Yoda Was Right

 I don't remember all of my dreams, but last night, I had one that stuck with me.  I was at some kind of event where the media* were egging on a crowd, using fear to get the
m more and more angry.  I popped out of a car, ran over, and started to try to jolly the crowd out of their fearful and angry mood.  Both within the dream and after I woke up, I thought about fear and anger, the moment, we are in and two bits of pop culture.

The first bit was, of course, Yoda instructing Luke that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.  The second bit was in Ghostbusters (the second one, I think) where a toxic slime was getting increasingly powerful and nasty from the hate pulsing through NY, and they used humor and laughter to fight it.

The moment we are in is full of anger and is outraging.  Trump and the "populists" around the world have used fear, anger, and resentment to direct hate at the vulnerable (not just trans people, but they are the poster people for this dynamic these days) to get into power and deflect blame for their failures.  So much of what Trump and his people have done has been cruel and has inflicted much suffering in the US and around the world with Iranian kids being the latest to pay the price.  

Watching all of this unnecessary pain and suffering--the kids sent to American concentration camps or killed by American and Israeli bombs--causes a backlash of hate and anger. But I don't think anger is going to get us out of this.

One of the best ways to fight the bullying, the posturing, the Pete Hegsething is to mock them, make fun of them, to use satire, parody, and any other comic device to make clear that these poseurs are beneath contempt.  Laughter may not always be the best medicine, but when punching up, it causes less collateral damage and mostly does not empower the worst people.  

My experience at the fall's No Kings protest was one of joy and community and laughter, as people had funny signs, mocking the autocrats and the haters.  Yes, we need to be serious about the stakes here, and those planning protests must be deliberate and careful as any violence will be used as an excuse to escalate.  But, as those on the side of light always argue, let's not give into the hate.  Sure, Stephen Miller is contemptible and should be punished and ostracized, but let's not become him.  

Of course, if I am wrong, Yoda also said: best teacher failure is. 

 

* I don't blame the legit media although the dynamic of where it bleeds, it leads does create more fear--that there is actually less crime than people think and less crime than there used to be.  

Demanding Answers, Avoiding Responsibilty: the Canadian Parliamentarians Always Disappoint

 Canada has a base in Kuwait, a legacy of the counter-ISIS mission and part of a program having spots around the world facilitating potential operations.  It got hit by Iranian missiles, and opposition parliamentarians are outraged that they were not told.  Fun grandstanding, sure.  But what's going on here?

Yes, the government may have chosen to hide the attack because they didn't want criticism of their crappy stance on Iran and that the US risked its allies without notifying/consulting them.  But perhaps there may have been a reason to keep stuff classified--that telling the public about the attack also tells Iran how accurate their targeting was and maybe to try again.

In a mature democracy (or even one that is in rapid decline), there is a way out of this conundrum: that some members of the legislature, let's say the defence committee or the opposition leaders, have security clearances so that they can be informed when secret stuff happens.  No, they can't then release that info to the public, but they can talk about the generalities so that the public can be informed of the basic idea. 

See how Senator Chris Murphy does it:

I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public. I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are. 1/ Here's what I can share:

— Chris Murphy (@chrismurphyct.bsky.social) March 10, 2026 at 10:03 PM

And even if the stuff is so secret that the legislators can't talk about it, their ability to know can be a key constraint on government.  Dave, Phil, and I wrote a fairly recent book about exactly this stuff.  I initiated the project because I was stunned by the deliberate ignorance of Canadian members of parliament--that they would prefer to know less and talk more than know more and have to be responsible.  Canadian MPs will say that this is way it is done in Westminster governments, and now Dave, Phil, and I have the receipts to say: bushwah.  Nope, the Aussies and Brits have managed to find ways to actually engage in oversight (that is, they know what the military has done, not that they have a say in what they do, for those who interpret the word oversight differently).  

But for MPs, it is more fun to blast the government for covering things up than actually knowing stuff.  A long running story in Canadian politics has been that the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has refused to be cleared.  My bluesky followers suspect that PP has skeletons that a clearance process would reveal, but the answer is more obvious and direct: he does not want the responsibility of knowing stuff.  He'd rather be ignorant and wrong than have to be careful about his criticism of government.  As Murphy shows above and plenty of opposition legislators around the world know quite well, you can be informed and still provide trenchant, on-target, critical criticisms of the government the day and yet not violate secrecy of the info one has received.

