Introduction

       This is the fifth and last in a series of essays on the deep divide which developed during the 1990s between the U.S. military and the power elites of the civilian culture who attempted a precipitous change. It has been labeled the military/civilian culture gap. The changes imposed on the military were politically driven and inspired by the desire of the elites of the Boomer generation to carry the counter-culture revolution of their coming-of-age years to completion in their years of midlife power. As these elites rose to executive power, as every generation does in its turn, they attempted to invoke changes that would turn American culture on its head.

       During the 30 years since their precipitation of the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s-70s, these elites rose to power in every institution in the land. The judiciary, the Congress, the Executive Branch, the mass media, administration of and tenured professorships in our colleges and universities, administrators and teachers in our K-12 public and private schools, pastors, priests and bishops in our established churches were all brought under the influence of the elites of the Boomer generation. This bottom-up strategy worked well with those institutions. But that strategy would not work with all of America's institutions. Their slogan in the 1992 presidential election, 'Have the courage to change,' rallied the populace to follow them as they continued their 'march through the institutions' one-by-one on their way to imposing their agenda on America.

       And, over the past three decades, they were successful in establishing this agenda in every institution in the land - save two - the U.S. military and the American family. It would take the eventuality of their attainment of federal executive power for them to attempt to co-opt these last two institutions to their larger purpose. Once the elites of the Boomer generation attained the Presidency, they were in position to impose their agenda from the top-down on the U.S. military and the American family.

       But what was/is that agenda? It has been carefully documented for us by Balint Bazsonyi in his prescient book, "America's 30 Years War: Who is Winning?" The agenda was/is to take American civilization down the Franco-German path of governance and steer it away from its roots in the Anglo-American pathway established for us by our Founding Fathers. The counter-culture revolution - once completed - will have taken America down that destructive path via dissolution, desperation, and despair - as have all other socialist government experiments in history.

       And what were the political tools for gaining the acceptance of this agenda? The answer is through the politically motivated destruction of the most visible symbols of excellence in the existing power structures, including those in the U.S. military. For example, in the U.S. Navy, it meant destroying the reputation and career of one of its most outstanding leaders, CDR Bob Stumpf, former commanding officer of an F/A-18 Hornet squadron with an exemplary record in the Persian Gulf War and commanding officer of the premier Navy flight demonstration team, the Blue Angels at the time [1]. If the radical feminists could convince the politicians to destroy such personal symbols of excellence in the Navy culture without a peep of support of the flag-rank leadership to defend its own culture, the entire military establishment could be brought to heel.' In the words of the then-Representative Patricia Schroeder (D-Colorado), "I hear a culture cracking!" Yes, the traditional 'warrior' culture of the U.S. Navy was under attack. See RADM C.A. 'Mark' Hill's  essay on this debacle at the link: The Bob Stumpf Affair.

       This has also been carefully documented for us in the exhaustively researched new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," by Ann Coulter. One reviewer states that "…she exposes those carrying out this campaign of intimidation, reveals their brutal techniques and tactics, and refutes the vicious slanders and outright lies that so far have gone unanswered…Coulter not only quotes the lies, she names the liars."

       The depth to which the counter-culture revolution has been taken in the U.S. military during the 1990s is attested to by several major events. For the first time in naval history, a Chief of Naval Operations committed suicide. Admiral Jeremy 'Mike' Boorda, a Clinton appointee, bought the counter-culture revolutionary agenda hook, line, and sinker. By circumstance, this Boomer generation naval officer became one of the Clinton 'power elites.' For example, ADM Boorda served during a two-year period as the U.S. Navy's highest-ranking uniformed officer in the politically-charged aftermath of the 1991 Tailhook scandal. He was in charge of the resultant introduction of women into combat positions in naval aviation and deployment of female officers and enlisted personnel on combat vessels.

       In fact, ADM Boorda was hand-picked by President Clinton as his tool for introducing radical and fundamental change in the Navy's culture; the introduction of women into combat roles and the explicit setting of goals (quotas) for recruiting, selecting, and promoting minorities and women in manning the fleet (12/12/5 as percentages for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans as well as 20 percent women).  ADM Boorda thus became a key player in the Clinton administration's quest to 'social engineer' the U.S. military, starting with the most tradition-bound service, the U.S. Navy. If Navy tradition could be broken, then it would be easy to conform the other services to the new-age counter-culture revolution.  This role cost ADM Boorda the trust, confidence and respect of the Navy's officer corps, especially its aviation component, and, in the end, his own life.

       It is not generally known that, as Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Boorda had ordered all naval commands to observe Native American Indian Heritage Month with the message [2] that "...we are reminded that certain concepts such as freedom of speech, the separation of powers in government and the balance of power within government were patterned after the political systems of our Native American Indian [sic] Nations."  Evidently, ADM Boorda had never heard of early democratic Greece (800-400 B.C.), the ancient precursor of our experiment with democracy, the Magna Carta (circa 1215 A.D.) and subsequent English foundations for our 'rule of law,' the American Revolution and its Declaration of Independence, and the intellectual foundation of the Founding Fathers who formulated the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Indeed, ADM Boorda's lack of early schooling (a high-school dropout) and later attempts to make up for it (by obtaining a Navy-subsidized university degree in political science -- the least demanding of nearly all academic disciplines) rendered him incompetent to discern the difference between the propaganda of deconstructed history and objective truth. He was easy prey for the propaganda and radical agenda of the political 'power elites' of his generation.

In his headlong rush to feminize the U.S. Navy, ADM Boorda acceded to an informal 'black list' of those naval officers who may have simply attended Tailhook '91 (without even a hint of wrongdoing), resulting in their automatic disqualification [3][4], from promotion.  In addition, he set up conditions wherein the first cadre of female fighter pilots were trained under a 'double standard' much less demanding than that for male fighter pilot trainees. When this practice was exposed during the external scrutiny of the first fatality of a female F-14A fighter pilot, whose death may be directly attributable to these relaxed standards, ADM Boorda set out to cover up [5] this perfidy. This coverup, including the orchestration of a demonstrable set of lies uttered by VADM Robert Spane, then ComNavAirPac, through the mainstream press and TV, was uncovered and publicly exposed [6] in detail. Further evidence [7] of illegal command influence on the accident investigation has been made public. In the aftermath of this exposure of a high-level Navy coverup of this accident investigation, ADM Boorda hastily reassigned VADM Spane, his henchman in the coverup, and sent others involved in the coverup to duty stations where they could not be easily questioned by the press. The press has not as yet reported this illegal command influence on an accident investigation.

       Another event that characterized the depth to which the counter-culture revolution has been taken in the U.S. military during the 1990s is attested to by the resignation of the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Ronald Fogelman. He resigned as air force chief of staff in 1997. Being [8] "dedicated to the most basic ideals that forge a coherent force, he found it necessary to explain to U.S. lawmakers why disobedience and lying by a commissioned officer cannot be tolerated. In contrast to the hesitancy displayed by most other senior officers with regard to the Kelly Flinn affair, Fogelman spoke out."

       John Hillen, an Army combat veteran and astute military analyst, sets the stage for discussing the problem of the military/civilian culture gap on the basis of 'generations' in an article in NAVY TIMES. His introduction to this topic lists the highly charged 'changes' introduced by executive fiat by the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation during the 1990s [9]. "Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military has been in the midst of a colossal identity crisis over the extent to which it should or should not conform with the changing values of American society at large. Controversies over homosexuals in the military, women in combat, sexual harassment and gender-integrated training have dominated the military headlines. The scandals at the military academies, the Tailhook episode and the Kelly Flinn saga captivated America to a far larger extent than any questions of post-Cold War strategy or military budgets."

       "Pressure from the Clinton administration and the weight of public scrutiny have caused the military to change…Les Aspin [SecDef] lifted long-standing combat exclusion rules barring women from many combat or near-combat roles. President Clinton himself led the charge to end the military's discrimination against homosexuals. Every service except the Marine Corps adopted or continued in gender-integrated and gender-normed basic training. Human relations training and other corporate-type [10] 'sensitivity training' sessions were built into training schedules. At West Point, the honor code officer in each unit was supplemented by the 'respect for others' officer. The military was going to drag itself into modernity."

       Hillen discusses the opposing views on a military/civilian culture gap as portrayed by Sara Lister (the former Army Assistant Secretary who had publicly called Marines 'extremists') and Thomas Ricks who had written a book on how the Marine Corps molds warriors out of the detritus of America's 13er generation youth. "Ricks intimates that it would be better for society to adopt some Marine Corps values. Lister highlighted the civil-military dangers of a cultural rift between American society and its professional military."

       Hillen concludes, "The real danger is not that America and its military will grow too far apart - it is that they will grow too close together. If the United States is going to keep a large military force around under the assumption that it may have to fight and win a significant conflict someday, then it might not want its military - especially the end with the 'teeth' - to look too much like society…[Marine Generals told Hillen that] 'the product that the Marine Corps was receiving from society was of a lesser standard than that of previous generations. The lesson was clear: you don't take Bart Simpson to war if you want to win." Clearly, the 13er generation (Gen-X in pop culture) was not measuring up to Marine Corps standards.

       Hillen points to Senator Trent Lott's plea for the Air Force to 'get real' instead of prosecuting LT Kelly Flinn for a variety of serious violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the least of which was adultery. "Few Americans polled in the aftermath of that episode seemed to understand or even accept why the military sought to hold its officers to a higher code of conduct than that of society at large. It was almost as if most Americans thought that the military invented concepts like duty, honor, country, courage and commitment in the abstract - rather than as a cultural necessity for an institution meant to win in the unnatural stresses of war."

       Hillen goes on to point out that "A recent Army survey found that only one-third of its women and just over half of its men thought that their central mission was to fight America's wars. With so many soldiers unsure of the Army's purpose and identity, the institution is open to have 'new' values imposed on it by popular American culture." And this is the Army with which America is contemplating to engage in a war with Iraq.

       This dichotomy is underscored by essays on this Web Site at the links: see The Hollow Force Debate Results for a discussion with over 150 naval officers (from the later cohort of the Boomer generation), Anatomy of a Collaborator for insight into one of the Hollow Force Debaters who, acting in his own self-interest, unwittingly carries out the agenda of the 1960s counter-culture revolutionaries at the U.S. Naval Academy, Anatomy of a Closet Leftist for a revelation concerning a Silent Generation flag-rank officer who, while carrying out the duties of Superintendent at the Academy, acted as an 'enabler' for the radical changes that the 'power elites' of the Boomer generation inflicted on the nation's premiere military academy - responsible for educating and training the next generation's core combat leadership - responsible for winning our nation's wars at sea, and The Military/Civilian Culture Gap for a detailed summary of the 'gap,' identified and discussed so ardently during the 1990s - by both the troops and the military, foreign policy, and defense analysts.

       But there is more to the 'gap' story than is discussed in the four essays above. The discussion of 'generations' does not go far enough nor deep enough to mine the ore of historical perspective that could give us some insight into what to expect from the generations which are in line to face America's next secular crisis - at the conclusion of its current Fourth Turning. America's Generational History should tell us much more about the 'peer personalities' of those whom the military recruits to fill its ranks. History should be a great deal more useful than simply answering the question, 'What is the best advertising campaign to recruit and retain 13er generation youth for our nation's military?' We should be able to find some 'guidelines' for action - preparation for the coming crisis -- from a 'generational' history that goes far, far back into America's past. Indeed, such a history of 'generations' exists. And it should give us some sense of what we should be thinking about, what we should be preparing for, and what actions we should be taking to ensure a successful conclusion. You see, America has seen all of this turmoil before. And Americans have fought, died, persevered, and prevailed in each past secular crisis that threatened the survival of American civilization. And we can do it again - if we heed the lessons of history.

The Generational Aspect as the Troops See It
       During the last half of the decade of the 1990s, a recruiting and retention crisis struck the armed forces with a vengeance. Junior officers -- lieutenant naval aviators, captains in the Air Force and Army, and Marines - were leaving the armed forces at such rates that shortages occurred in operational units. The shift from preparing to fight the nation's wars to 'peacekeeping' - essentially guard duty and boring holes in the sky over no-fly zones over Iraq - in the name of human rights violations was destroying morale and undermining the 'warrior spirit,' the ethos for which these young adventure-seekers joined the military. In addition, those young officers saw their superior officers playing the game of 'ticket-punching careerism' and decided that this was not the kind of life they desired. The top-down imposition of a 'zero tolerance' for mistakes and errors - in the totalitarian climate of the gender wars and 'sensitivity training' - led to micromanagement from the top, a go-along-to-get-along attitude regarding the deteriorating material condition and combat readiness of the fighting units that led to outright lying on readiness reports, and a general belief that their superiors did not care a whit about their men became a de-motivator for the junior officers. The hemorrhaging tide could not be stopped, nor even slowed, even with outrageously high annual re-enlistment bonuses [11]. Indeed, the junior officers were leaving in disgust at the lack of leadership by their superior officers. the latter would not stand up to the political pressure which was undermining the 'warrior ethos' in the military.

       It was soon realized that the senior officers were nearly all of the Boomer generation and the young junior officers were all 13ers. And these two generations not only did not understand each other, in the main they were beginning to despise each other. So the armed forces decided that they had to catch up on the basic 'characteristics' of these two generations. NAVY TIMES ran a long article on Generation - X (the 13ers) and all hell broke loose in the letters-to-the-editor section.

       Known alternately as 'baby busters,' 'twentysomethings,' and the 'MTV generation,' NAVY TIMES observed that [12] "Generation X has now surpassed the Boomers in the naval services' active-duty population. In fact, the 'Xers,' those born between 1965 and 1983, now represent the majority of people in the U.S. military…The line has been drawn. It divides leaders and the led, authority figures and their charges - [each from different generations]…Among Marines, Generation X represents virtually all junior enlisteds and 95 percent of NCOs, as well as 80 percent of lieutenants and captains. In the Navy Xers make up 73 percent of E-5s, but less than 29 percent of E-6s. Boomers make up 95 percent of chiefs and an even greater percentage of officers O-4 (lieutenant commander) and above."

       The services took a page out of corporate America's playbook in trying to understand the 'peer personality' of each of these two generations - Boomers and Xers. They knew that lumping people together simply on the basis of their birth years was a dangerous business but sociologists and corporations, as well as the military have used such generalizations to better understand their target audience (presumably for recruitment and retention). Nevertheless, they hoped to come up with a few 'defining characteristics' that best sum up a generation of people.

