IR is Not Fair

Nor is it a meritocracy.  Somaliland is functional yet unrecognized.  Somalia is the epitome of a failed state but has a seat at the UN.  Still, we should say to Somaliland: Happy Birthday!!  The linked piece is an excellent short summary of the accomplishments of Somaliland with comparison to Somalia.

Does the fact that nobody recognizes Somaliland mean that I am wrong about the vulnerability thesis?  That is, I have long argued that countries are not so restrained by the fear of secession and are willing to support secessionists elsewhere (see my dissertation, really, go ahead, we can wait.  Ok, just buy my first book).  Um, not quite.  I argued that countries will support secessionists if they feel as if it is in their interests, especially domestic political ones, and that vulnerability to secession will not restrain them.

So, the question I have to answer is why no one is compelled to support Somalia.  The problem with the ethnic ties argument (again, see my dissertation, my book, and nearly everything I wrote before 2009) is that it is indeterminate in this case.  That is, nearly anyone that has ethnic ties to the folks in Somaliland also have ties to Somalia as the major differences between the two hunks of land are not racial, religious, or linguistic (perhaps a bit linguistic but not much), but of kinship (clan) and of history (pre-1960, the Brits colonized the north and the Italians the south).*

*  Is it an accident that the most dysfunctional part of Somalia was previously ruled by the Italians?  I am not suggesting or implying that.  Just noting the correlation.

 So, fear of vulnerability can trump ethnic politics because ethnic politics is not pushing anyone to do anything.
Still, folks are willing to see Sudan fall apart, so why not recognize Somaliland at last?  Because international relations is not about merit (we can suggest other realms are also merit-free, lets move on).  Taiwan is more functional than 97% of the countries in the UN, but China says nay. 

Anyhow, let's all celebrate Somaliland's birthday by not recognizing it happening.   Ooops.

Show Me the Money!

Or not.  So, we now have the numbers to show that social scientists are not keeping up with inflation.  Not surprising in an era of furloughs and freezes.  I cannot complain too much as McGill has delayed but not frozen pay increases. 

But this reminds us that we are not in this business for the big bucks.  With the decline of tenure track positions, lifetime job security may become less of an incentive.  I have always told aspiring PhD students that one must have a passion for the stuff--an unquenchable curiosity to understand the political world around us. 

Of course, I am writing this while sitting in the audience of a panel at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is funded by one of the guys behind Blackberry.  The building is stunning--former Seagram's whiskey brewery.  So, there is some money in this business, and I have been spoiled by having access to grant money to travel to Europe and Australia, plus a defence dept junket to Afghanistan.  And I am not paid a pauper's wages.  So, life is pretty good even if my car was rammed by a school bus.

Yet, we must worry about the future of social science.  If wages decline and tenure is not longer a realizable dream, who will become the next generation of scholars who study politics, society, and the way of the humans?  Luckily, we have developed a system that takes advantage of the dreamers, promising a career that may not exist for much longer. 

Ah, the bus accident has depressed me.  The good news is that the current generation of grad students can find jobs if they work really hard, develop interesting projects and present themselves well.  There are no guarantees, but two of my students did get good tenure track positions this past fall.  I have reasonably realistic expectations about the next ones.

The attractions of the job remain--freedom to explore one's interests, to interact with college students who inquire and push and amuse, to have communal bosses with much slippage (departments cannot control individuals nearly as well as individual bosses in corporations can make people miserable), to control one's schedule and shape how one uses their time. 

It has never really been about the money.  We just have to remember that while we pay for our DVR and our new smartphones and our wifi access.

Canada is Bad for Cars

Regular readers and irregular ones can ignore this week's likely theme of bitterness about cars and Canada, but it is my party blog and I can cry rant if I want to.  When moving to Canada, if I thought about cars at all, it would have been about wondering how the winters might impact the cars--salt, potholes, slipping and sliding away, and all that. 

But, nay, the big threats to cars here in Montreal, aside from chunks of crumbling overpasses, are: thieves and school buses.  If your car gets stolen (warning: do not park in the parking lots for the commuter trains--a bazaar for car thieves), the replacement may get crushed by a bus.  The only good news is that snow plows only seem to kill pedestrians.  So, no worries there for my next car.  I hope.

Yes, I am miffed.  I went almost thirty years between accidents.  The first one was my fault.  This one--I was moving so slowly as I approached the stop sign that I could not dodge, dip, duck, dive or dodge.  The bus driver was so blasé, like he careened off of small cars all the time.  And car shopping in Montreal is such a pleasure.  Closed on weekends, they tend not to be that interested in selling cars, which is actually worse than the hyper-active car salesman one tries to hide from while checking out cars in the US.

The funny thing is that we were thinking of replacing our other car--since it is about as old as our 16 year old dog.  But nope, now we have to replace the young (7 years old) car.  