So, I have no sympathy for whiny Conservatives on this.  I also think that the Liberals, like all Canadian parties in power, treat the public like kids and not adults.  When pushed on this, Carney said: “I’m not the only spokesperson for the government, but I’ll just confirm that members of the Canadian Forces are all safe and sound,” said Carney.

 Sorry, sir, but, yes, that actually is a key part of the job.  The best way to fight disinformation is to be as transparent as possible.  The best way to de-fang opposition criticisms is to be ahead of the story and tell the public as much as you can.  Don't act like your job does not include informing the public.  You are not a central banker anymore.

I post this because the Canadian public (and others, most democracies have largely ignorant legislatures) should know that the opposition MPs are playing a game, a dumb game that helps to reduce trust in government (abetting the far right populists), as they could know but choose not to.   

 

A Tale of Two Lousy Allies: the US and Israel in a War of Their Own Making

 Alliances are hard all the time.  But if the allies share common values and have shared interests, they can find ways to work together.  Watching the US-Israel war with Iran proceed, I can't help but think that those of us who have criticized NATO might have been a bit unfair.  Getting consensus among 30+ like-minded countries is hard, very hard, and the alliance has to have an opt-out for any mission (in Article V, the language is "each contributes as each deems necessary).  But when you have two increasingly autocratic countries both led by criminals (ok, to be fair, Netanyahu hasn't been convicted yet, right?) who are bad faith actors who don't believe in anything but staying in power, things get a bit trickier.

While we are not privy to the actual conversations between Trump's team and Netanyahu, we have had clues in the media---that Netanyahu pushed for this war now, and Trump went along with it.  This would not be the first time a country dragged another ally into a war, as that is one of two horns of the alliance dilemma with the other possibility being a country abandons its ally.  And drag may be a strong word since Trump probably did not have to be pushed hard given his previous attacks against Iran and Iranian interests (killing Solimani, last summer's bombing) and, of course, Trump hasn't thought through the consequences such as oil price spikes and much inflation back home. 

This gets to the larger question: if allies don't agree on the goal, how does an alliance work?  What does Israel want in this war?  It seems to be the destruction of Iran as a state, which means hitting any and all targets that might help fracture the state and destroy its capacity.  For the US?  Damned if I know since the various officials--Trump, Rubio, Hegseth--have all said multiple things.  If it was regime change, the US would want Iran to have infrastructure intact (water desalination, oil refineries) so that the new regime can manage.  If it is ending the missile threat, that too would suggest more limited attacks.  If it is to complete the Christian nationalist dream of ushering in the end of times, well, oh my, I guess that means killing anyone and everyone.

There were some reports that the US was displeased with Israel hitting oil refineries, which raises a big question: how much cooperation is there over targeting?  During the Kosovo campaign, NATO allies coordinated quite a bit over what to hit when?  Libya?  Same thing.  ISIS?  I think so.  Now, hard to tell.  That the Trump regime didn't prepare for or plan for Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz tells us a lot about American preparation or lack thereof. 

Israel?  Perhaps the epitome of tactically sound, strategically incompetent.  The Israeli military is really good at hitting its targets, but how that relates to security I have no idea.  From my trip back in 2019, I go the impression that hitting hard is not just the key tactic but pretty much the only goal.  Restraint does not make sense for them since they have already priced in world opposition: everyone hates them, everyone is anti-semitic, so they might as well do what they want.  And that has worked really well for them--they have had long periods of peace and stability.*   Oh wait, it hasn't, but the learning curve seems to tilt towards simply escalating whenever they are hit.  It creates deterrence that lasts ... hours or days.  