       A few such characteristics were identified in the NAVY TIMES article. "Generation X sailors and officers live to play." A Baby Boomer naval officer sums up the Xer attitude in five words: 'What's in it for me?'" This officer incorrectly describes his own generation as one with a motto: "'live to work.'" Nevertheless, the Navy looked at the research conducted by sociologists and concluded that the following characteristics were viewed differently by the Boomer and Xer generations.

       "Researchers have defined the overarching characteristics that are common to many 'Xers.' They are [13]:
q Independence. Gen-Xers are more likely to have divorced parents [from the Boomer and Silent generations] than any generation that came before them. And those whose parents stayed married are more likely to have seen both of them work outside the home. Many had only one sibling. Dubbed 'latch-key kids' because they had their own keys at an early age to let themselves in and out of their homes, they grew up entertaining themselves, often with the flick of a TV switch. Television became a 'surrogate parent' for them…These kids became hyper-socialized to mass culture, often alienated from groups and individuals. Ultimately…they prefer to care for themselves rather than rely on others.
q Cynicism.  Inundated as children with threats from AIDS, drugs, acid rain, global warming and other media-hyped terrors, Generation X grew up without the protective cover of innocence. That means that few things surprise or scare them. That can be good - like not fearing hardship and challenges. But it can also mean not fearing authority, which can mean trouble when dealing with older officers, chiefs and staff NCOs who still try and motivate through fear." One wonders what in the world these sociologists are thinking about. Whip lashing, keel-hauling, and other punishments common in the 1700s and 1800s did not exist in the 20th century - nor at present. Just what is it that today's military does that can be labeled an instillation of 'fear?'
q "Technology.  While Gen-Xers were weaned on TV, they eventually graduated to computers and the Internet. This generation isn't awed by technology on Navy ships. If anything, they sometimes find the older computers at sea slow, antiquated and behind the power curve compared with what's available on the open market…The Xers live computers, the Internet, computer games, pagers, cellular phones, personal stereos and other technological innovations of the past two decades.
q Change.  Generation Xers grew up at a time when going to the moon was already history, money came from machines, and supermarket checkout clerks used laser-equipped bar-code scanners instead of punching in prices. The hyper-frenetic pace of their culture - from jumpy, fast-moving television ads and music videos, to nanosecond by nanosecond changes in styles and technology - only seems to pick up momentum as each year passes." This obviously has a debilitating effect on children. See Joseph Chilton Pearce's book, 'Evolution's End,' to learn just how debilitating this situation can be for children.
q "Comfort.  Overshadowed by the material excesses of their 'yuppie' predecessors, Xers are said to reject the notion that happiness can be found in a 'purchased lifestyle' of condos, BMWs and luxury health clubs [presumably a Boomer fascination]. Nonetheless, Generation Xers and their young growing families have higher expectations for their lifestyles than their Boomer elders. Many are confident they can make more money as civilians and that it's their 'choice' to serve in uniform. That means they're not willing to live as their forebears did, three or four to a barrack room, for example. They place a high value on 'quality of life' programs."

       These descriptions are generalities, gathered by social scientists, statisticians, and purveyors of the pop culture. The services believe, according to NAVY TIMES, however, that "they are useful signs of how this generation differs and what the naval services confront when they think about how they can build lifelong careers for good troops and sailors."

       The NAVY TIMES article covers the depth to which General Charles C. Krulak, then-Commandant of the Marine Corps understood the 13er generation. The Marines are structured as a highly junior force, thereby the most dramatically affected of the services as a result. Krulak "…[wanted] leaders to understand who these young people are that the Corps is now recruiting, to focus those leaders on how to train the new kids to be Marines." He succeeded in figuring out how to instill the Marine warrior ethos in this new generation of cynics. He learned that "[The 13er generation] want a standard and are looking for accountability to that standard. "They want to be 'part of something' that is recognized as a powerful entity. And they are spiritual, they believe in something greater than themselves." His success in making Marines out of 13er generation youth is described in Thomas Ricks' book, "Making the Corps."

       The NAVY TIMES article gives a summary comparison of the differences in the basic characteristics of the Boomer generation which comprises the senior officers in today's military and the 13er generation which comprise most of the junior officers and enlisted men. "Baby Boomers and Generation Xers view the world through different eyes. The world was a different place when the Boomers were growing up, practicing the routes to fall-out shelters in school and focusing on communism as the single enemy of the Western world. By contrast, Gen-Xers grew up in a more complex, rapidly changing world - one of rapidly changing threats and opportunities."

       "We are used to taking care of ourselves and we are used to finding original solutions to intractable problems," [says a Gen-Xer]. "What looks to managers like arrogance is, in fact, confidence." The NAVY TIMES then gives a synopsis of the Generation X view of the world. It answers the question, Who are these young people who form the pool the military services are trying to capture? The answer, according to books, articles, observers and interviews, is that Generation Xers:
· "Are independent - or seek to be independent and not dependent on others. Yet they want strong relationships and connections to other people and organizations, large and small. They want guidance, but they also want to make their own decisions.
· They are concerned about the environment.
· Distrust institutions.
· Are skeptical of organized religion, but say they have faith and beliefs.
· Crave feedback.
· Feel undervalued and misunderstood, and are frustrated when they don't meet their objectives quickly. Generation X doesn't want orders without explanations. They want 'you to prove to me why that is what I should do.' They don't want to be treated like they are in the fifth grade."

       The NAVY TIMES article continues. "Boomers call the younger generation slackers, whiners, disloyal, apathetic and arrogant. Their attention spans are too short. They question everything, Boomers say. This younger generation is not intimidated or impressed by authority…Storekeeper Second Class (SW) Dale M. Moe, an Xer aboard the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge, calls the younger generation sailors the 'opera generation: me-me-me-me.'" Of course, that is exactly how the G.I. and Silent generations described the Boomer generation (parents of the Gen-Xers) in their coming-of-age years. Is it any wonder that the instant gratification 'me, me' Boomer generation parented the 'me-me-me-me' instant gratification Xer generation.

       "Baby Boomers are even more direct. '[The Xers] look for more rights than responsibilities - My congressman this and my congressman that. They are too smart for their own good,' says a Boomer Chief Warrant Officer…While not driven to the Baby Boomers' expectations to earn 'Wall Street' millions, Xers have their own hopes and dreams. Success to most [Xers] is not measured by status and the accumulation of material possessions. Their success is measured by the quality of life lived with family and friends." Of course, this conclusion results from the fact that the Xers are the generation most alienated during their childhood by their parents than any generation now living.

       The NAVY TIMES continues. "Xers don't want talk, they want action. Phrases like 'walk the talk' and 'show me the money,' from [the hit movie] Jerry Maguire, strikes a chord among Xers because they hit on trust." This, too, comes from the feeling of alienation from their parents, who divorced in record numbers. But the NAVY TIMES has to bow to political correctness to exclaim, "Growing up in the wake of Watergate, Iran-Contra and Wall Street scandals, the X generation grew cynical. And skeptical. This is a generation that wants its own news, often from on-line sources as well as TV. They want to make their own judgments. They see inconsistencies in the system."

       Finally, the NAVY TIMES article cuts to the heart of why the Xers feel so alienated from their Boomer superiors. "Xers reject much of what their Baby Boomer parents - and leaders - say because they see inconsistencies…Xers are independent because they don't trust parents or commanders. They want to be in control…Navy Lt. Cmdr. Shelia C. Robertson, the regimental chaplain at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island S.C., has taken to surveying Xers. She notes That while Baby Boomers rallied to the cry of 'question authority' in their youth, Generation X goes one step further. They ask how as well as why. 'They are very pragmatic,' she said…Her research suggests that recruits often had divorced parents - in fact, more than half the female respondents said they grew up in a divorced home or without a father. On average, they were 7 to 8 years old when their parents divorced."

       "'They are very hungry for relationships,' she said. 'They are very survival-oriented. The way to their minds, she and others believe, is through mentoring efforts. These are kids looking for role models, and they need some guidance. And with the right guidance, they'll be successful,' Robertson predicts. 'They are smart. They are bright. They are going to provide hard answers. And they are going to help us fix things.'"

       The NAVY TIMES article provoked a huge outpouring of heated discussion in the Mail Call section of the paper. A hardened old Master Sergeant in the Marine Corps (obviously a James Webb type Boomer - those who fought in Vietnam while their contemporaries dodged the draft, went to Canada, and demonstrated against the war) said [14], "Enough is enough! [On the subject of 'sensitivity training' imposed from above by the Boomer elites], Whether it's sexual harassment, or anger management, we spend more time training to be politically correct than we do training to win wars. Someone needs to make a decision. Do we want the best fighting force in the world or the most politically correct? I don't believe you can have both."

       The Master Sergeant continues, "Will our future enemies be politically correct? Are they going to the same classes? I sure hope so: I'd hate to see us get our butts kicked by some politically incorrect neanderthal." Of course, though from a generation whose 'power elites' have place the nation in peril by weakening the bonds that have passed America's history down through dozens of generations, this Boomer knows what he is talking about.

       Another enlisted man, a Master Chief Petty Officer from the Boomer generation responded directly from his fleet experience to the Gen-X article in the NAVY TIMES which contained mostly that which was researched and written by academics - those without hands-on military exeperience. He wrote in Mail Call [15], "Your article was informative and eye-opening in some respects, but I had my own opinion of Generation X before I read it. Yes, there is a big-time problem with these people concerning authority. My question right now is, how can the Navy accomplish what Mom and Dad, the school systems and institutions like Charter By the Sea couldn't do? Mentoring? Give me a break. It's just another word for 'baby-sitting.'"

       The Master Chief continues, "These are the kids who saw as much violence on TV and in their schools as our generation saw in Vietnam." I would guess that this enlisted man was nowhere near the enemy, if he saw anything in the Vietnam War. But, nevertheless, he does make a point. "How do you deal with a generation whose role models are Beavis and Butthead, Madonna (the material girl), and Barney? These people are experts at spinning your head. They did it with the school system, Mom and Dad, and now the Navy. I could best sum up our times by stating that never before have so few people caused so many problems. It's a drain on the whole system. As long as the system wastes its resources and time on the few problem people, our military will be in the same sticky situation that the public school systems are in now, if it's not already."

       "I've been out nine years now. It's real simple out here in the civilian world: Someone questions authority, causes problems, can't get along with the boss, that person gets a termination notice. I like that it makes me look better. I'm no problem at all, and they like that."

       That letter brought a strong response from a Gen-X sailor, a young Yeoman third class wrote. "[McMaster's] letter reeks of misplaced loathing for all members of the so-called Generation-X…it's quite obvious that you had your own opinions before reading the NAVY TIMES article on Gen-Xers. You seem to be blaming 'Xers' like me for the sorry shape of America's public schools and for all the violence on television these days."

       And then the yeoman strikes back at the Master Chief, a member of the yeoman's parents generation - a Boomer [16]. "Doesn't it strike you as illogical to blame the student for the awful education he or she is receiving? As I recall, during my school days it was your generation which voted down proposal after proposal for better funding for [my high school]. As for all the violence on television, that's the fault of everyone, 'X-er' or otherwise, who buys the products advertised on violent and otherwise inappropriate shows."

       "True, we lack the respect for authority our predecessors had, but we've been glad-handed and lied to a few times too many to take anyone's word for anything. I was 15 when the Iran-Contra hearings taught me that, just because a fellow is wearing bars, oak leaves or birds on his shoulder doesn't mean he isn't full of it. Real respect is earned, not handed over automatically, and if people can't earn the respect of their troops through actions and leadership, then they're not worthy of it in the first place."

       The young yeoman concludes, "As for your perception of us as troublemakers and head-cases, that's about as fair a generalization as claiming that all baby boomers are drug-taking hypocrites who sold out their lofty ideals for cushy jobs with Wall Street brokerage houses. I have absolutely no idea why you feel the way you do about the people of my generation."

       In the midst of this hornets nest of blame across the two generations now manning the guns of our armed forces, came a soothing blanket of consolation by military analysts. Charles Moskos chimed in with his voice of support for the Xers in the military [17]. "Difficulties instilling discipline and military bearing in recruits has more to do with changes in the military's culture than with the quality of recruits, according to one of the nation's leading military researchers…Charles Moskos, an authority on social interaction in the services, said drill instructors' complaints about unruly recruits is a symptom of the pressure on the trainers. NCOs feel pressure from the top and the bottom. From their superiors, drill instructors are being held responsible for any mistake, which breeds a sense of wariness. From subordinates, drill instructors are pressured by the fact that the military makes it easy for recruits simply to drop out if they do not like military service."

       "With dropouts of first-term service members a serious problem for all of the services - especially the Army where one of three recruits does not finish initial enlistment - some drill instructors are being urged to go easy on recruits to not scare them away,' Moskos said. What we end up with is a sort of kinder, gentler drill sergeant who is trying to keep attrition down while not doing anything that draws the attention of superiors. This is a self-defeating system because kinder, gentler drill instructors are not necessarily creating the kind of force you want to see go to war. Instead, you have to be concerned about the authority of NCOs and their ability to give commands that will be followed. Many drill instructors blame recruits for their problems, complaining that young people coming into the military today are undisciplined and resistant to authority…Moskos would recommend giving more authority to drill instructors and providing [them] more command support."

       An officer in the Marine Corps Reserve thinks he can offer some help with the problem. In a letter to NAVY TIMES, he writes [18], "As a parent of three Gen-Xers, I have had to come to grips with the essence of the Gen-X world view. I would like to offer some perspective to your story:
§ Generational culture is shaped by its members' view of survival. Gen-X does not view Baby Boomer survival mechanisms as relevant. In fact, they think that most Boomer definitions of such institutions as marriage, corporate (including military) careers and big government are failed concepts. There is an enormous generation gap in the perception of goals and survival mechanisms between X-ers and Boomers.
§ Gen-Xers build their life portfolios much the way an actor builds theatrical credits. What you've done is pivotal." At this point, let me interject a note that the attitude of the Boomer generation naval officers described in my essays at the links: The Pretender: Anatomy of a Collaborator, and The Hollow Force Debate are perfect examples of what this father of Gen-Xers is describing as a criticism of the Boomer leadership in today's armed forces. For example, some of these late cohort Boomers claim that they 'won the Cold War' when they missed all of the shooting war 'battles' of that war. They were not even born when the Korean War was fought. They were too young (graduating from college in the early 1980s) to have fought in the Vietnam War -- the only other major 'battle' of the Cold War. But just being alive and on active duty at the time the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and the Soviet Union disbanded is their only entre to this false claim. But, they still attempt to trumpet this accomplishment. The young junior officers and enlisted men of the Xer generation see right through this perfidy. Many superior officers in the armed forces today are pretenders - and it shows.
The father, however, makes a prescient observation with respect to this subject. "It will be interesting, therefore, to see what happens to retention in the military. Recruiting pitches may work at loading Gen-Xers into the front end, but if the experience stops being valuable or validated, retention may be extremely difficult to maintain. Pensions will not hold them." Of course he was correct. The hemorrhage of young junior officers out of uniform during the latter half of the 1990s attests to this conclusion based on their perception of poor leadership of the senior Boomer generation officers. They voted on the Boomers' leadership with their feet - they left. This occurred in spite of the offer of annual bonuses up to $25,000 per year to stay.

