to absolutely hate Mother's Day later in life, as it became a rampant exercise in commercial nonsense.

On 2002-03-12 10:38, Marc Lamb wrote:


This is just pathetic...

9/11 holiday, anyone?

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

On 2002-03-12 10:38, Marc Lamb wrote:


This is just pathetic...

9/11 holiday, anyone?

For my money, this is a 3T thing, all the way. Why would anyone think a holiday designation applies? If we, as a people, need a national something, how about a day of remembrance.

And in a rare case where I agree with Marc Lamb: yes, making 9/11 a holiday is pathetic!

The idea of a WTC holiday seems like pure propaganda IMHO.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...t-j-03-11.html

Seems like more and more people are supporting nuclear war. In fact, the Bush Administration is building plans for nuclear war. I'm sure that someone on here has played Scorched Earth.