So, the US has been a lousy but useful ally for Israel as Trump is unreliable and fickle.  Israel is a lousy ally for the US, helping get an all-too-willing US into a war that provides no real benefits to the American people (Americans hate Iran thanks to the hostage crisis, when folks used to sing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, yet they still hate this war--great achievement by Team Trump).  The US is an even worse ally for, well, all of its allies.  It made all of the Mideast targets for Iranian attacks--why should Iran restrain itself when its very existence is at stake?  The US radically increased oil prices for its friends, which only helps Russia and other oil exporting places (Alberta?), and it has made the coalition/domestic political games of its European allies far more difficult.  

All of this was foreseeable, which is why American presidents have refrained from attacking Iran, even, yes, the ideological and dim Bushies.  But the Trump regime hates being told it can't do something, like a toddler, and is deliberately ignorant.  Which led to being very poorly prepared for the likely Iranian responses that came to fruition. 

 

* I keep putting off writing a post that puts a significant hunk of blame on the increase in anti-semitism around the world on Israel because, yes, yowza.  The Israeli stance of pricing in hate is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Yes, there is anti-semitism in the world, just like there is Islamophobia, and the actions of states that are seen as the homelands of such religions matter in exacerbating or ameliorating those pre-existing tendencies.  Israel will tell Jews to come home to Israel if they want to be safe, which is, alas, mighty rich given that Israel's actions have increased the danger to Jews outside of Israel and.... yes, to Jews inside of Israel.  We can identify anti-semites and hold them responsible for their own actions (say, most of the Trump regime) and still hold Israel responsible for pouring gasoline on these pre-existing fires. 

 

 

What Does Davos Mean Anyway?

 I have been asked to comment on a flippity flopish move by Prime Minister Carney re Iran: first saying, hey, we love them Americans bombing Iran to, hey now, maybe we should all be a bit more restrained.   How to make sense of this?  Hmmm.  I think the first thing to consider is that the Davos Statement is not that clear and is certainly not that prescriptive in this moment.  Second, domestic politics may play a role.  Third, bad habits may have been in play.  Let's contrast the statements:

First statement:

Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security. 

Second statement:

We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order. Despite decades of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains. And now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada.

So where to from here? With a rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerents. We condemn the strikes carried out by Iran on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East. We implore all parties, including the United States and Israel, to respect the rules of international engagement.

So, first, Carney's statement at Davos says that Canada can't always side with the US (as he likened the US-based world order to Soviet-occupied Czechoslovakia) and that Canada needs to be pragmatic, not always principled.  Okey dokey, what does that mean for this weekend?  Whatever you want, really.  The first statement complies with Davos as it is unprincipled, woot!  Second statement complies as it is more critical of the US--not consulting with allies, needed to be reminded not to do war crimes.  

On the other hand, the first statement looks sketchy as all get out because it was buying the US story immediately without waiting for any sense that the Trump administration had a plan, a justification, etc.  Supporting a bad faith actor can only go .... badly.  We should know that by now.  I was pretty outraged by the initial statement because this is a badly justified war fought badly, and Carney should have understood that.  Don't support dumb shit.*  

Second, domestic politics: supporting an attack on Iran is popular among the Iranian diaspora and among many Jewish Canadians, so why not pander to them?  Playing to ethnic groups does not always mean bad policy outcomes, but, well, disaporas rarely know best.  They tend to be more extreme than those who remained behind (leaving is a selection effect kind of thing) and become more extreme as they don't have to pay the price for what they advocate.  I used to study diasporas, so I apologize for brutally generalizing about behavior that is well, pretty general.  While Jews hate Netanyahu, they hate Iran a lot, too.  The polls in Israel are instructive on this score.  Not sure how North American Jews feel as, yes, not all Jews think the same way on things, and the schism between Israeli Jews and North American Jews has widened since October 2023.  Still, I can imagine political operatives around Carney saying quickly before people had time to think: hey, we have to support attacking this regime because our voters think it is icky (which, to be fair, it was/is).  

Third, habits and bureaucratic routines may have dominated at first.  Canada always sides with US, always has problems with Iran, so those in GAC and PM's Office went with the old scripts, not really thinking through how Davos and Trump and rank incompetence might suggest a different approach.  