       The father's letter continues:
§ "Gen-Xers cannot be made to 'go back' to 'old' values if those values are linked to what they perceive as failed or hypocritical behavior. A concept of core values would be useful, but what are those values and who devises and validates them?
§ I would urge Baby Boomer leaders who have difficulty dealing with their own children to think hard about what special skills they think they have acquired professionally that will make them more pro-active mentors and examples to their Gen-X subordinates…Being a true mentor requires subtle, delicate and elegant wisdom. The fulcrum is mutual respect and trust."
Of course the last recommendation is a truism that transcends generational world views. It is the foundation on which military leadership is based - for all time; past, present, and future.

       An interesting and almost humorous aspect of the generational divide across three generations is revealed in conversation in the Mail Call section of NAVY TIMES. The event that generated the conversation was Lieutenant Frederica Spilman's posing nude in the June 1998 issue of Playboy magazine. Robert F. Dorr, an Air Force veteran who writes regularly as a columnist on the Editorial Opinion page of NAVY TIMES, clearly exhibits the tendencies of the 'enablers' of the Silent Generation. He passes judgment on LT Spilman's act [19]. "So long as she does not improperly use her military uniform, I support the right of naval flight officer Lt. Frederica Spilman to pose nude (or nearly nude) in Playboy magazine…As an author of books, magazine articles and a column on military topics, I have been deluged with questions from Americans who wonder if Spilman went too far, plus a few who thought she looked great in the buff (or near-buff) and enjoyed looking at her."

       Dorr continues his defense of LT  Spilman. "In addition to near-nude poses, which show portions of a leather jacket [either he doesn't know or can't remember what a nude woman looks like or he is purposely misrepresenting the picture - everything she has shows front-on except her armpits and her feet], an item of camouflage and a G-suit…the magazine's photos show Spilman wearing flight gear in an aircraft cockpit and in full-dress uniform rendering a salute. There are also candid snapshots of her as a member of a school fencing team, a flight trainee, and a Naval Academy midshipman. So far as I can tell, none of the near-nude photos show actual items from a real Navy uniform or flight suit, although an American flag and dog tags are prominently displayed."

       "The pictures that show Spilman in a real uniform are not nudes and, considered alone, are in good taste. My verdict, then is: nothing wrong with it. You go, girl." Dorr then goes on to criticize the military poses in an aircraft cockpit and textual misrepresentations of her actual status in the Navy - trivial observations which presumably render Dorr a 'military expert.' He has no comment regarding six poses in which she exposes her pubic hair, breasts, and 'breathless' smile to the Playboy audience. For Dorr, this is OK as long as she wasn't in the uniform of the day while posing 'nearly nude.' This is typical of the 'enablers' of the Silent generation - those who enable the counter-culture revolutionaries of the Boomer generation, the parents (along with the Silent) of the Generation-X young officers and enlisted men of the military services - including the LT Spilmans.

       A Boomer generation naval officer (one who is obviously in the camp of Navy traditionalists regarding propriety of its officer corps) objects [20]. "To me, it's quite simple. [LT Spilman] has degraded the uniform she once wore, dishonored the commission Congress bestowed on her, and wantonly displayed conduct unbecoming an officer. In an effort to justify her actions, Spilman trivializes the special trust given to commissioned officers by stating, 'When I joined the Navy, I never swore not to pose in Playboy. After four years at the Naval Academy, receiving a fine educations, and some seven years on active duty, she doesn't seem to get it. Naval officers are role models, held to the highest standards of conduct." This is the same attitude that might be expected of most former naval officers in the  G.I. and Silent generations - traditionalists on such matters.

       LT Spilman, a Gen-Xer, received support from her generational peers (including her husband) as evidenced by respondents in the Mail Call section of NAVY TIMES. One young Navy lieutenant wrote [21], "Dorr should be called for a foul for his low blow toward [LT Spilman]. Whatever else he says is well within his rights to speak his mind about her posing for Playboy, but his last sentence is way out of bounds! His estimation of her appearance ['she's not all that good-looking'] is a personal attack which has no place in this type of discussion. I think he owes her a public apology for this mean-spirited remark." This Gen-X lieutenant in the Coast Guard  doesn't think anything about Spilman's impropriety in posing nude, but jumps on  the bandwagon of political correctness to call Dorr's silly remark 'mean-spirited.' After all, if Spilman's Xer husband has no objection to her nude pose for public consumption, why should this Xer Coastie object?

       Another Xer, a Navy lieutenant, objected to Dorr's treatment of Spilman but did not object to her flaunting of tradition and posing nude for the public. He wrote [22], "…I doubt anyone was reading Playboy to gain insight into naval aviation and the difference between pilots and naval flight officers. I bet when Robert Dorr watched Top Gun, he was one of the guys who pointed out every naval flaw in the movie. Neither the Playboy article nor movies that depict the glamorous side of naval aviation are intentionally manipulative. They're simply entertainment. Dorr doesn't give the civilians [magazine editors] enough credit; they can tell the difference between reality and entertainment and aren't as easily manipulated as he may think." So much for modesty, privacy, and the public image of the 'warrior ethos' for the Xers. Somehow the Xers believe we can 'feminize' the military and let the 'girls' kill the enemy by showing them their pubic area. Some 'warrior ethos,' that!

       About all that came of all of this back-and-forth about the 'characteristics' of the two generations which comprise nearly 100 percent of the U.S. military was a sense of how to run the advertising campaigns to lure young 13ers into the armed forces [23]. There was much more to learn had the senior leadership had the motivation to do so. And it had less to do with the 'characteristics' of one or both generations now manning the military establishment. It had to do with the real problems - with the spin washed away - that face today's armed forces.

       In an opinion commentary in NAVY TIMES, Paul Maubert hit the nail on the head. This Marine Reserve lieutenant colonel, who resigned his active duty commission in 1985 'and has always regretted it,' says 'the problem is leadership, not the economy [24].' "The ongoing abandonment of the armed forces by many young officers has been attributed by administration and Pentagon spinmeisters to a booming economy and the airlines' hiring binge. These explanations put the government in a positive light for keeping the economy in such good shape, and places the guilt load on the young officers leaving, alleged members of the 'Me Generation' reverting to form. This neat theory ignores two key qualitative factors:
§ You do not give up on the proud defense of your country and flying the world's fastest and most maneuverable aircraft merely because you are underpaid and overworked.
§ We have had these bright and qualified young men under our tutelage from four to ten years, and in that time have apparently been unable to instill a sense of self-worth, patriotism and fidelity to keep them out of the grip of the salary-seductive airlines."

       Maubert describes a spreading malaise in the Navy. "[Navy leadership] ignores many quantitative factors. The drain has been spreading from pilots to the surface-warfare and ground officers in all of the services, and to the enlisted ranks, where retention and recruitment problems have hit near crisis proportions…A [Navy] commander of my acquaintance who has a sterling record and is certainly on track for early promotion, stated privately that he does not trust his senior leadership, but stays because he loves the Navy. The Marine Corps is suffering a substantial exodus by its junior officers - despite a culture that remains more warfare-and-leadership focused than the other services. It has toughened up policies, carefully repackaged as bonding experiences, and announced a large-scale shift of personnel from the tail to the tooth side. Yet one only has to look at the percentage of officers augmenting to the regular Marine Corps out of the number of those applying and compare it to 10 or 20 years ago to see that fewer and fewer officers want to make a career of the Marine Corps."

       Maubert continues. "It is not coincidental that [the exodus of junior officers] has followed on the heels of injustices and inefficiencies, perpetrated in the name of socio-economic goals or to retain procurement programs, few of which have anything to do with our ability to wage war. Worse, many detract from it. A stronger correlation is certainly to be found between naval aviator departures and the post-Tailhook witch hunts, which burned many innocent men [see RADM Mark Hill's essay on this subject at the link: The Bob Stumpf Affair], than with any airline hiring boom. The real issue is the prevailing negligence and the potential waste of lives should badly trained, insufficient, unsuited and ill-equipped young Americans confront an enemy capable of giving us a good fight." Of course, Maubert is probably not thinking of Iraq (unless it uses its biological and chemical capability against our forces), but of the aftermath of an invasion which would require up to 45,000 troops to maintain order in a hostile land surrounded by potential Islamic allies - he is obviously thinking of a North Korea supported by China or China itself as it invades and takes over Taiwan.

       Maubert makes some personal observations. "The young officers and NCOs I talk to see much that their nation's leaders are apparently incapable of seeing:
§ A careerist senior officer corps, distracted by court politics and rituals from the important work of defending the nation's freedoms, wrings its hands and throws underlings to the wolves at the least hint of media or congressional pressure.
§ There is no real interest in troop welfare by leaders. The men and women serving today do not equate welfare with either money or leisure time, nor in sensitivity and diversity training. They would far prefer to be trained hard and euiipped to have a reasonable chance of getting the job done and surviving.
§ Senior ranks are growing larger relative to the declining size of the armed forces, as the services expand headquarters staffs and demand more and more general and senior field-grade officers. The 150,000-person uniformed bureaucracy of the Washington area, 'The Army of Northern Virginia,' is rank-heavy, costly and largely useless.
§ Fighters, bombers and transport aircraft are poorly maintained while the big-ticket pork-barrel job-and-profit makers get built. The B-2 is the worst example of this.
§ Leaders are chosen, beginning as early as boot camp, for their willingness to espouse a politically correct party line, rather than to close with and destroy the enemy. Since they prefer not to be part of the deception, they leave. We then add insult by blaming them. No politically correct, gender-neutral, non-lethal, high-tech-push-button-clean-war generation is stepping forward to replace these young hard-chargers."

       Maubert claims that the problem starts at the top. "All effective commanders in history have realized that morale and fighting spirit must be maintained before all else. Our young officers and NCOs are more concerned today with the erosion of these intangibles than with any lack of funding. Too many bright young men and women are jumping ship. The L-word comes to mind: leadership. By now, the dichotomy between the 'party line' being pushed down the chain of command, and what young men and women see occurring is enormous."

       "Closing the gap will require that senior leadership act on the truths being spoken by so many of our young officers and enlisted personnel. The word is getting around fast, not only in the services, but certainly also in the high schools and colleges, that the armed forces have little to do with training to win wars these days. We should not expect to have an easy time recruiting or retaining warriors."

       "This military era is not comparing well with any that recently preceded it. It contrasts with the boom years of the Reagan economy when we did not have any trouble recruiting and retaining far larger armed forces than we have today. But servicemen were more esteemed then. More and more frequently, today's military is compared to the 'hollow forces' of the Carter era. But this comparison is still erroneous. Carter's administration, while cutting our budgets, poorly maintaining our equipment and over-working us, never led us to lose faith in our military leadership and our will to fight. Today, we are placing inept, inexperienced and radical administrators, hostile to the military, in charge of the institution." The truth of this statement is buttressed in the essay at the link: The Danzigization of the U.S. Military.

       Maubert continues. "The [service] chiefs have a moral and a professional obligation to educate the nation to what will be required of its youth at war. But instead of leading, our senior officers cheapen themselves with hand-wringing reactions over each breaking scandal. Our superiors must…bear their share of reductions, starting with the staffs of the Pentagon and its surrounding area. More importantly, senior leadership, starting with the commander in chief, must instill in our citizens an appreciation for those who serve in uniform, and in our servicemen, a sense of self-worth and mission."

       Maubert encourages young officers and enlisted men to 'Stay in!' The war to make our military relevant is now a gathering storm. "It will not require the shedding of blood, but moral courage and a willingness to risk one's career. It will be won by training our sailors and Marines as best you can under difficult circumstances. Its battles will be fought and won by building the foundation of victory in future shooting wars. It will not be won by flying for the airlines, by getting an MBA, or by otherwise retreating."

       "To the people of this country who believe that this crisis is solely the result of budget cuts and insufficient flight pay: Go find out what is really causing the problem. When the young men and women of the United States believe its armed forces offer them more than a jobs program, they will join and stay and make the necessary sacrifices. Warriors do not serve for bread alone. The commitment to serve involves, at its core, a sense of idealism that transcends self-interest. Military experience brings with it a heightened awareness of the harshness of the battlefield, and that must be balanced by a belief that one's life will not be squandered."

       Maubert has a parting word for our nation's political and military leadership. "To our nation's 'leaders' who are making it very difficult for the young officers, NCOs and petty officers of today to do their jobs, I respectfully offer a few words frequently heard around the Marine Corps: 'Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.'"

       One of those whom Maubert addresses is the late-cohort Boomer who wrote a letter to Mail Call in the NAVY TIMES. A victim of the downsizing campaign after the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, he says [25], "Back in the mid-1980s, many of us joined the Navy with a sense of pride and duty. Those were the days of the 600-ship Navy and 12 carrier air wings. We were recruited into a professional force: Try hard, be successful, and someday, you could command a squadron…Well, we won the Cold War! [As a result of downsizing in its aftermath] officers in the 1984-87 year groups are too senior to transition to another community and be competitive, no matter how good their previous record is. They face no command opportunities and limited advancement potential. Their community and futures are gone."

       "The right thing for the Navy to do is offer them an early retirement. It is an honorable end to honorable service. These are the Cold War victors. They served when called and won possibly the biggest and longest wars in our history. But the Navy, by not offering them an early retirement, is punishing them."