Ok, enough ranting for the day. 

Getting Published

Here is a good short piece on submitting to journals.  And one should take note of the dual definition of submit: giving the piece to the journal for review AND then doing whatever the reviewers want once you get a revise and resubmit.  Submit as in given in, surrender your ego, and suck it up.  Perfectionists and purists have something in common--they don't get published much.  It is, indeed, a social science--we learn from each other as we try to persuade each other that our ideas are interesting and our arguments are persuasive.  If the folks who read one's stuff are unconvinced, then one needs to consider what it takes. 

And less literature review, as this piece suggests and as I have ranted, might just be one way to go.  Yes, you may alienate a potential reviewer for not citing his or her stuff, but putting all potential reviewers to sleep to minimize the risk of offending a potential ego-centric reviewer is never a good idea.  True, there are heaps of people who are ego-centric who might be your reviewer, but all of us can fall asleep.  Best to go with the odds--and make it interesting and not bore the reader with endless review. 

Mission Creeper

I was highly amused by this quote, reported in MILNEWS.ca:

“Mulling an extended mandate for Canadian Forces in the Libyan war zone will be a top priority issue for the new crop of MPs. Parliament is set to begin June 2 — just two weeks before the current mission is scheduled to end on June 16. NDP MP and foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the Official Opposition is not opposed to a possible extension beyond the three-month mandate, but he wants a more defined role and greater emphasis on diplomatic and humanitarian objectives. “I’m not suggesting that we’d say no, but it would have to be something we would look at and want it to be a role for Canada to play,” he told iPolitics. “We’re all concerned about mission creep.” ….”

Um, the NDP is going to need to get its act together: right now the mission is about bombing--focusing on diplomacy and humanitarian objectives would be an extension of the effort: mission creep.

But, of course, this makes sense.  The party has usually taken pacifist positions, so supporting a bombing campaign is a bit out of character, even if it is the most sincere application of Responsibility to Protect.  The challenge is how to support the removal of Qaddafi when the big Q refuses to go away non-violently?  While there is a role for humanitarian efforts, such as providing shelter to those who flee and dropping food and medicine to the "liberated" parts of Libya, I am confused as to what would be the diplomatic effort.  That is, sure, Canada needs to continue to work with NATO, the US, France, and so on to coordinate the effort, but Qaddafi is not interested in bargaining and has proved to be less than credible.  So, saying that we need to do more diplomatic stuff is a way to be critical without offering any insight or potential improvements.

But we must cut the NDP a break--they are new to being the second largest party, and most of the MPs in all of the parties don't have much expertise on foreign and defence policy.  Before this past election, holding the government accountable on defence meant obsessing about detainees rather than about the quality of the effort in Afghanistan.  Again, a simple symbolic stand* rather than actually pushing the government to take seriously questions about the mission itself.

*  I don't want to say that detainee abuse is not important or that the Conservative government has not ducked accountability on this.  Just that the mission itself is far more important than this one aspect, especially since the question is not of Canadians abusing detainees or sub-contracting abuse a la rendition, but just facing the difficult situation of doing COIN in a country that has a history of barbarous treatment of prisoners. 

Where is the Canadian Richard Lugar?  Maybe I will find one while wondering around Ottawa next month.

Excuse of the Week

If I blog less, sound strange or just odd this week, it is because I got hit by a bus.  A fully laden school bus:

I thought it was a glancing blow at first.  Well, it was for the bus.  Not so much for my car.  I am ok, but dazed not so much by the impact but by the silliness of it all.  I was coming a stop sign, and was actually slowing down almost to a stop.  Well, I did stop about 6-7 meters from the stop sign as the bus driver made a left turn cutting the corner so much that he cut off my car's front corner.  Good times.  I hope the kids in the bus are ok.  They didn't seem all that bothered by it. 

Now is the plug for Allstate.  They did a great job when our car was stolen--we got enough cash back to buy this green car.  We shall see whether my seven-eight year old Mazda is totaled or not.  It did not start afterwards....

Anyhow, that is my strange story of the week and my excuse for the short term for any and all mistakes I make.

Ironic Separatists

I love that the Parti Quebecois is thrilled that the Scottish Nationalist Party won a majority of seats in the Scottish parliament with a promise of a referendum on independence sometime down the road.  The PQ is seeing the Scots as a model, which is the delightful irony.  Why?  Because the PQ has won majorities in provincial elections before and then sometimes launching referenda on independence and then losing.  Yes, it is historic that the SNP won, but it was apparently in part a protest vote against Tories and the austerity measures.  Real enthusiasm for Scottish independence is below.... wait for it ....  50%! 

So, the PQ is happy to have company.  Terrific, there can be more than one regional nationalist party that promises independence but fails to reach it!  The more, the merrier, right?