Why the change in heart?  Maybe Carney noticed the other allies being a bit more circumspect.  Maybe the schoolgirls and other reckless attacks and Hegseth's repeated assurances that he will war crime had an impact.  Maybe the realization that the US is a bad faith actor run by morons who did no prep, and tying oneself to them is not great?  Maybe the realization that Elbows Up includes not siding with the US automatically?  I hope someone can get the inside scoop on why the flip flop.  The new position isn't great either, but it is better than the first one. 

Of course, this raises what Canada should have done. What a great time to distance from the US?  This would have been an opportunity to show that the heart of Davos, not being so attached to the US, is what matters and matters in a crisis.  Look at the accolades the Spanish are getting, look at the Brits initially refusing to let the US use Diego Garcia.  If Trump wants to be transactional, then be transactional.  Don't give loyalty unless you can get something for it.

* Yes, it is a bad war--the flailing for a decent justification is more than a clue.  There was no need to attack Iran this weekend.  We have lived with Iran being an obnoxious, awful regime for quite some time.  Another day, week, month, year doesn't really change anything except to the Iranians who we are not really helping (killing moderates alternatives is just about the dumbest thing since the US disbanded the Iraqi military over night).  Yes, Iran was in pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there had been diplomacy that had addressed that.  These days, the Iranians get that they can't bargain with bad faith actor Trump.  Maybe two weeks ago, but not now and not anytime soon.  So, destroying the one reasonable pathway is very dumb.  And then there is the execution of this war---no consultation with allies so people are stuck in the region.  Friendly fire incidents galore.  Dead school girls.  Allies lacking protection from the obvious Iranian reaction.

 Oh, and I realized as I talked to the media today: if you push Iran into a corner where the existence of the regime is at stake, why should they hold back anything?  It makes no sense to save any instruments of power for a more desperate future.  So, they launch missiles and drones in every direction, they may close the Strait of Hormuz, they may encourage terrorist attacks around the world.   

The Christian Armed Forces

 I guess it is time to post this meme again

So much has happened in the past 13 months that has been awful for American civil-military relations that I had an RA put together a list.  I have to go through it and then I am going to share it so that it can be crowdsourced and updated.  So, are civil-military relations worse now than the various other awful moments?  It is hard to judge, but this latest story suggests the descent into the abyss is, indeed, further along.

What's the story?  That the Christian nationalism that has long been present in the US military is now more vocal than in the past.  Sure, SecDef Pete Hegseth has Christian nationalist tattoos but that's no big deal, right?  Wrong.

This story, that more than 30 different commanders issued Christian nationalist statements when talking to their troops as this illegal, ill-prepared, misconceived war of aggression was launched is truly awful.  Why?

First, that the military is infested or infected with Christian nationalism is not new.  Just look at almost any picture of the US Air Force Academy and you will notice the most distinct/celebrated building is its chapel.  It is quite symbolic of the place--where stories of evangelical Christians dominating the place and persecuting cadets who did not share their religion go way back.  I was aware of this even before I visited the USAFA in 2002 or 2003 as part of an academic conference.  Indeed, the group sited in the story, that seeks to protect those who in the military from religious discrimination/hazing/persecution had, I am pretty sure, its origins in complaints about USAFA.   The academy is in the most religious, far right part of Colorado, so the community around USAFA helps to reinforce the domination of "Christians" who have a very narrow version of Christianity--that non-evangelicals don't count--that Catholics are papists, that Presbyterians don't count, and on and on.  

Second, Christian nationalists, despite their name, don't have the usual Christian values of love and community.  It is about hate and domination.  We see that in their alliance with Trump is the opposite of a devout believer in Jesus.  The Christian nationalists hope for the return of Christ so that they can go to heaven and everyone else can burn.  They have long seen Israel as a means to an end--the Jews need to run the land of Israel for Armageddon to happen.  They see Muslims as not human and worthy of a new crusade, which is not really a great foundation for the US to work with some Muslim countries against other ones.  

Third, besides being wrong for all kinds of value reasons, it is also toxic for the US military.  That the majority of the US military is not this radical version of Christian (well, maybe the Air Force is) means that this Christian nationalism is divisive, far more divisive than gays in the military or women in the Marines.  This Christian nationalism seethes with contempt for the non-believers, which is why so many complaints get sent so quickly.