       It would, indeed, be an honorable thing for the Navy to recognize the plight of such 'warriors.' It is true that they served honorably and were not rewarded with the expected benefit of a full Navy career. But the important thing about this Boomer's letter is the assertion that his cohort of 'warriors' won the Cold War. The truth is that these officers were simply there - in the nation's service - at the time that the Soviet Union gave up the fight, dissolved, disintegrated, and essentially disappeared as both an ideology and a military power. This cohort of patriotic Americans did not, however, fight in any of the real 'battles' of the Cold War. They were not born when the first 'battle,' the Korean War, was fought. And they were too young to enter the service during the Vietnam War, the second and last shooting war 'battle' in the Cold War. It is sad, but true that the pretense that this Boomer cohort 'won the Cold War' is simply that - a pretense. It was not earned in blood. For anyone in the later Boomer cohort (born in the late 1950s to 1964) to make such a claim is one of the problems that these relatively senior field-grade officers have with the young 13er generation junior officers. The 13ers' mantra is 'you have to earn our trust in order to get it.' They look askance at any hypocritical attempt to take credit for that which they did not do - a part of the reason for the 'leadership' problem as viewed by the young junior officers who left the military services during the late-1990s.

An Expanded View of the Generational Aspect
       I have set the stage for an in-depth discussion of the generational aspect of the military/civilian culture gap with several essays on this Web Site. The reader should, if not already familiar with books by William Strauss and Neil Howe, take a few minutes to read these essays. The first essay, a review of the book, Generations: The History of America's Future provides a comprehensive summary of the concept of the cyclical nature of America's history based on the recurring set of four generations within a cycle of a saeculum, a period of about 88 to 100 years - the nominal life span of a human being, which hasn't changed much over the millennia. Within this cycle, two Social Moments occur - one a secular crisis and the other a Spiritual Awakening spaced about 40 years apart within each cycle. America has lived through four of these cycles since the first truly American generation, the Awakeners (born 1701-1723). We are currently in the fifth cycle. The major thesis of this book is that during these cycles, each of the four living generations exhibit a 'peer personality' which is identical in nature to a similar generation in a previous cycle. The essence is that these generational 'peer' personalities are shaped by the two Social Moments that occur during the generations' lifetime and, conversely, history is shaped by the way the 'peer personalities' interact to weather the crisis at the end of a cycle. This is a very important point which will be discussed later.

       The next essay that one should read is a review of the book, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, by the same authors. This book builds on the concept of a 'generational' history of American civilization in the first book above. It introduces the concept of a 'Turning,' four of which occur in each saeculum. Each such 'Turning' has a duration of about 22 or so years - coinciding with the number of birth years of each distinct 'generation.' The First Turning is a High, an upbeat era of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the old values regime decays. For example, the years 1945-1965, the post-WWII period, saw a robust American economy and a military power unequaled on the face of the earth.

       The Second Turning is an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the civic order comes under attack from a new values regime. The years from the mid-60s through the mid-80s saw the counter-culture revolution on our nation's campuses, carried out by the young adult Boomers. Their 'spiritual awakening' will be discussed in detail later.

       The Third Turning is an Unraveling, a downcast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and the new values regime implants. The mid-80s through the present saw the culture wars, fought in every institution in the land.

       The Fourth Turning is a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one. This turning is history's great discontinuity. It ends one epoch (saecular cycle) of about 80 to 100 years and beings another. Our nation has experienced four such Fourth Turnings since the beginning of the New World saeculum in 1675 (the Glorious Revolution). If this cycle holds in the future, we are likely to experience our fifth such Fourth Turning. The authors predicted that we should experience the catalyst for a Millennial Crisis around the year 2005, give or take a couple of years. They predict that the full-blown Crisis should be resolved sometime near 2026.

       The third essay worth reading on this subject is at the link: Chaos Theory and the Fourth Turning. It is a discussion of what I have discovered during the teaching of a course in Chaos Theory in a Masters Degree Program in the Artificial Intelligence track in Computer Science at the Naval Air Test Center, NAS Patuxent River, MD. The center is now called, NAWCAD (Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division). I, in fact, developed a Chaos Theory course on the basis of the scientific research being carried out at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico under the direction of the Nobel Laureate, Murray Gell-Mann (the discoverer of the Quark, the basic building blocks of neutrons and protons). I used his book [26] and one founded in basic mathematics [27] for the basic math and science. After developing this solid foundation, I taught from the two texts above (Generations and The Fourth Turning) as well as from research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory on the application of Chaos Theory to the rise and fall of civilizations. Read the essay at the link above to learn what I discovered as a link between the study of 'generations' and Chaos Theory. The bottom line is that Strauss and Howe constructed a history that has a fundamental foundation in the 'science of surprise.' Their account of the peer personalities and the social moments of history ('History creates generations and generations create history') and their interaction is a perfect example of a complex, non-linear, iterative feedback system - systems which may exhibit chaotic behavior. And that is the major point of emphasizing our present Fourth Turning, which we have entered via the Islamic terrorist attack on America on 11 September 2002.

       And this is exactly what we have been talking about in the discussion on the military/civilian culture gap during the 1990s - the latter years of the Unravelling in our current cycle. Surprisingly, America has seen all of this before. That is the nature of cyclical history. In fact, it has experienced it precisely four times, beginning with the birth of the Awakener generation in the early 1700s.

Foundations for the Generational Aspect of America's History
       Arnold Toynbee, the famous British historian, in his A Study of History, best known for its theory of the rise and fall of civilizations [28], identified an 'alternating rhythm' of a 'Cycle of War and Peace.' Punctuating this cycle were quarter-century 'general wars' that had occurred in Europe at roughly one-century intervals since the Renaissance. In addition to five modern centuries, Toynbee identified similar cycles spanning six centuries of ancient Chinese and Hellenistic history, all situated in what he called 'break-up' eras of great civilizations. Everywhere, he found the span of time between the start of one general war to the start of the next to have averaged ninety-five years with a 'surprising degree of coincidence' across the millennia. Underlying this periodicity, noted Toynbee, were 'the workings of a Generation Cycle, a rhythm in the flow of Physical Life, ' which had 'imposed its dominion on the Spirit of Man. Thus did Toynbee and others become the basis on which Strauss and Howe base their ideas of the cyclical nature of American civilization - to a surprising degree of detail.

       The text above provides an outline of the basis on which one might construct a 'generational' approach to understanding American civilization. Strauss and Howe further define four major phases of a human life and assigns common-sense social roles for those in each phase of life. They are [29]:
§ Childhood (ages 0-20); social role: growth (receiving nurture, acquiring values)
§ Young Adulthood (ages 21-41); social role: vitality (serving institutions, testing values)
§ Midlife (ages 42-62); social role: power (managing institutions, applying values)
§ Elderhood (ages 63-83); social role: leadership (leading institutions, transferring values).

They added a fifth group, given the relatively large number of people currently living into their 90s. Late Elderhood (ages 83+); social role: dependence (receiving comfort from institutions, remembering values). But these folks are not expected to play a major part in the coming Fourth Turning.

       The authors label each of the distinct generations born into these roles as follows [30]:
§ An Artist generation grows up as overprotected children during a Crisis, comes of age as the sensitive young adults of a post-Crisis world, breaks free as indecisive midlife leaders during an Awakening, and ages into empathetic post-Awakening elders during a Fourth Turning. The Silent generation (born 1925-1942) is in this constellation at the present time.
§ A Prophet generation grows up as increasingly indulged post-Crisis children, comes of age as the narcissistic young crusaders of an Awakening, cultivates principle as moralistic midlifers, and emerges as wise elders guiding the next Crisis. The Boomer generation (born 1943-1964) are the Prophets of the current saeculum.
§ The Nomad generation grows up as underprotected children during an Awakening, comes of age as the alienated young adults of a post-Awakening world, mellows into pragmatic midlife leaders during a Crisis, and ages into tough post-Crisis elders. The 13er (Gen-X) generation (born 1965-1985) is the exemplar of this group at present.
§ A Hero generation grows up as overprotected children during a Crisis, comes of age as the heroic young teamworkers of a Crisis, demonstrates hubris as energetic midlifers, and emerges as powerful elders attacked by the next Awakening. The Millennial generation (born 1986-present) are expected to follow in the footsteps of their Civic G.I. generation forebears who fought and won World War II.

       The authors explain the connection of these archetypes with the historical events which occur during their lives [31]. "Americans carry deeply felt associations with what has happened at various points in their lives. We memorialize public events (Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy and King assassinations, the Challenger explosion) by remembering exactly what we were doing at the time. As we grow older, we realize that the sum total of such events has in many ways shaped who we are. Exactly how these major events shaped us had much to do with how old we were when they happened. When you recall your personal markers of life and time, the events you remember most are suffused with the emotional complexion of your phase of life at the time. Your early markers, colored by the dreams  and innocence of childhood, reveal how events (and older people) shaped you. Your later markers, colored by the cares of maturity, tell how you shaped events (and younger people). When you reach old age, you will remember all the markers that truly mattered to you. Perhaps your generation will build monuments to them…in the hope that posterity will remember your lives and times in the preliterate way: as legends. It is through this linkage of biological aging and shared experience, reproduced across turnings and generations, that history acquires personal relevance." The fact that historical events, experienced in a life, forge a generational 'peer personality' is one-half of what makes it all a complex, nonlinear, iterative feedback system - which may exhibit chaotic behavior.

       The fact that these 'peer personalities' of the generations alive during a cycle determine the outcome of a Crisis period - a Fourth Turning - they produce history. Indeed, as the authors explain, 'History creates generations, and generations create history.' This 'defines' a complex, nonlinear, iterative feedback system - a chaotic system - which, depending on the governing 'constant of complexity' can exhibit stable fixed points, stable equilibrium periodic points, or chaotic behavior. As long as such a system continues to exhibit stable cyclical equilibrium, history can be turned into prophecy. American civilization has exhibited characteristic behavior of such a system.

     The authors make a strong foundational argument for the cycles of our history [32]. "Try to unlearn the fear of death (and the anxious quest for death avoidance) that pervades linear thinking in nearly every modern society. The ancients knew that, without periodic decay and death, nature cannot complete its full round of biological and social change. Without plant death, weeds would strangle the forest. Without human death, memories would never die, and unbroken habits and customs would strangle civilization. Social institutions require no less. Just as floods replenish soils and fires rejuvenate forests, a Fourth Turning clears out society's exhausted elements and creates an opportunity for fresh growth."

       "Finally, unlearn the linear view that positive change always comes willingly, incrementally, and by human design. Many Americans instinctively sense that many elements of today's Unraveling-era America - from Wall Street to Congress, from rock lyrics to pro sports - must undergo a wrenching upheaval before they can fundamentally improve. That instinct is correct. A Fourth Turning lends people of all ages what is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to heal (or destroy) the very heart of the republic."

       The authors explain why it is so important to think historically in terms of cycles. For example, World War II was a Great Event in American history. The authors put this in cyclical perspective [33]. "What happens as a Great Event and its echoes fade with the passage of time? In a traditional society, nothing. Absent another Great Event, generations gradually disappear. Twenty-one years afterward, only three distinct generations shaped by the event remain alive. After forty-two years, only two remain; after sixty-three years, only those who were then children can recall it; and after eighty-four years, only a few raspy voices survive to convey personal memories of bygone glories. By then, social inertia will have nudged people of all ages back to the pre-generational life cycle. In countless ancient epics, this is where the falling curtain of time puts an end to the saga." See Arnold Toynbee's 'A Study of History,' to understand this from his study of 21 ancient civilizations around the globe.

       The authors explain how this is different in modern society - in American civilization. "In modern society, however, new Great Events keep occurring, and with great regularity. These are the solstices of the saeculum: Crises and Awakenings. Through five centuries of Anglo-American history, no span of more than fifty years (the duration of two phases of life) has ever elapsed without the occurrence of a Crisis or Awakening. Every generation has thus been shaped by either a Crisis or an Awakening during one of its first two phases of life and had encountered both a Crisis and an Awakening at some point through its life cycle." This, of course, is the link between historical events and archtype persona (generational peer personalities) that render American civilization a complex, non-linear, iterative feedback system.

       Strauss and Howe tell us why this is so [34]. "It is incorrect to suppose, as some do, that most young generations come of age with attitudes (toward life, politics, culture) similar to those of their elders when young. Going back five hundred years, this has never happened. Generational aging is what translates the rhythm of the past into the rhythm of the future. It explains why each generation is not only shaped by history but also shapes later history." This is the two-way link that defines American civilization as a complex, non-linear, iterative feedback system.

       So what does all of this have to do with our discussion of the military/civilian culture gap? What does it have to do with our current emphasis on understanding the 'characteristic' differences in the idealistic Prophet Boomer and the reactive Nomad 13er (Gen-X) generations? The whole point is that 'America has seen all of this before.' In the fundamental 'world views' of each of these generations, a precursor generation of the same archetype existed and their confluence in a saeculum of time produced a renewal - a successful conclusion - for America.

       So, what is the evidence for this particular view? The authors remind us that [35] "We remember Prophets best for their coming-of-age passion (the excited pitch of Jonathan Edwards, William Lloyd Garrison, William Jennings Bryant) and for their principled elder stewardship (the sober pitch of Samuel Langdon at Bunker Hill, President Lincoln at Gettysburg, and FDR with his Fireside Chats). Increasingly indulged as children [does this remind you of the Boomer youth?], they become increasingly protective as parents. Their principal endowments are in the domain of vision, values, and religion. Their best-known leaders include John Winthrop and William Berkeley, Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin, James Polk and Abraham Lincoln, and Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. These have been principled moralists, summoners of human sacrifice, wagers of righteous wars. Early in life, none saw combat in uniform [remind you of the elite Boomers?] late in life, most came to be revered more for their inspiring words than for their grand deeds."

       The authors also characterize previous archetype generations with a similar 'world view' as the present day 13er generation. "We remember Nomads best for their rising-adult years of hell raising (Paxton Boys, Missouri Raiders, rumrunners) and for their midlife years of hands-on, get-it-done leadership (Francis Marion [the Revolutionary War Swamp Fox], Stonewall Jackson, and George Patton). Under-protected as children, they became overprotective parents. Their principal endowments are in the domain of liberty, survival and honor. Their best known leaders include Nathaniel Bacon and William Stoughton, George Washington and John Adams, Ulysses Grant and Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. These have been cunning, hard-to-fool realists - taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one on one. They include the only two presidents who had earlier hanged a man (Washington and Cleveland), one governor who hanged witches (Stoughton), and several leaders who had earlier led troops into battle (Bacon, Washington, Grant, Truman, and Eisenhower)." Doesn't this sound familiar - especially the part that describes the 13er generation's young adulthood years? It should. We could have predicted the 13er generation 'world view' from that of previous Nomad generations - the Lost, the Gilded, and all the rest.

