24-Dec-18 World View -- Generational Dynamics analysis of the troop withdrawal from Syria

[FishbellykanakaDude]

> I, personally, am addicted to air, actually. It's gotta be
> something, as you said, and that's my "time waster".

You've got to find a reason for taking the space you take, breathing
the air you breathe.

[flash=640,385]ht%20tp://www.youtube.com/v/1ogdkJYLXFs[/flash]

YOU have to do it. It ain't jus' GIVEN' 'ya,....

...sorry,.. went a bit country there.

The universe don't care a whit if you bother to find one or not.

Which is why I'm into playing with making it, occasionally, a challenge to get enough air. Being the beach-wanker that I am, it's fun (for me) to practice remaining calm underwater in the surf and catching a breath when I can. It's surprising how long you can not breathe water when you really have to.

My "worth" is me being crazy enough to value testing that limit over how much I make, or whether people believe me or not.

Some people might call that a low bar. I call it life or death. Aloha! <shaka nui!>

[CH86]

Assad is a GOOD person, something boomers on this forum are seemingly incapable of understanding or grasping. Without Assad, Syria would have gone under. Assad is the rock shielding Syria from that fate.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Assad is a GOOD person, something boomers on this forum are seemingly incapable of understanding or grasping. Without Assad, Syria would have gone under. Assad is the rock shielding Syria from that fate.

You haven't made the case that Assad is a "good person".

Just make your case, and we'll believe you. I would suggest explaining what you mean by "good", and why Syria "going under" would have been a "bad" thing.

Personally, since I believe that that which happens (actually occurs) is the "best possible outcome" of what could have happened in every case, even though that may not be obvious at the time, Syria's NOT "going under" was in fact a "good" thing to have happened, and Assad NOT "being killed" was a "good" thing to have happened, I (apparently) agree with you that WHAT HAPPENED was "good",.. but I have a sneaking suspicion that your definition of "good" may be different from mine.

Anyway,.. make your case. Then we can at least understand what you MEAN, and agree to disagree, if not agree to agree.

[DaKardii]

Hi, John.

In this article, you make the case that the upcoming "clash of civilizations" World War will pit the US, Russia, India, and Iran against China, Pakistan, and "the Sunni Muslim countries."

But who's leading the Sunni Muslim coalition within the pro-China camp? The only countries that I think have the capability to lead them are Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Right now, it appears increasingly likely that Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be on opposing sides in the upcoming war. Both countries support a form of fundamentalist Sunni Islam, but their pan-Sunni visions are different and ultimately incompatible with each other. Saudi Arabia supports a medieval-style alliance between kings and clerics, with the king ultimately being superior to the clerics. Turkey on the other hand supports a revolutionary form of Sunni Islam which much more closely resembles fascism than medieval monarchism.

For the first half of this decade Saudi Arabia and Turkey were willing to put aside those differences in the name of overthrowing Assad and countering Iran. But the last five years have not been kind to Saudi Arabia's economy. With oil prices a fraction of what they were a decade ago, the Saudis are slowly running out of money. The IMF has projected that the Saudis could end up being forced to declare bankruptcy as early as next year if current trends continue. Without oil money, the Saudis will be virtually powerless against external threats. In fact, we may see Saudi Arabia collapse altogether.

For this reason, the Saudis have been growing increasingly hostile towards Turkey, and appear to be determined to antagonize it at every opportunity. The Qatar crisis, the Khashoggi killing, and the GCC military presence in Syrian Kurdistan (which likely will expand once the US withdraws) were all part of a wider Saudi effort to contain Turkey, and the Khashoggi killing in particular -- in my humble opinion -- may have been intended to provoke a Saudi-Turkish war. Meanwhile, Turkey has been responding to its growing feud with Saudi Arabia by increasing ties with Iran and Russia. In fact, it may not be an exaggeration to say that Turkey is now firmly in the pro-Iran camp within the Saudi-Iranian feud.

This should raise the following questions:

1) Do Saudi Arabia and Turkey view each other as existential threats?

2) If the answer to Question #1 is YES, then which side will they support in the upcoming war?

And of course if the answer to Question #1 is NO, then we already know what side they will choose. As Sunni states they will still see Iran as the greater threat, and they will rekindle their anti-Iranian alliance once the war begins.