Which gets to our moment.  Hegseth has done for Christian nationalism in the military what Trump did for racism in the American public--he changed the permission structure.  Now it is ok to be an officer and invoke the language of Christian nationalism as part of one's job, to inflict it upon one's subordinates, just like Trump (and Fox) made it ok to be racist in public.  Hegseth was wildly unqualified for many reasons, but his Christian nationalism made him disqualified--he should never have been confirmed by the Senate.  Why?  Because he would eventually poison the military with his toxic ideology.

So, it is bad to purge the military of senior Black and female officers and replace with yes-dudes.  But that may or may not trickle down all the way.  But empowering the Christian nationalists is probably worse as it will affect everyone and everywhere.  

What happens if reason wins and the Dems come back into power?  How will they stuff the toxic toothpaste back in the tube?  Will they have to go through the US military and remove all of the Christian nationalists?  I am in Brazil right now, and they can't simply remove all pro-Jan8th military personnel--they were the same uniforms as everyone else.  The damage that Hegseth and Trump are doing to the military, like the damage done elsewhere, will simply be very, very difficult to undo, even if the Dems can get big enough majorities to impose their will and, yes, have the guts to do what is necessary.

As always, the big tragedy here, besides the death of innocents, is that it didn't have to be this way.  I hate the term war of choice as we should use clearer, stronger language--war of aggression maybe--but Hegseth was a choice that didn't have to be made.  The larger issue of the infiltration of the US military by Christian nationalists is not really a one-person story, of course, but Hegseth empowered these haters.  And now we have the lastest awful day in US civ-mil history. 

 

Kitzbuhel Rocks

 I am on my way home for a brief layover to pack and do errands before heading to Brazil for the next case study for the Defense Agency project, and I wish I could have stayed longer.  Kitzbuhel was a pretty cool place to ski when it was snowing wet flakes and with limited visibility.  It was a terrific place when the clouds entirely departed.  Yesterday, we got th
e bluest day possible, rivaling some sweet blue sky days I have had elsewhere.  The snow was spring-ish as the temps were rising.  I have limited spring snow experience, and now I have much more.

The key to this great day of skiing was realizing that all of the bumps (no designed moguls here, but lots of traffic through melting snow made for many bumps) were easy to navigate as I could go around or through.  My sister noticed I became more and more aggressive as the day went along, pushing through the bumps, trying as much as possible to stay in rhythm, using the bumps t
o change direction.  

This part of the Alps are beautiful as it turns out.  The setup was good, with lots of lifts, although the chair/gondola balance was not as skewed towards gondolas at Saalbach.  Still, mostly very comfy, leather, heated seats (we didn't need the heat at all).  There were occasional lift lines that were not nearly as bad as they looked, so maximum wait was 10 minutes.  My sister hired a guide who took us all over the right side of the place--we only took the big gondola to the distant mountain once just to see it--we didn't have enough time or energy to ski there. 

The terrain was quite good--mostly wide slopes with some decent steepish parts.  Too many traverses.  The ridges were fantastic--great views and not windy.  The only big challenge of the day was the traffic.  I don't think I have been surrounded by as many skiers as I was yesterday.  So, most of my thinking yesterday was not about technique but tactics--when to stop and when to start and on which side to avoid the many bodies. 

I enjoyed the very short slalom course that was built for kids (I banged my helmet trying to enter the course area) and got smoked by a teenager who left the gate before I was set:

 I could have worn one less layer--but I have no real spring skiing style experience.  So, I was pretty warm.  

Our guide showed us the famous Hannankahm race course, and we did a very tiny piece of it.  

  

Now that I am on the way home, I now have to figure out where Saalbach and Kitzbuhel rank.  I definitely enjoyed them more than my previous Austrian experience at Zurs and Lech.  I think, putting aside having more fun since I had a ski buddy on this trip, Zermatt and S/K compete.  Both had amazing views,varying terrain, great chalets on the slopes, and lots of good slopes for my ability.  S/K were easier to navigate with better signage and better design.  I think I liked the terrain at Saalbach better, but I would have to do more at Kitzbuhel to be sure.  One more day would have really helped with the comparative analysis.