The Boomer Generation World View
       We have seen above how sociologists, academics, and NAVY TIMES have described the 'characteristics' of the Boomer generation. A more historically complete description is given by Strauss and Howe [36], who tell us that the youthful boomer motto was, "You build it up, mother, we gonna tear it down." It triggered  the most furious and violent youth upheaval of the twentieth century. In the battle over 'Peoples' Park,' in 1969 Berkeley, CA, the regents of the university won the battle, but the young rioters won the war. Afterward, to the surprise of many, the Boomer rage cooled. "As Boomers charted their life's voyage, they have metamorphosed from Beaver Cleaver to hippie to braneater to yuppie to what some are calling Neo-Puritan in a manner unlike what anyone, themselves included, ever expected…Boomers were blessed from the beginning with what [a chronicler] described as 'Great Expectations.' Their G.I. parents fully expected them to grow up…'adorable as babies, cute as grade school pupils and striking as they entered their teens.' after which 'their parents would be very, very proud of them.'"

       "Unlike the Silent, Boomers lack any childhood recollection of World War II. Unlike 13ers, they were all reaching adolescence or lingering in 'post-adolescence' (a term coined for them) before the Vietnam War drew to a close. Their first cohort, the 1943 'victory babies,' have thus far ranked among the most self-absorbed in American history; their last cohorts are remembered by college faculties as the last (pre-Reagan-era) students to show Boomish streaks of intellectual arrogance and social immaturity. The Boom birthyears precede the demographic 'baby boom' by three years at the front edge, four at the back. 'I think you could take the baby boom back a few years,' agrees Boom pollster Patrick Caddell, noting how those born in the early 1960s 'have had different experiences, and their attitudes don't really fit in with those of the baby boomers.'" Indeed, many of these could be placed in the 13er generation.

       "Boomers found their parents' world in need of a major spiritual overhaul, even of creative destruction. The [counter-culture] revolution was waged across a generation gap between Boomers and G.I.s. It began within families, as a revolt against fathers. Most older Americans who studied young radicals in the late 1960s were struck by their attachment to mothers and their 'ambivalence,' 'oepidal rebellion,' or attitude of 'parricide' toward male authority. Youth fury over Vietnam helped spread this patriphobia beyond the family…Even as the society-wide generation gap receded in the 1970s, the Boom ethos remained a deliberate antithesis to everything G.I.: spiritualism over science, gratification over patience, negativism over positivism, fractiousness over conformity, rage over friendliness, self over community…The mixture of high self-esteem and selective self-indulgence has at once repelled and fascinated other generations, giving Boomers a reputation for grating arrogance - and for transcendent cultural wisdom."

       The authors continue [37]. "As Boomers begin entering midlife, a schism has emerged between mostly fortyish modernists and New Agers at one edge, and mostly thirtyish traditionalists at the other. Each side refuses to compromise on matters of principle - believing, like anti-abortionist Bill Tickel, that 'it's just easier to have blanket absolutes.' The values clash reflects an important bipolarity between the generation's first and last waves, whose differences have been widely noted by pollsters and marketers. At one end, the 'victory' and 'hello' babies of the middle-to-late 1940s were born almost entirely to G.I.s, not long after the peak years of parental protectiveness. At the other, the babies of the conformist 1950s were parented mostly by Silent just as that protectiveness was giving way, and came of age at the point of maximum freedom (some would say chaos) in adolescent life. To date, last-wave Boomers have fared worse than first wavers in educational aptitude, financial security, and self-destructive behavior; first-wave boomers have fared worse in marital stability - partly because they married earlier."

       "If G.I.s measure their worth objectively, by the works they leave to history, Boomers measure themselves subjectively, by the spiritual strength they see within…Within the Boom, the 'sexual revolution' was more a women's than a men's movement. Comparing the 1970s with the 1950s, one survey showed Boomer men with only a 3 percent increase in sexual activity over what the Silent did at like age - the smallest increase for any age bracket over that span. Similarly, the proportion of male youths experiencing premarital sex rose only slightly from the Silent to Boom eras. By contrast, Boomer women doubled the rate of premarital sex over the Silent (from 41 percent to 81 percent) and tripled their relative propensity to commit adultery (from one fourth to three-fourths of the rate of men)."

       The authors point out that [38] "The effort to avoid service in Vietnam was a more pervasive generational bond than service in the war itself. Only one Boomer man in sixteen ever saw combat. Among all the rest, two-thirds attributed their avoidance to some deliberate dodge. One Boomer in six accelerated marriage or fatherhood (one in ten juggled jobs) to win a deferment, while one in twenty-five abused his body to flunk a physical. One percent of Boomer men committed draft-law felonies - ten times the percentage killed in combat. Less than one of every hundred offenders was ever jailed. The 1943-1947 cohorts  provided the bulk of the draft avoiders, the 1947-1953 cohorts most of the combat troops. The median soldier age during the Vietnam War (19) was the lowest in American history."

       As the Boomers entered their 'yuppie' phase in the mid-1980s and by the middle of the Unraveling (1985-present) split into a midlife [39] pastiche of those who followed a leading talk show host, 'chosen by God' and those who adored a U.S. president who insisted he never inhaled…a vice president who held evening seminars on 'the role of metaphor' while accusing his opponents of a Jihad against the environment. In their midlife years, Boomer academic enforcers of political correctness punished 'inappropriately directed laughter,' think-tank luminaries held seminars on shame, and a former SDS radical turned culture warrior whose Book of Virtues vaunted 'moral literacy.' … 'We aren't baby killers,' declared the leader of the Michigan militia movement. 'We're baby boomers.'"

       Strauss and Howe reveal that "Where the G.I.s' midlife Power Elite included scientists and manufacturers adept at inventing and re-fabricating things, the Boomer elite comprise what Newsweek calls the Cultural Elite, a new Overclass studded with 'talking heads' and 'symbolic analysts' adept at inventing and re-fabricating thoughts."

       The midlife obsession of Boomers with 'values' propelled a huge growth of evangelical and New Age believers. "Two Boomers in three say they've been touched by a supernatural power. (Among their elders, less than half do.) Only 1 percent believe that attending church is unnecessary. Amid all the spiritual talk, church going has declined for Boomer age brackets, whereas among G.I.s and Silent it has held steady. America's middle-aged believers are fleeing mainline churches for fast-growing fundamentalist, charismatic, and breakaway redeemer sects that dress casually or ethnically, sing lively songs, listen to guitar-and-brimstone homilies, erupt in periodic applause, and engage in other rites drawn from the recovery movement."

       Strauss and Howe tell us that "Midlife Boomer women admire…[the] 'wild woman' who 'comes ahead, claws out and fighting.' These include 'mother lion' anti-media crusaders; lesbians and eco-feminists; a surge of female gun owners and hunters; heartland spouses who comprise roughly a third of radical militia membership; and authors of countless books about menopause, goddesses, and 'sage women.' … ultra-feminists have moved beyond the Silent crusade for sexual equality to the belief that women, being closer to nature, are superior to men…Boomer men have largely accepted their female peers' incursions. Without a second income, most of their households would fall below the living standards of the Silent at like age [40]. Many Boomer wives have steadier and higher-paying jobs than their husbands' - a situation that would have mortified G.I. males. Half of all Boomer fathers describe themselves as better dads than their own dads were - evidence…of a 'regret bordering on anger' that reveals a 'substantial gulf between the Boomer Generation and their fathers."

       The authors presciently predict that [41] "The [current] Unraveling will be a sobering time. Boomers will have to say farewell to most of their remaining G.I. parents, often after a geographic separation dating back to the [1960s] and fumbled efforts at reconciliation that betray mixed motives on both sides…Parental death will confront Boomers with an embarrassing reality for people their age: that the providers they had somehow counted on are gone and that what's left (in inheritance) is somehow not as much as they had imagined. Thrift will become a big late-Unraveling buzzword among Boomers as they make a big deal out of all the income they are diverting into mutual funds. But, as always, this generation will have trouble following through. Some will resist the notion of disciplining themselves for the sake of lucre. Others, looking at the runup in stock and bond prices caused by their sheer midlife numbers, will assume the market boom will last forever - and they will cut back on saving accordingly. Boomers will continue to support Social Security and Medicare for their own parents while also believing that both will be bankrupt by the time they retire. Into the Oh-Ohs, their leaders will talk constantly but do very little about this looming threat to the material security of their own age - a threat that will loom ever closer."

       "Gradually, the old wry detachment will give way to a jarring new focus. Boomers will at long last be ready to accept full responsibility for their own old age - and for the hard choices facing the nation. Increasingly, graying Boomers will 'muster the will to remake ourselves into altruists and ascetics,' as Rolling Stone urged in 1990. 'But let's not fake it,' the magazine warned, the yuppie persona still in its rearview mirror. Or at the very least, advises Hillary Clinton, 'fake it until you make it.'" And they did, fueling the consumer fueled stock market 'bubble' of the 1990s with credit card debt larger than their annual income. And then the 'bubble' burst and their 401(k) retirement plan funds dwindled to insufficient levels to support a comfortable retirement. The Clinton economy folded like all other enterprises based on hot air. And the Boomers are starting to realize that there is a 'reality' out there that cannot be 'manipulated.'

       Boomers have focused on the child's world. The severe, intrusive, perfectionist approach Boomers have applied here is a sure sign of what will gradually happen elsewhere as the Unraveling continues. Indeed, we have seen this attitude get in the way of senior officer, junior officer antagonisms in the U.S. military.

The 13er Generation World View
       We have seen above how sociologists, academics, and NAVY TIMES have described the 'characteristics' of the 13er generation. A more complete description is given by Strauss and Howe [42]. "America's college class of 1983 came with a new label, the first official welcome of their coming-of-age generation. Around the time of their graduation, the U.S. Office of Education published A Nation at Risk, describing the nation's student population as 'a rising tide of mediocrity' whose learning 'will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach' those of their parents.' This diatribe became the first in a flurry of reports, studies, and books (keynoted by Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind) that castigated America's new youth as mindless, soulless, and dumb."

       "Through the early Unraveling years, recent graduates heard older writers and columnists call them a 'nowhere generation,' a 'tired generation,' a 'generation of animals,' a 'high-expectation, low-sweat generation,' and 'an army of Bart Simpsons, armed and possibly dangerous…In the early 1990s, as Wayne and Garth chanted 'We're not worthy!' and Beck sang 'I'm a loser, baby,' America's twentysomethings begrudgingly settled on the label Generation X."

       "Seizing the new generational discovery, a barrage of media began portraying everything X as frenetic and garbagey. In their own lyrics and manuscripts, young people maintained the façade of self-denigration they had already learned in childhood - with a touch of ironic malice. To [the 13er youth], X stands for nothing, or everything, or (as Kurt Cobain sang) 'Oh well, whatever, never mind.' Compared to any other generation born this century, theirs is less cohesive, its experiences wider, its ethnicity more polyglot, and its culture more splintery. Yet all this is central to their collective persona. From music to politics to academics to income, today's young adults define themselves by sheer divergence, a generation less knowable for its core than by its bits and pieces."

       Today's movies and TV shows depict the 13er youth as one which has "lots of drugs, alcohol, violence, moving around, boredom, meaningless sex, social chaos, and personal directionlessness. Older generations mostly avoid these movies…As advertisers search for the right fizz formula, shocked elders see constant thirty-second snippets of hyper-kinetic, inarticulate young body-worshipers trampling the Tetons in pursuit of raw pleasure…Often, talk of X has degenerated into pretentious putdowns by a Boomer-dominated media bent on confirming the superior authenticity of their own Awakening-era youth. The 1994 Woodstock revival produced much Boomer talk about how much nobler and less commercial the original had been. In return, the bombast of middle-aged narcissists has provided a ripe target for [a 13er] who says, 'and we don't hold it against them that they forced so many of us to beat them to it [adulthood].' To hear many 13ers tell it, following Boomers into youth is like entering a theme park after a mob has trashed the place and some distant CEO has turned every idea into a commercial logo. 'Make love not war/sounds so absurd to me,' sings Extreme, confirming America's latest generation gap." If Xers in the large do not respect the Boomers, many flat-out hate them. Many who went into teaching in K-12 public schools express this attitude toward the Boomer administrators in their school system, who, as far as they are concerned, make silly rules which make the teachers' job unbearable, if not impossible. This is not unlike the present situation for today's military schism between Boomer senior officers and their 13er generation subordinates, officer and enlisted.

       Strauss and Howe inform us that [43] "To get a fix on the today's young-adult generation, forget the X, look beyond the pop media, and skip the Boomers. Focus instead on their place in American history - number 13 - and how different 13ers are at this age from the generation that nurtured them: the Silent. Where Silent youth felt the need to break free from a gravitational conformism, 13ers feel the need to ground themselves out of a centrifugal chaos. The Silent were America's least immigrant generation and yearned for more diversity; 13ers are the twentieth century's most immigrant generation and yearn for more common ground. Where the Silent inhabited the most uniform youth culture in living memory, 13ers dwell in the most diverse minicultures. Where the Silent were the youngest-marrying generation in U.S. history, with low rates of premarital sex, abortion, and venereal disease,13ers are the oldest marrying, with the highest-ever rates of teen sex, abortion, and venereal disease (including AIDS)."

       "Where the Silent's worst high school discipline problems were gum chewing and cutting in line, the image of troubled 13ers is Kids in which the adult world is invisible amid a numbing youth search for violence and drugs and sex and money. Where the Silent had an annual young-adult arrest rate of 13 per 1,000, the 13er arrest rate is 117 per 1,000. One 13er student in six knows somebody who has been shot."

       "'How could such wonderful parents as ourselves have produced such awful children?' asks William Raspberry. Try this: Where the Silent were children of a Crisis who came of age in a High, 13ers were children of an Awakening who came of age in an Unraveling. Where the Silent came of age when individualism  is celebrated but economic success guaranteed, 13ers are coming of age when individualism is celebrated but economic success is up for grabs. Where the young Silent climbed the corporate ladder and flocked to Washington to staff the New Frontier and Great Society, twice as many 13ers say they would rather own their own businesses than hold a top job in government. With the Silent, prosperity and institutional stability gradually exceeded expectations, allowing them to turn their focus to affect and detail. with 13ers, the opposite happened and expectations were betrayed. Where the Silent came of age with How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, 13ers have the stark declinism of Rent, riveting them on the bottom lines of life."