[DaKardii]

This should raise the following questions:

1) Do Saudi Arabia and Turkey view each other as existential threats?

2) If the answer to Question #1 is YES, then which side will they support in the upcoming war?

And of course if the answer to Question #1 is NO, then we already know what side they will choose. As Sunni states they will still see Iran as the greater threat, and they will rekindle their anti-Iranian alliance once the war begins.

If Steve Bannon were asked those questions, it wouldn't be hard to predict his response. Given his remarks in the link at the bottom of this post, his response likely would look like this:

"The answer to Question #1 is YES. Saudi Arabia and Turkey DO view each other as existential threats, and they WILL be on opposing sides in the upcoming war. And given how their relations with the US have evolved in recent years, more than likely Saudi Arabia will be in the pro-US camp while Turkey will be in the pro-China camp. As for the rest of the Muslim world, I disagree with Mr. Xenakis' contention that Iran will be in the pro-US camp. Iran hates the United States (and the West in general) far more than it loves its traditional cultural allies such as Russia and India. The only ways I could see Iran NOT being in the pro-China camp would be if either (1) the Mullahs were overthrown and replaced with a secular, pro-American government; or (2) if Erdogan decided to treat his current friendship with the Mullahs the same way Hitler treated his friendship with Stalin, and decided to fight both Iran AND Saudi Arabia simultaneously."

https://ahvalnews.com/us-turkey/steve-b ... m-new-axis

[John]

> And of course if the answer to Question #1 is NO, then we already
> know what side they will choose. As Sunni states they will still
> see Iran as the greater threat, and they will rekindle their
> anti-Iranian alliance once the war begins.

In recent years, I've been using the phrase "various ethnic
groups" to give myself some wiggle room. Here's what I
wrote on January 1:

> President Trump's recent announcement of a quick American troop
> withdrawal from Syria -- which has recently been modified to a
> "slow withdrawal" -- has further hardened these fault lines, as
> different factions compete to fill the vacuum in eastern Syria tha
> the US withdrawal will leave behind. There are three major sets
> of alliances among the Mideast countries:

• Iran, Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iraq Shia militias, Yemen
  Houthis
• Turkey, Qatar, some Syria opposition factions, Hamas, Muslim
  Brotherhood
• Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, some Syria opposition factions,
  Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority. To some extent, Israel
  is a part of this alliance.

> From the point of view of Generation Dynamics, the Mideast is
> particularly difficult to analyze because of multiple generational
> timelines. The last crisis war climax for Saudi Arabia occurred
> in the 1920s, for Israel and the Palestinians in the late 1940s,
> for Syria and Lebanon in the early 1980s, and for Iraq and Iran in
> the late 1980s. Each of these timelines and their interactions
> has to be analyzed separately to get precise forecasts for the
> future of the Mideast.

> The general Generational Dynamics forecast is that there will be a
> larger regional Mideast war that is coming with 100% certainty,
> pitting Arabs vs Jews, Sunnis vs Shias, and various ethnic groups
> against each other. This will be part of the Clash of
> Civilizations world war, and nothing can be done to prevent it.
> It might begin in 2019.

So there you go -- wars among "various ethnic groups" pretty much
covers anything. I have plenty of wiggle room.

Saudi Arabia's last crisis war occurred in the 1920s between
the Sauds and the Wahabbis. It may be that Saudi Arabia
will be split, fighting on both sides.

Turkey has a vitriolic hatred of the Alawites and the Kurds.
It's possible that the Kurds will be allied with the Alawites,
which will be allied with Iran against Turkey.

[John]

> If Steve Bannon were asked those questions, it wouldn't be hard to
> predict his response. Given his remarks in the link at the bottom
> of this post, his response likely would look like this:

> "The answer to Question #1 is YES. Saudi Arabia and Turkey DO
> view each other as existential threats, and they WILL be on
> opposing sides in the upcoming war. And given how their relations
> with the US have evolved in recent years, more than likely Saudi
> Arabia will be in the pro-US camp while Turkey will be in the
> pro-China camp. As for the rest of the Muslim world, I disagree
> with Mr. Xenakis' contention that Iran will be in the pro-US
> camp. Iran hates the United States (and the West in general) far
> more than it loves its traditional cultural allies such as Russia
> and India. The only ways I could see Iran NOT being in the
> pro-China camp would be if either (1) the Mullahs were overthrown
> and replaced with a secular, pro-American government; or (2) if
> Erdogan decided to treat his current friendship with the Mullahs
> the same way Hitler treated his friendship with Stalin, and
> decided to fight both Iran AND Saudi Arabia simultaneously."