In terms of ski towns, Zermatt was better but not much better than K and both are better than Saalbach.  Zermatt benefits in part by its proximity to Italy--Italian food is much better than Austrian, athough I enjoyed several apfelstrudels and one wonderful Kaiserschmarrm.  

I guess the big test is where would I want to go back the soonest, and the answer is Hokkaido.  But if Japan is out, then probably Kitzbuhel for more exploration and to address my completion fixation/FOMO, then Saalbach and then Zermatt, but recency bias is a hell of a thing. 

One last thing--this is a very bad year for avalanches in Europe and North America.  The a-alert level was 4 on a 5 point scale, so people couldn't go off piste.  We did see some spots were mini, controlled avalanches occurred. 

 The only danger I faced were the crowds, who I mostly avoided, and a slipping ski buddy on the lifts, and that, well, was a closer thing.  While I am tired, I only have a slightly sprained finger and am ready for two weeks of asking interesting folks a bunch of pesky questions.  But first: two flights home and a heap of laundry.

 

 

 

 

 

Austrian Alps 2: Electric Bugaloo

 This week, I am getting my second chance to enjoy Austrian skiing.  Two years ago, I had a good time at Zurs and Lech despite meh snow.  That trip was a short hop from where I was staying in Berlin.  Last year, I made a similar hop from Berlin to Zermatt in Switzerland. This year, I am joining my sister, her guy, his daughter, and some of their friends in two ski areas--Saalbach-Hinterglemm and Kitzbühel.  Today was moving day from the former to the latter.  

I am my sister's ski buddy since her boyfriend likes to go off-piste or hang on the black diamonds (although in Europe, that is simply black with blues being easy and red being intermediate).  So, the two of us did a pretty good job of exploring the place.  The lift system (more in a second) connects many peaks, so there is much terrain to cover.  The first day we did zones D and E by ourselves.   The second day we had a guide, who had to change things on the fly as some of the upper lifts were closed due to the winds, so we did some of C, B, D, and G.  The third day, we had a lunch planned far away, so we got to it by going up B, across A through I to L and then back via H, G, and D.  We mostly missed F and L.  So, I guess I need to come back to satisfy my FOMO/completion fixation.  We did red runs the first day, mostly blue the second, and more blues on the third.  The conditions tended to make all of this a bit more challenging with flat light much of the time, limited visibility some of the time, and very uneven snow.   

Overall, it was a blast.  The slopes tended to be quite wide so one can choose one's own adventure, which was handy as some of the spots had a heap of traffic.  Susan has gotten better so we skied pretty quickly.  I skied much better the third day--the snow at the top was fantastic and the visibility was great, so I could get into rhythm and keep a decent form.  The chalets all had very different designs but pretty similar Austrian food for the most part.  We took hot chocolate rest stops on days 1 and 3.  

The lifts, well, damn.  There were probably more gondolas than chairlifts, and nearly all of both had heated leather seats, and the chairs all had bubbles--plastic shields--to keep us out of the wind, snow, and, yes some rain.  This complex of trails had better signs than pretty much any other place I have ever skied and definitely better than my two previous Euro ski trips.

The surroundings were pretty, but didn't match Zermatt or Whistler, but much better than Zurs/Lech.  With the sun finally coming out yesterday afternoon, it was much easier to appreciate the area. 

Hinterglemm is a small town--with a string of towns along this valley.  It was easy to navigate, but there was not much there.  Short walks to the lifts on either side, which made the start and the end of the day great.  My sister's guy did excellent research and found excellent places to eat.  The places on the slopes were also good, but Austrian food would not finish in my top ten--too heavy.  However, the striudel was consistently terrific. 

The most important measure of a place is whether I want to come back, and I do.  I have two days to ski in Kitzbühel.  I am familiar with the name of this place due to its role in downhill skiing, but no other knowledge than that.  We will have a guide showing us the highlights tomorrow.  

Susan is the best ski buddy.  And, yes, I continue 
to wear the spikes so that she can follow me easily.
We did run into a woman who had a similar helmet
cover.