       "Generational economics bear this out. Unraveling-era 13ers, males especially, have been hit with a one-generation depression. From 1973 to 1992, the real median income for young-adult males fell by 28 percent, more than it did for the entire nation from peak to trough of the Great Depression. (During those same two decades in which youth incomes were plunging, real median income for seniors rose by 26 percent.) In 1969, the median earnings of full-time working men under age twenty-five was 74 percent of the median for all older full-time men; since 1986, that figure has never risen above 55 percent. In the Awakening, only 8 percent of young employed household heads lived in poverty; now 18 percent do. Notwithstanding this harsh youth economy, the image of Beverly Hills 90210-style wealth (cars, TVs, CD players, leather log jackets) has wrapped itself tightly around 13ers. Yet 'premature affluence' has done more harm than good: It has accustomed youths to parentally subsidized luxuries they cannot possible afford on their own, and it has persuaded older generations that if some young people aren't doing well, they have only themselves to blame."

       "For a generation that struggles so much in economic and public life, fatalism is a survival skill, comforting those who are not doing so well. They apply it to wall off each fragment of life - work, family, friends, culture, fun - from the rest and thereby contain any damage from spreading. Unlike Boomers, 13ers can't spare the energy to be 'together' people, linking every act to a core self. Instead, they tend to be modular people, dealing with each situation on its own terms. Nowhere is fatalism more rampant than in 13er views on crime…Where the Boomers were the most alibied and excused criminal generation in U.S. history, 13ers have become the most incarcerated. Roughly one-third of all 13er black males are either in prison, on probation, or under court supervision. Today's convicts are perceived as incorrigible, deserving not of rehabilitation but of pure punishment - from butt caning to merciless execution."

       The authors explain the basic reason that General Charles Krulak was so successful in recruiting 13er youth into the Marine Corps. He found out what Strauss and Howe had known via their study of the cycles of history [44]. "Taking risks comes naturally to what is far and away America's most active generation of gamblers. As on-line sports bettors, lottery-ticket regulars, and avid bar bingo players, 13ers fill the age brackets that are now (but were not previously) most at risk to compulsive gambling. Lacking any guarantee that slow-but-steady, follow-the-rules, and trust-in-the-future behavior will ever pay off, 13ers tend to view the world as run by lottery markets in which a person either lands the one big win or goes nowhere. They have constructed a flinty ethos of self-determination in  which  being rich or poor has less to do with virtue than with timing, salesmanship, and luck. What people get is simply what they get and is not necessarily related to what they may or may not deserve." See the essay at the link: The Admiral Who Must Remain Anonymous for a description of today's 13er youth who are midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy. Their motto appears to be 'You rate what you skate,' meaning you can get what you can get away with in the pressure-packed, rule-based Academy environment.

       "[The 13er generation] dating and mating reflects much the same quest for risk amid decline, for modularity amid chaos, for doing what works amid constant elder judgments about right and wrong. Where the young Silent looked at sex as euphoric, marriage as romantic, and feminism as a thrilling breakthrough, 13ers look at sex as dangerous, marriage as 'all financial,' and gender equality as a necessary survival tool in a world of wrecked courtship rituals, splintered families, and unreliable husbands. As older feminists debate the 'problems of affluence and success, rather than serious ones,' their 13er successors are more concerned about immediate self-defense (against AIDS, date rape, and street crime) and longer-term self-defense (against potential spouses who might be unreliable providers or abandon their families)."

       "As the youngest-copulating and oldest-marrying generation ever recorded, 13ers maneuver through an unusually long span of sexually active singlehood, with the threat of AIDS ever lingering in the background. They have always been the physical center of the abortion debate - first as the surviving fetuses of the most aborted generation in U.S. history, later as the pregnant unmarried woman faced with the 'choice' of what to do. Small wonder 13ers have such split feelings about the [counter-culture] revolution. They fantasize about how the 1960s and 1970s supposedly offered Boomers easy sex without consequence, while resenting the lasting damage done by an era in which they now realize they were the babies the adults were trying so much not to have." It is no wonder that so many Xers are so suspicious and wary of their Boomer predecessors.

       "A similar alertness to the hard truths - and anxiety about danger - informs the 13er view of race. They are coming of age in an Unraveling era that allows institutions, but not individuals, to discriminate on the basis of race, exactly the opposite of what the Silent encountered in the High. To the young Silent, affirmative action in schooling, college, and job selections was a goal of conscience. They didn't confront it themselves, but later on declared it fitting and just for their children to do so. To many 13ers, racial quotas are just another game in a larger institutional casino: They like it if it helps them, but not if it doesn't. At best, 13ers defend quotas as a sort of blood law. 'Two wrongs don't make it right,' says Sister Souljah, 'but it damn sure makes it even'"

       "Although often accused of rising racism and hate crimes, including many of the mid-1990s bombings of black churches, 13ers are by any measure the least racist of today's generations. Certainly, none other in U.S. history has been as amenable to working for, voting for, living next to, dating, marrying, or adopting people of other races. America's black-white marriages have quadrupled over the span of just one generation. Yet the 13ers greater color-blindedness doesn't necessarily bring them together as a generation. Their real diversity problem is less racial or ethnic than economic and familial: Young black professionals are faring almost as well as white peers, while uneducated 13er blacks are doing worse than one or two generations before. Nearly half of all young black males in the inner city do not hold full-time jobs."

       "More than three 13ers in four do not trust government to look after their basic interests. As they see it, other people get benefits, while they pay the bills…Nearly every Unraveling-era policy proposal on taxes, health care, and Social Security has proposed transferring more money from youth to elders…A Third Millennium survey found that more 13ers believe in UFOs than in Social Security [45] lasting until they retire. Thus, has arisen the downward spiral of 13er civic interest: They tune out, so they don't vote, so their interests are trampled, so they tune out, and on it goes."

       As a result, the authors tell us, "The [13ers'] great goal…is to have fun rather than not to have fun…Economics will continue to tell the 13er story. By the early twenty-first century, young-adult incomes will be lower, their poverty rate higher, and their safety nets skimpier than was true for Boomers in the early 1980s - confirming the 13th as the only U.S. generation (aside from the Gilded) ever to suffer a lifelong economic slide. Many will be kicked off welfare. Others will buffer their downward mobility by working multiple jobs, living in multiple-income households, or moving in with their parents…This is already the first generation born in this century to be less certifiably professional than its predecessors. By the Oh-Ohs, many forty-year-olds will remain permanent temps, no-benefits contractors, second-tier careerists, and lesser-paid replacements." The authors predict that 'in the military, 13er officers will flaunt a Spartan-like warrior ethos.' They man, in fact, the Special Forces, Seal Teams, and Airborne forces who fought the war on the ground in Afghanistan. They comprised over half of the naval aviators who delivered 'smart' weapons so effectively on the Taliban and al Qaeda enemy there.

       Strauss and Howe make a surprising prediction for the 13ers as we move into the Oh-Ohs [46]. "The 13ers will comfortably inhabit a world of unprecedented diversity. Few will share the High-era view that race in America is simply a problem of black versus white. Asian and Hispanic Americans will make 13er race issues a more multivariate equation. As those ethnicities catapult into the cultural mainstream, they will be greeted with demands for a clamp-down on immigration. A small but significant share of young adults (including whites) will gravitate toward organizations touting racial or ethnic separatism. From poverty to crime to making families work again, 13ers will redefine old civil rights issues into problems independent of race. Many will come to associate the phrase civil rights with elder ministers, teachers, and bureaucrats whom they won't want meddling in their lives. Their goal will be to stop all the racial game-playing, and they will be skeptical that the solution is simply to get everybody to understand one another." These are the young whose leadership we will count on to take the helm of  national power in their midlife years. Practical, hard-headed, leadership will be needed to weather the coming storm - the Crisis of our Fourth Turning. All other generations still alive must see to it that the 13ers are ready to meet this challenge.

       The authors conclude on a conciliatory note for the future of the 13er generation. "Whatever their elders may think of them, America's 13er Generation will be around for the usual duration. They are our children', says [a Silent generation parent]. 'And we should love them. But even if we don't love them, we need them, because they are our future.'"

We Are at the End of a Third Turning - an Unraveling
       Strauss and Howe warn us that [47] "By the middle Oh-Ohs, institutions will reach a point of maximum weakness, individualism of maximum strength, and even the simplest public task will feel beyond the ability of government…Wide chasms will separate rich from poor, whites from blacks, immigrants from native borns, seculars from born-agains, technophiles from technophobes. America will feel more tribal. Indeed, many will be asking whether fifty states and so many dozens of ethnic cultures make sense any more as a nation - and, if they do, whether that nation has a future…[Americans] will be acutely aware that the Unraveling era's 'empowered individual' survives on the flimsiest of foundations - that, with just one tsunami, the whole archipelago of little human islands could sink into a sea of social chaos."

       America is now, in the early Oh-Ohs, in the final stages of the Third Turning, an Unraveling. The authors predict that, "As the Fourth Turning approaches, each generation will view events from its own life-cycle perspective. The Silent, approaching eighty, will be deeply anguished. Sixtyish Boomers will brood over their institutional powerlessness to impose a cleansing agenda. Broken into shards, 13ers will privately find ways of making small things work in disordered environments. The first Millennials will come of age amid the adulation of elders to whom they will embody the hopes for civic renewal. Toward the end of the Unraveling, each archetype's phase-of-life role reaches a point of new strain:
§ The elder Artists - the Silent - now appearing less flexible than indecisive begin impeding the Prophets' values agenda. [For example, those whom I call RESISTERS will answer the call to neutralize the influence of the Boomer 'power elites' who have so damaged America's will to fight both our Indigenous Enemies Within and our Alien Enemies Within.]
§ The midlife Prophets - the Boomers - now filled with righteousness of conviction, grow impatient to lead society toward ever-deeper spiritual conversion. [A conversion that I have called a false Spiritual Awakening.]
§ The young-adult Nomads - now tiring of an unrewarding self-sufficiency, yearn to settle down and shore up social barriers.
§ The child Heroes - protected by adults who are fearful of their future, begin sensing a dire secular challenge at the heart of the Prophets' visions."

The authors conclude that at the end of the Unraveling, "By the early On-Ohs, when the four generational archetypes fully occupy these life-cycle phases, they will be poised to assert new social roles. Their Unraveling-era behavior cannot and will not continue. The public mood will feel stale, used up, primed for something else. Americans will have had quite enough of glitz and roar, of celebrity circuses, of living as though there were no tomorrow. Forebodings will deepen, and spiritual currents will darken. Whether we realize it or not, we will be ready for a dramatic event to shock the nation out of its complacency and decay. The Fourth Turning will be at hand."

The Fourth Turning
       America's entry into a Fourth Turning is usually announced by a spectacular event. This is precisely what occurred on 11 September 2001 when Islamic terrorists attacked America. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign foe killed Americans in our homeland. This attack was a precursor - a signal - that we have now just entered a Fourth Turning. According to Strauss and Howe [48], "Time will pass, perhaps another decade, before the surging mood propels America to the Fourth Turning's grave moment of opportunity and danger: the climax of the Crisis…[During that time] "…all of America's lesser problems will combine into one giant problem. The very survival of the society will feel at stake, as leaders lead and people follow…The first glimpses of a new golden age will appear beyond: if only this one big problem can be fixed. Decisive events will occur - events so vast, powerful, and unique that they lie beyond today's wildest hypotheses. These events will inspire great documents and speeches, visions of a new political order being framed. People will discover a hitherto unimagined capacity to fight and die, and to let their children fight and die, for a communal cause. The Spirit of America will return, because there will be no other choice…Thus will we achieve our next rendezvous with destiny."

       Based on the historical record, the authors predict that "Emerging in this Crisis climax will be a great entropy reversal, that miracle of human history in which trust is reborn. Through the Fourth Turning, the old order will die, but only after having produced the seed containing the new civic order within it. In the moment of maximum danger, that seed will implant, and a new social contract will take root…The prospect for great civic achievement - or disintegration - will be high. New secessionist movements could spring from nowhere and achieve their ends with surprising speed…History offers more than sober warnings: Armed confrontation usually occurs around the climax of a Crisis. If there is confrontation, it is likely to lead to war. This could be any kind of war - class war, sectional war, war against global…terrorists, or superpower war. If there is war, it is likely to culminate in total war, fought until the losing side has been rendered nil - its will broken, territory taken, and leaders captured. And if there is total war, it is likely that the most destructive weapons available will be deployed."

       Strauss and Howe tell the story of how, at each such Fourth Turning in America's history, a 'Gray Champion has risen and will rise and 'ride once more.' This 'person' is predicted to rise out of the Idealist, Prophet generation to lead America to a successful conclusion of the Crisis [49]. "Eight or nine decades after his last appearance, America will be visited by the 'figure of an ancient man…combining the leader and the saint (to) show the spirit of their sires.' Again will appear the heir to the righteous Puritan who stood his ground against Governor Andros, the old colonial governors of the American Revolution who broke from England, the aging radicals of the Civil War who pitted brother against brother with a 'fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel,' and 'the New Deal Isaiahs' who achieved their rendezvous with destiny."

       From whence will come the Gray Champion? The authors advise, "Picture the Boomer Overclass of the Unraveling, aged another twenty years. Picture William Bennett's 'Consequence and Confrontation' missives; Al Gore predicting an environmental cataclysm; James Webb's summoning a 'ruthless and overpowering' retaliation against foreign enemies; James Fallows rooting for a '7.0 magnitude diplo-economic shock;' 'Apocalypse Darman' and 'Default Newt' with their budget train wrecks; Earth First saboteurs, willing to sacrifice other people's lives to save trees; and Army of God anti-abortionists summoning the terminally ill to 'use your final months to torch [abortion] clinics.' Picture Boomers like these, older and harsher, uncalmed by anyone more senior, feeling their last full measure of strength, sensing their pending mortality, mounting their final crusade - all at a time of maximum public peril."

       The authors go on to say, "The full dimension of the Boomer persona will only emerge when today's better-known 1940s birth cohorts (whose youth was marked by relatively few social pathologies) are joined in public life by the tougher-willed, more evangelical 1950s cohorts (whose youth was marked by many more pathologies). That is the mix that will beget this generation's elder priest-warrior persona, vindicating the early Unraveling-era warning of Peter Collier and David Horowitz that Boomers are 'a destructive generation whose work is not over yet.'"

