I really think that you're overlooking the possibility of panic, aRidgel wrote: > John, you said "Today, the country is almost just waiting for a
> "regeneracy event." It might be a terrorist attack on American
> soil, or it might be an overseas military disaster. But whatever
> it is, it will end the bickering, and regenerate civic unity
> again. "
> But based on my understanding of what you've written before, it's
> going to take a lot more than another 9/11. There's going to have
> to be some sort of total war or other catastrophe to get people to
> change their ways. If another terrorist attack happened today,
> even a serious one that killed thousands of people, it would do
> nothing to unify the country. The right would say that Obama was
> weak on foreign policy, the left would say that the U.S. had
> angered other countries with its occupations, the military
> contractors would lobby for more homeland security money, the
> justice department would write memos for or against torture-light
> depending on who was in charge - it would still be every man for
> himself.
> A war with China or another major power would certainly unify the
> country fast. But I can't picture how you fight a total war with
> nuclear weapons on both sides - without using the nukes that is.
> And even to this Gen-Xer nihilist who looks forward to seeing
> boomers spend their retirements eating cat food and shivering in
> studio apartments without cable, that goes to far. ...
> But based observation of our public servants, I think any war will
> be more motivated by greed and interest than by pride. For
> example, the U.S. spy plane that was forced down and landed on a
> Chinese Island in 2001. There was no threat of military response
> or sanctions - just BS give China whatever it wants, let them hold
> our people and steal our secrets for a week. Those aren't total
> war kind of people. They're the kind that will continue to weasel
> and compromise and kick the can down the road until something
> forces their hand.
concept that's fundamental to Generational Dynamics theory.
The 2001 incident with China is interesting, but it's not the kind of
thing that would be likely to stimulate panic. In fact, that
incident made the Chinese look like complete fools, since the Chinese
pilots were acting like 5 year olds, and ended up getting killed,
while the US plane landed safely, albeit on Chinese territory.
However, let's look at another example. In fact, let's look at 9/11
itself. You may recall that President Bush declared war on
Afghanistan immediately -- with no complaints from anyone. In fact,
the war in Afghanistan is still described as the "good war" or the
"necessary war," even by Obama. 9/11 DID in fact unify the US
population.
Now imagine that Osama bin Laden had been hiding out in, say, the
Uighur region of China, rather than Afghanistan. Then a world war
might well have been triggered at that time.
So I would argue that 9/11 COULD HAVE led to war if only the facts
had been slightly different.
Now imagine a new terrorist act on American soil, and imagine that
the facts point to Pakistan or China or North Korea. Then things
might move very quickly.
The Christmas day attempted bombing was a failure, and yet we're now
moving troops into Yemen, as I described in my posting.
** 28-Jan-10 News - US military in Yemen, investors bet against Greece
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 28#e100128
That was an unsuccessful act, but it still provoked a fairly
significant military reponse. Imagine if it had been successful.
John