> https://ahvalnews.com/us-turkey/steve-b ... m-new-axis

I cannot find the paragraph you quoted, either at the link you
provided, or by doing an internet search. Where did you get that
quote from?

Bannon hasn't answered the 2-3 e-mail messages I sent him in the past
year, so it's possible that he's completely blown me off (like a lot
of people have). But I don't know that for a fact. It's too bad if
it's happened, but you won't be surprised to learn that I've become
very philosophical about a lot of things in recent years, so Bannon
dumping me, if true, would just be the "next thing."

At any rate, there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that Iran will
be allied with China against the United States in a generational
crisis war.

[DaKardii]

I cannot find the paragraph you quoted, either at the link you
provided, or by doing an internet search. Where did you get that
quote from?

It's not an actual quote. It's a statement that I can picture him saying based on what he does actually say in the link at the bottom of my last post:

https://ahvalnews.com/us-turkey/steve-b ... m-new-axis

Bannon hasn't answered the 2-3 e-mail messages I sent him in the past
year, so it's possible that he's completely blown me off (like a lot
of people have). But I don't know that for a fact. It's too bad if
it's happened, but you won't be surprised to learn that I've become
very philosophical about a lot of things in recent years, so Bannon
dumping me, if true, would just be the "next thing."

Have you attempted to communicate with him though other means?

At any rate, there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that Iran will
be allied with China against the United States in a generational
crisis war.

I think what you're saying there is related to Turkey's hatred of the Alawites and the Kurds and the latter two's close relationship with Iran. I don't deny that Turkey (especially under Erdogan) would like to wipe them both out. But both the Alawites and especially the Kurds are moving closer to Saudi Arabia, whom Iran despises. Would Iran be willing to be on the same side as Saudi Arabia (and I'm talking about an intact Saudi Arabia, not the fragmented Saudi Arabia you previously mentioned)?

[John]

> It's not an actual quote. It's a statement that I can picture him
> saying based on what he says in the link at the bottom of my last
> post

In that case, with all due respect, I doubt very much that he
believes what you imagine that he believes.

[DaKardii]

> It's not an actual quote. It's a statement that I can picture him
> saying based on what he says in the link at the bottom of my last
> post

In that case, with all due respect, I doubt very much that he
believes what you imagine that he believes.

What am I supposed to make of what he said? Here's an actual quote from that article:

"What we're seeing today is China, Persia, and Turkey – three ancient civilisations – coming together to form a new axis. It's confronting the Christian West and also a big part of Islam that is tied to the West. You're starting to see this form every day like in the 1930s. You're starting to see it crystallise more and more . . . We're going to have our hands full right now with China, Iran, and Turkey. Turkey's supposed to be an ally."

It's very clear that he sees Iran being on the same side as China. Of course, in the interview that the article cited he didn't take into account the possibility of a leadership change in Iran, nor did he take into account the possibility of Iran being forced to side with the US in the event that either China or Turkey decided to pull an "Operation Barbarossa" against it.

Personally, I think it's possible to reconcile your prediction and Bannon's, if you take into account Italy's behavior during the two World Wars. Both times, Italy started out being pro-German, but ended up siding with the Allies due to factors that arose during the war. In the first World War, that factor was growing tensions between Italy and Austria; and in the second it was the overthrow of Mussolini (which had been prompted by the war becoming increasingly unpopular among the Italian government and people -- speaking of which, would you argue that WWII was a non-crisis war for Italy?).

In other words, what I can see happening is Iran initially siding with China, but this decision will be unpopular and eventually be reversed. What will spark that reversal, I cannot tell you. But do recall that Iran's youth are much more pro-West than the Mullahs (and would therefore be much more open to an alliance with the US).