       "The final Boomer leaders - authoritarian, severe, unyielding - will command broad support from younger people who will see in them a wisdom beyond the reckoning of youth. In domestic matters, old Boomers will recast the old arguments of the Culture Wars into a new context of community needs. They will redefine and re-authenticate a civic expansion - crafted from some mix of Unraveling-era cultural conservatism and public-sector liberalism. In foreign matters, they will narrowly define the acceptable behavior of other nations and broadly define the appropriate use of American arms."

       "The same Boomers who in youth chanted 'Hell no, we won't go! will emerge as America's most martial elder generation in living memory. Whatever the elements of Crisis, old Boomer leaders will up the moral ante beyond the point of possible retreat or compromise. The same Boomers who once chanted 'Ho Ho Ho chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win! will demand not just an enemy's defeat, but its utter destruction. They will risk enormous pain and consequence to command youth to fight and die in ways they themselves never would have tolerated in their youth. They will believe, as did Cicero, that this moment in history assigns 'young men for action, old men for counsel.'"

       "As the Crisis resolves, elder boomers will have not the last word, but the deep word. If they triumph, they will collectively deserve the eulogy Winston Churchill offered to Franklin Roosevelt: to die 'an enviable death,' if they fail, their misdeeds will cast a dark shadow over the entire twenty-first century, perhaps beyond."

       In their 1991 book, Strauss and Howe predicted that [50] "If the Crisis catalyst [the 9-11 Attack on America] comes on schedule, around the year 2005 [it came three-plus years early - 2001], then the climax will be due around 2020, the resolution around 2006. What will America be like as it exits the Fourth Turning?"

       The authors answer that question as follows. "History offers no guarantees. Obviously things could go horribly wrong - the possibilities ranging from a nuclear exchange to incurable plagues, from terrorist anarchy to high-tech dictatorship. We should not assume that Providence will always  exempt our nation from the irreversible tragedies that have overtaken so many others: not just temporary hardship, but debasement and total ruin. Since Vietnam, many Americans suppose they know what it means to lose a war. Losing in the Fourth Turning, however, could mean something incomparably worse. It could mean a lasting defeat from which our national innocence - and perhaps even our nation - might never recover. As many Americans know from their own ancestral backgrounds, history provides numerous examples of societies that have been wiped off the map, ground into submission, or beaten so badly they revert to barbarism."

       In the parlance of its time, each of the past three Crises resolved aggravating values struggles that had been building up over the prior saeculum. The American Revolution resolved the eighteenth-century struggle between commerce and citizenship. The Civil War resolved the early-nineteenth-century struggle between liberty and equality. The New Deal resolved the industrial-era struggle between capitalism and socialism [actually, the winning of the Cold War 60 years later resolved this world-wide struggle]…Most likely the [current] Fourth Turning will be Culture Wars updates of the perennial struggle between the individual and the collective - with new labels dating back to our recent [counter-culture revolution of the 1960s]. This time the individual ideal goes under the rubric of 'choice:' from marketplace choice to lifestyle choice; from choice about manners, appearance, or association to the choice of expression and entertainment. The social ideal goes under the rubric of 'community' and points to where all of the various choices must be curtailed if we wish to preserve strong families, secure borders, rising living standards, a healthy environment, and all other building blocks of a sustainable civilization."

       As the Crisis appears, presumably in around 2020 and is resolved (presumably around 2026), Strauss and Howe predicts that [51] "the generational archetypes will be ready for something new. The Fourth Turning will be ready to expire when old Prophets weaken, Nomads tire of public urgency, and Heroes feel hubris. This occurs around the time each archetype stands on the brink of a new life phase:
§ The elder Prophets, still leading the culture while vacating institutions, now worry about a society whose new materialism they find alien.
§ The midlife Nomads, sensing that the old crusades have run their course, now plan to fortify community discipline and narrow the scope of personal choice.
§ The young-adult Heroes, energized by the success of collective action, now want to change society from the outside in.
§ The child Artists, credulous youths in a world of powerful adults, learn to trust conventions and prepare for ways to help others.

This is how a triumphant Fourth Turning can establish a new High, a new golden age, a new plane of American civilization, a workable twenty-first century redefinition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

       Strauss and Howe warn us, however, that [52] "Modern societies too often reject [cycles] for straight lines between starts and finishes. Believers in linear progress, we feel the need to keep moving forward. Yet we cannot avoid history's last quadrant. We cannot avoid the Fourth Turning, nor its ekpyrosis. Whether we welcome him or not, the Gray Champion will command our duty and sacrifice at a moment of Crisis. Whether we prepare wisely or not, we will complete the Millenial Saeculum. The epoch that began on V-J Day will reach a natural climax - and come to an end."

       An end of what? The authors explain, "The next [actually, the current] Fourth Turning could mark the end of man. It could be an omnicidal Armageddon, destroying everything, leaving nothing. If mankind ever extinguishes itself, this will probably happen when its dominant civilization triggers a Fourth Turning that ends horribly. But this end, while possible, is not likely. Human life is not so easily extinguishable. One conceit of linear thinking is the confidence that we possess such godlike power [on the order of Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative'] that - at the mere push of a button - we can obliterate nature, destroy our own seed, and make ourselves the final generations of our species…Only the worst pessimist can imagine that."

       "The Fourth Turning could mark the end of modernity. The Western saecular rhythm - which began in the mid-fifteenth century with the Renaissance - could come to an abrupt terminus. The seventh modern saeculum would be the last. This too could come from total war, terrible but final. There could be a complete collapse of science, culture, politics, and society. The Western civilization of [the historian, Arnold] Toynbee and the Faustian culture of Spengler would come to the inexorable close their prophesiers foresaw. A New Dark Ages would settle in, until some new civilization could be cobbled together from the ruins. The cycle of generations would also end, replaced by an ancient cycle of tradition (and fixed social roles for each phase of life) that would not allow progress. As with an omnicide, such a dire result would probably happen only when a dominant nation (like today's America) lets a Fourth Turning ekpyrosis engulf the planet. But this outcome is well within reach of foreseeable technology and malevolence." This, of course, is an historians account of a scientific 'chaotic' system, one which reverts back to a fixed stable point from its current periodic stable equilibrium. This is precisely the result of such a 'chaotic system' when the constant of complexity changes to effect such an outcome.

       Alternatively, the authors posit another outcome [53]. "The Fourth Turning could spare modernity but mark the end of our nation. It could close the book on the political constitutions, popular culture, and moral standing that the word America has come to signify. This nation has endured for three saecula, Rome lasted twelve, Etruria ten, the Soviet Union only one. Fourth Turnings are critical thresholds for national survival. Each of the last three American Crises produced moments of extreme danger: In the Revolution, the very birth of the republic hung by a thread in more than one battle. In the Civil War, the union barely survived a four-year slaughter that in its own time was regarded as the most lethal war in history. In World War II, the nation destroyed an enemy of democracy that for a time was winning; had the enemy won, America might have itself been destroyed. In all likelihood, the next [current] Crisis will present the nation with a threat and a consequence on a similar scale."

       The authors continue. "Or the Fourth Turning could simply mark the end of the Millennial Saeculum. Mankind, modernity, and America would all persevere. Afterward, there would be a new mood, a new High, and a new saeculum. America would be reborn. But, reborn, it would not be the same. The new saeculum could find America a worse place…It might no longer be a great power. Its global stature might be eclipsed by foreign rivals. Its geography might be smaller, its culture less dominant, its military less effective, its government less democratic, its Constitution less inspiring. Emerging from its millennial chrysalis, it might evoke nothing like the hope and respect of its American Century forebear. Abroad, people of good will and civilized taste might perceive this society as a newly dangerous place. Or they might see it as decayed, antiquated, an old New World less central to human progress than we now are. All this is plausible, and possible, in the natural turning of saecular time." This, of course, is the historian's account of a chaotic system, one that could exhibit a random, chaotic set of points for which there is absolutely no predictive power.

       Alternatively, the new saeculum could find America, and the world, a much better place. Like England in the Reformation Saeculum, the Superpower America of the Millennial Saeculum might merely be a prelude to a higher plane of civilization." This is also a characteristic of a complex, non-linear, iterative feedback system - one which is expected to exhibit chaotic behavior. In fact all of these alternatives are characteristic of such systems. They have only three possible states: fixed stable points, periodic (cyclical) equilibrium points, or chaotic points (randomly occurring without prediction).

       The authors end with a personal note [54]. "Each of us communicates across a vast reach of time. Think back to your childhood. Recall the oldest person who influenced your life - maybe a grandparent, maybe an elderly neighbor. The distance between that person's birth year and the present is your memory span back in time. Now go in the other direction. Project the probable life span of the youngest person whose life you will someday influence - most likely, your youngest grandchild. If you are young, assume that at age thirty-five you will bear your last child, who will also bear a last child at thirty-five, who will in turn live to be eighty-five. The years between the present day and your last grandchild's death mark your memory span forward. Now add these two periods together to calculate your total memory span, linking the lives of those who touched you with the lives of those who will be touched by you. For the authors of this book, the spans extend from 1881 to 2104 (Strauss) and from 1888 to 2114 (Howe) - 223 and 226 years, respectively. That's as long as the American nation has been in existence."

       "When you think of time seasonally, in terms of turnings, those vast spans of time become comprehensible, meaningful, and shared. No matter what your age or generation, you knew or will know loved ones whose lives will cross nearly three full saecula. Together, you will experience three Fourth Turnings, three Crises, three ekpyroses. A memory span of this length is a fundamental vantage on history that you share with all Americans who ever lived or ever will live. It connects you personally with the ebb and flow of the lives of remembered ancestors. It acquaints you with the lives your own children and grandchildren are likely to lead." And it helps us understand, on a broader scale, the military/civilian culture gap of the 1990s.

Problems with the Strauss and Howe Analysis of Generational Cycles
       A passage in the authors' book describes the one cycle in American history which contained an anomaly - the Civil War Crisis. It is instructive to read what they tell us about this event because it has some meaning for our current Fourth Turning.

       In their Generations book, Strauss and Howe tell us that [55] "To propel the generational cycle, a secular crisis must end with triumph. This happened in every cycle but one: the Civil War. By no means does this anomaly contradict the cycle; instead, it offers important lessons about how generational history can turn out well - or badly."

       The authors observe that "the Civil War cycle lacks a Civic-type generation. At sixty-four years, this cycle is fully seventeen years shorter than any other. A mere twenty-eight years separate the end of the Civil War Crisis from the end of the preceding (Transcendental Awakening). What happened?"

       "First, the crisis came early. It came ten to fifteen years after the middle Idealist birthyear. This difference is quite significant." Consequently, the generations were out of sequence in the development of their 'peer personality.' The Prophet generation was in its midlife phase rather than elderhood and the Nomad generation was in its young adulthood instead of midlife. Observe that this is exactly the situation that America finds itself in today with the Idealist/Prophet Boomers in midlife - at the seat of power - and the Nomad 13ers in young adulthood. We are now as mis-aligned as were the generations during the Civil War Crisis.

       "Second, the three adult generations allowed their more dangerous peer instincts to prevail. The elderly Compromisers of the Buchanan era were unable to rise above empty process and moral confusion. The Transcendental Generation split not just into two competing factions, but into two self-contained, mutually exclusive societies. Transcendental leaders - the likes of Abraham Lincoln, William Sherman, Thaddeus Stevens, Jefferson Davis, and Julia Ward Howe - were, as a generation, unable to resist waging war (and peace) with ruthless, apocalyptic finality. The younger Gilded never outgrew an adventurer's lust for battle or an easily bruised sense of personal honor - never, that is, until the war was over. These three adult generations steered a very dangerous constellation, and together produced the nearest approximation of holocaust America has ever experienced. Place the Civil War Cycle alongside the generational calendar of its two neighboring cycles - Revolutionary and Great Power - and notice how the Civil War occurred roughly a decade before the Revolution and World War II, a decade after the French and Indian War and World War I. It combined the worst features of both: the colossal scale of the former two with the lasting bitterness of the latter two."

       "Third, the crisis came to an untriumphant end. Was the Civil War a failure? We need not answer that question yes or no, but simply observe that for each of the other secular crises on our list, we find it difficult to imagine a more uplifting finale than that which actually occurred. For the Civil War, we can easily imagine a better outcome. Yes, the Union was preserved, the slaves emancipated, and the industrial revolution fully unleashed. but consider the enormous cost: deep-rooted sectional hatred, the impoverishment and political exile of the South, the collapse of Reconstruction into the era of lynchings and Jim Crow, and the long delay that postwar exhaustion later imposed on most other social agendas, everything from antitrust policy and labor grievances to temperance and women's rights."

       "Many Americans did indeed attribute the painful finale to calamitous miscommunication between young and old…although the Progressives had been raised with a protective prewar nurture that prepared them to come of age as a Civic generation, they emerged after the Civil War scarred rather than ennobled. Acquiring little collective confidence as young adults, they left their future in the hands of the Gilded and developed a distinctly Adaptive peer personality." This is precisely what could happen in the current Fourth Turning, unless we can push our Boomer generation into an early Elderhood and allow the practical, self-confident 13er generation mature into midlife power as the Crisis approaches.

       It is interesting to note that as the Civil War Crisis came seventeen years early - compared to other Fourth Tunings - Americans realized that the struggle would be neither glamorous nor painless [56]. "Government authority (Union and Confederate) began assuming entirely unprecedented powers of taxation, compulsory service, suspension of due process, and martial law amid a catastrophic spiral of organized butchery. The climax came swiftly and savagely, with Gettysburg and Sherman's swath of destruction. The resolution was equally swift and savage: The five days from Appomattox to Lincoln's assassination marked the single most convulsive week in U.S. history. The nation reunited and corrected the core problem of slavery that had divided it, but otherwise the resolution felt as much like defeat as like victory."

       "In the Civil War Saeculum, the Third and Fourth Turnings together covered the span of just one generation and produced no Hero archetype. By the usual pattern of history, the Civil War Crisis catalyst occurred four or five years ahead of schedule [the catalyst of our current Fourth Turning, the 9-11 terrorist attack on America came four years ahead of its nominal 2005 date] and its resolution nearly a generation too soon. This prompts the question, What would have happened if tempers had cooled for a few years, postponing the Crisis for another presidential election and slowing it down thereafter?  In all likelihood, there would still have been a crisis of union and emancipation. There might still have been a war. But the generational dynamics and the archetypal behavior would have been somewhat different. The gridlocked elder Compromisers [the equivalent of today's Silent] would have passed from the scene altogether. The apocalyptic passions of the Transcendentals [the precursor to todays's Boomers] would have cooled a bit as they aged. And the Gilded [the counterparts to today's 13er generation] would have been quicker to see war as danger rather than adventure."

       "Imagine what might have happened differently in the South (which was devastated), in race relations (which reverted to Jim Crow), in the women's movement (which collapsed), and to the Gilded and Progressive Generations (both heavily damaged by war). Such a Crisis scenario might well have led to a more constructive outcome. The Civil War experience thus offers two lessons: first, that the Fourth Turning morphology admits to acceleration, and second, that acceleration can add to the tragedy of the outcome."

       This, indeed, contains the seed of a strategy for today's political and military leadership. We must hold the Crisis at bay for at least another decade at which time each of the living generations of Americans can be prepared to play their part in a successful outcome. That is, the Boomers must be removed, 'out of the way,' into Elderhood, the 13ers into positions of midlife power, and the Millennials (the next young Hero generation) in young adulthood, as a new generation of Artists enter childhood. This is the generational constellation which has prevailed in all of America's past Crises. It is the constellation which we should work hard to encourage and develop.

       This truth has huge implications for the U.S. military, as well as the civilian populace. It may require what some might consider harsh and brutal treatment of those in current leadership positions. But it is necessary for the survival of American civilization.

What is to be Done?
       It is clear that America is in a precarious position. We are now in a Fourth Turning. The historic catalyst that ushered in this stage of the Millenial Saeculum was the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on America. It is abundantly clear that the importance of this catalytic event has not yet settled into the American consciousness. Even though we have chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan in large numbers and reduced to rubble the al Qaeda training camps there, the lives of average Americans have still not been greatly impacted. After an initial patriotic impulse, the enlistment rates in the all-volunteer military force has not risen above pre-attack levels. The politicians still quarrel as if domestic politics was still the primary concern of 2002 America. Even the conduct of the 'war on terrorism' has been placed on the level of 'gotcha' in domestic politics.

       So, what is the answer? It is that America must understand that it must mobilize on a vast, comprehensive scale to start preparing, head-on, for the Crisis which is to come. That means civilian, as well as military, reforms must be made that will enable us to meet the challenges we will undoubtedly face. For the military, it means chopping the 30-plus years of accumulated 'dead wood' out of the forest of its leadership. As Victor Davis Hanson reminds us [57], "We're also going to see a changing of the guard. In 1860 nobody knew who Ulysses S. Grant was - he was a grocer. George McClellan was a railroad president who made $10,000 a year. Sherman, who had been a failed 'everything.' Nathan Bedford Forrest was probably a thug - nobody thought he had any talent at all. And yet, in the crucible of war, they came forward as real talent. Same thing with George Patton in World War II. Same thing with Pershing in World War I.

       Hanson continues this thought. "We are going to see people whose names we do not know who are going to step to the fore, men of genius and courage and women of genius and courage and the discredited voices of the past will fade." See the essay at the link: Hanson on Terrorist Myths for his description of how American replaced the 'pretenders' with astute, rugged, ruthless, able military leaders during the Crises of its previous Fourth Turnings. The same treatment must be applied to the political civilian leadership. Knowledgeable American voters will handle the latter task. Astute military and civilian leadership must insist on the necessary reform of the military before that occurs, however, before it is too late.

An Example of Military Reform
       This Web Site contains numerous newspaper articles, essays and reports which address the 'feminization,' 'open homosexualization,' and 'ethical weakening' of our nation's military - especially that conducted during the 1990s. A current example drawn from that material is the education and training of the core combat leadership in our premiere military academies - especially at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.

       The Washington Times recently announced that, under the leadership of a new Superintendent and a new Commandant of Midshipmen, the Academy would now 'consider plebes' dignity' as they entered their first year there [58]. "Col. [John] Allen, a tough-talking Marine…said that preparing the next generation of naval officers for combat should not cross the line into humiliation. He wants upperclassmen to lead by example, not fear…When a plebe in Chuck Bunton's platoon lets his military bearing to slack, "I go right up to his ear and whisper, 'You really disappointed me.' It hurts them more than me giving them push-ups [as punishment],' he said."

       This situation, the last in a long stream of 'feminizing' the rigors of 'plebe summer' at the Academy, including very little physical training and a general reduction of standards of military rigor - especially during the 1990s - has reached the height of absurdity. A former Marine, now retired, USNA class of 1979 responded [59], "Nothing I have read yet so perfectly illustrates the depths to which the U.S. Naval Academy has sunk. What was once 'Sparta on the Severn River' has now become a government day care facility for other people's 'children.' One needs no further proof of the woeful influence of career ambition than to read the article's quotes by the commandant of Midshipmen…Instead of teaching midshipmen physical and mental toughness, they're concerned with sensitivity training and self-esteem. If it weren't so pernicious, it would be merely absurd. The Academy's fate was sealed the moment female cadets walked through the door in 1976. Indeed, it is the logical progression of the feminization of the Naval Academy, aided and abetted by career officers who see their 'star' as dependent upon their self-abasement before the politically correct…I am ashamed of the Naval Academy, ashamed of ever darkening the door of the place and doubly ashamed that a Marine Corps officer is partly responsible for such absurdity."

       To this, another USNA alumnus responded [60], "I and many other graduates…could not be prouder of the academy's leadership under the commandant of midshipmen…[and] Superintendent Adm. Richard J. McNaughton (a fellow classmate); and his predecessor, Adm. John Ryan…Modern warriors don't need to be humiliated and to play childish games to be tough. Our knowledge of motivation and leadership has moved beyond that. Maj. Streich may prefer the simplicity of Sparta, but the traditions of Athens - which esteemed the warrior-scholar - are best for the midshipmen." The 'score' for these debaters - all of the Boomer generation - is Sparta 1 and Athens 2 (including the commandant).

       A concluding commentary by another USNA graduate appeared in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times [61]. He has it exactly right. "Great military leadership is essential to the preservation of the United States and its values…a rigorous plebe year, which, for generations has played a key role in producing our greatest military leaders in time of war, has been abandoned for 'touchy-feely' management practices which I believe will have limited use in combat…Other responses to the [original] article have been too brief to address the key issue, whether the softening of plebe year will undercut our ability to identify the best military leaders for war…[As for the Sparta/Athens argument], if architecture, theatre or politics were the issue, I would agree. But Sparta defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Gen. Chuck Krulak [former Commandant of the Marine Corps] lauds the new Academy commandant…for his 'individual leadership and inspiration.' Accepting Gen. Krulak's view of the man, I respectfully disagree with Col. Allen's devaluation of a rigorous plebe year."

       "[I agree with Col Allen's intent] to focus on creating an officer capable of operating in and withstanding demands of leading sailors and Marines in combat: ' Character is the foundation of decision-making in combat;' and 'Midshipmen will observe and learn leadership in adversity.' I agree. However, leadership fads do not change the fact that : (1) true military leadership is unique, and (2) can only be confirmed during combat. Many generals and admirals at the start of a war were not the leaders at the end. [Note: Please read Victor Davis Hanson's book, 'Carnage and Culture,' to learn this truth.] The article describes a plebe corrective technique as; 'I go right up to his ear and whisper, 'you really disappointed me.' I doubt that in a battle, a ship's captain or a platoon leader will be employing mouth-to-ear leadership. Plebe training should not be about feeling another's pain, but learning to perform their duty while feeling their own pain."

       "As Col. Allen correctly emphasizes, 'most of the decision-making imperative for young officers in crisis and in combat comes on the verge of physical exhaustion. Preparation for war is the sine qua non of a military officer's existence. Yet Col. Allen squelched a plebe platoon for shouting 'kill' because it was too early in their careers to think about the 'kill piece' of military training.' Sheltering plebes from the reason for their existence is an interesting approach to leadership." Of course, left unspoken in this truth-hood is the fact that the 'feminization' of the military is not compatible with the truth about the reason d'etre of core combat leadership training.

       Nevertheless, the critic continues. "The Academy's spokesman stated that 'you do not need to be cruel in order to produce a combat-ready warrior.' Cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer to accept the view of history that generations of rigorous plebe years produced the desired results."

       "Col. Allen said: 'We never want to denigrate someone, robbing them of their dignity.' Of course you do. The primary functions of a rigorous plebe year are to: (1) strip away the veneer of civilian self-esteem, (2) focus on military leadership qualities, and (3) test the plebe for the 'right stuff.'"

       "Col. Allen wants to assure parents that their children 'will be treated very fairly.' War is not fair. How someone responds when they think they are being treated unfairly is a good indication of character and focus. The only fairness that counts is fairness among plebes."

       "Col Allen was worried that 'upperclassmen were relying on … spot correction as a crutch.' Such correction is essential. The prompter, the louder, the better. It gives corrective focus to every plebe within earshot. True military leadership can only be tested and found in war. But, we must not wait until war to look for it. A rigorous plebe year contributes to finding, identifying, and nurturing true military leadership qualities."

       The critic continues, "Our liberty and democracy have survived for more than 200 years because good men laid down their lives to preserve them. That sacrifice was effective because of superior military leadership. In war, military leadership has frequently been decisive. Yet, the fundamental principles of military leadership never change. I was taught: 'The fundamentals of leadership are professional knowledge and personal character. Of these, character, which includes discipline, is by far the most important.' Plebes must learn 'to react quickly and intelligently under stress.'"

       "The purpose of the Academy is to develop such unique military leadership qualities. Where else is our country to find them? There is nothing to indicate that the character required of military leaders in combat is equally important  to politicians, business executives or even church leaders. As we approach a generation of civilian leaders who lack military experience, the value of military leadership will increase."

       "A rigorous 'plebe' year culls out those who are at the Academy for the wrong reasons or lack the desired qualities of military leadership. This experience of performing your duties while under constant, seemingly irrational physical, mental, and psychological stress, is probably the closest an individual will come to the rigors of war. Some plebes immediately demonstrate the 'right stuff.' Others find the 'right stuff' over the year. In the world of plebe oppression, amazing things occur. Kids grow up. They find they can focus, compete and perform their duty against seemingly overwhelming odds. In short, those plebes have taken an important step to becoming military leaders. Such an experience, foreign to civilians, can help create the military leaders essential to our nation's survival. That survival may depend upon our nation making the right choice in the training of plebes." Score: Sparta 2, Athens 2. This is just about the division among Boomers in the year-2000 presidential election.

       The last participant in the debate has the beginning of the answer to the military/civilian culture gap. Start training our future core combat leadership to fight and win our nation's wars instead of promoting the 'social agenda' of the leftist counter-culture revolutionaries of the '60s. In addition, start weeding out the chaff and go back to the granary to find the wheat. For example, bring back the 'warriors' who were purged from the military during the post-Tailhook 'witch hunts' of the 1990s. Those are the tigers with the 'warrior ethos' who walked rather than remain in a 'feminized' military. For example, bring back Captain Bob Stumpf, USN (ret.) who was illegally drummed out of the Navy by weak-kneed politicians and flag-rank Navy leadership in the aftermath of the Tailhook bacchanal. See RADM 'Mark' Hill's essay on this matter at the link: The Bob Stumpf Affair. Bring back LT Patrick J. Burns, USN (Ret.) who was denied promotion by the same deviants, instead of being promoted and placed on a path to flag-rank for his courage in revealing the double standards in training and qualifications in naval aviation. Read the Patrick Burns Affair and Atkinson Answers Stewie on LT Burns essays at these links (one of the Hollow Force Debate essays reporting a conversation with Burns' commanding officer at the time). Bring back all of those who were RESISTERS and get rid of the PASSIVES and the COLLABORATORS to the 'cultural Marxist' agenda of the power elites of the Boomer generation - which has weakened our military to levels beyond belief. So much so, that senior military leaders - who know first hand of this damage - are hesitant to even go to war against Iraq, led by a two-bit dictator whom they defeated soundly in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

       The next thing to be done is to oust the politicians from national office who have enabled, undertaken, and fueled the counter-culture revolution in the 1990s. These 'enemies within,' America's Indigenous Fifth Column, must be neutralized before we can deal with America's Alien Fifth Column which is alive and active across the land today. We must end Hillary Rodham Clinton's political forum. We must never return the Clinton 'foot soldiers' of the 'cultural Marxist' counter-culture revolution to power. We must get rid of the Norman Minetas and their ilk in our federal government before we have a decent chance of finding and routing out the al Qaeda amongst us.

       We must also get serious about conducting military operations against our enemies. By that, I mean, the civilian population must understand that we are not remote viewers of War as Entertainment depicted by our mass media. We must not just sit there watching TV, mesmerized by the 'painless,' 'gee-whiz' aspect of 'smart' bombs raining down on an enemy that in essence 'cannot shoot back.' We must be prepared to shoulder the burden of suffering - fighting and dying - for ourselves, our sons, and our grandsons. We must come to our senses and realize that the actual 'fighting' of the war in the Crisis must be done with men who have the 'warrior spirit' and utilize our women where they can be the most effective - in positions which relieve a man of duties which allow him to fight.

       Read the essays at the link: Women-in-Combat to learn this truth. Read the essay at the link: W-I-C After 9-11 to understand that the radical feminists have attempted to use the Attack on America to cement their goal of 'feminizing' the U.S. military - which will render it unable to meet the military challenges of the coming Crisis. Read how this may occur at the link: Metaphor: The North Tower and Women-in-Combat. If all this is too much to ask; if this is not possible, then watch out. America will be on the path to its first-ever failure in meeting the Crisis which is to come in our present Fourth Turning. We do not have much time to prepare. We must start now.

       Until America gets serious about preserving its civilization, we will continue down the path of dissolution, despair, and decay. As have all civilizations in history before us. America is, in the words of Lincoln, 'the last, best hope of earth.' Too many good men and women have died protecting our freedom. We must not let the 'pretenders' among us send American civilization down the drain.
-------------------------------------------------------
For the footnotes to this essay, please go to the link:     Footnotes to Generational History


                                                                                        Return to:


      Home       Hollow Force Debate Results      The Pretender: Anatomy of a Collaborator          Anatomy of a Closet Leftist


                                                                                   The Military/Civilian Culture Gap