I guess the PQ is desperate for good news in the aftermath of the decimation* of the Bloc in the federal elections.  Not only that, but despite how miserable the provincial Liberals have performed, they have narrowed the gap with the PQ a bit AND Charest is still seen as a more attractive candidate than the PQ's Marois. 

* and no, that is not the correct use of the word as it would imply the Bloc losing 10% of its seats rather than, ahem, 90%. 

So, woo-hoo, Scots!  But don't count on a successful referendum there, PQ.  The SNP may just be re-enacting Quebec's past but with a delightful Scottish accent.

Monday Book Review

I finished a couple of books over the past few week, and I have been blog a few thoughts.  But it has been a busy few weeks with Osama, Canadian elections, a new column at Current Intelligence and the end to a pretty fun TV season.

So, first, I read Bing West's book on Afghanistan, The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan.  As others have noted, the last part of the title is almost entirely missing from the book.  There is no new way out here.  But I will get to that in a minute.  The best part of the book is West's incredible effort to live with and document the experiences of American troops in some of the toughest spots in Afghanistan: Kunar and Helmand.  Grit, indeed.  West shows his own grit and and that of the Americans in harm's way.  He also does an excellent job of showing many of the contradictions involved in this war--trying to build up local capacity while distrusting the Afghan government.  He also shows quite clearly how under-manned the US is in the East.  There are simply not enough troops to hold enough ground out there.  It would have been nice for him to contrast that with Southern Afghanistan, where there is some progress (sustainable or not) in large part because that is where the commitment has been made of late.

It would have been nice for West to hang out with some of the other contingents, if only to help out my research agenda.  

West is quite critical of the war, especially of the civilians running it.   I think it s kind of strange that West notes many of the challenges but does not seem to recognize that the leaders have faced a series of bad alternatives.  There is no magic solution for getting Pakistan to be more helpful (we are constantly reminded), for instance.  Likewise, fighting a war against an enemy that seeks to endanger the civilians presents all kinds of challenges.  This has lead to fairly onerous procedures for calling in air-support.  But the alternative of dropping bombs in a carefree way seems a mistake as well.  Again, there are tradeoffs with no easy choices, but West does not seem to get that. 

And the choice is not really between killing and giving assistance. Population centric warfare involves a fair amount of "kinetic" efforts--killing the Taliban to clear and then hold.  So, rather than posing a false alternative between aid and fighting as West does, we need to figure out what kind of aid to deliver, how to deliver it, and fight the fight at the same time.

West ends with only a few pages on the "Way Out."  Negotiations will not work because we are not strong enough, he says I guess that leads training the Afghans, but the argument becomes distracted at the end.  The reality is that we are doing that already--every NATO contingent is now saying that it is focused on training so that the Afghans can do the job. But it requires some security for that to happen, which means that ISAF cannot thin down very quickly.

Finally, I cannot hep but get upset at the usual canard: "Our mistake in Afghanistan was to do the work of others for ten years...."  Ten years?  Really?  No, the US did not take this effort seriously until the past couple of years.  LTG Barno was told by Rummy in 2003-04 not to do counter-insurgency and then replaced him with someone who would not violate expectations. 

So, I would recommend this book for its depiction of modern combat in a difficult spot.  But not for its policy recommendations, as West notes all of the conflicting pressures and challenges, and then ignores them when it comes time to his recommendations.

West constantly notes that the Afghans are not standing up for themselves.  Really? How big is the Afghan National Army these days?  The Afghan National Police?  Given that both of these are softer targets than the ISAF forces, the indigenous forces have been taking huge and frequent hits.  So, we need to be careful about saying that the Afghans are not staying up for themselves.  True, we are not getting as much actionable intel as we would like (although probably more than West recognizes).  Why?  We have a credibility problem, not so much a hearts and minds problem--we say we are going to leave sometime soon.  Even if we did not say it, they would still fear it.  So, why side with the US and its allies now when they will be gone in three or five  or ten years, and the bad guys will still be around?  Only if they believed that the Afghan government would show up and use its powers effectively and without abusing them does it truly make sense for the Afghans to get off of the fence.

It Gets Better

Who is more retrograde?  The military, finally ending don't ask, don't tell?  Or the sporting world, where a story like this is news?  For an NBA executive to have to hide his homosexuality is just appalling.  Good to see that Rick Welts has gotten heaps of support from the Commissioner, from Bill Russell, from Steve Nash, and others.  But, damn, this is a story that should have been told in the early 1990's.  But, no, we still have heaps of homophobes in and near the game, as Kobe Bryant proved earlier this season.  One can say that one does not mean anything by calling someone gay* or a faggot, but that just such bs.  We have a panoply of curse words and insults, so if the first one that comes to mind has to do with the sexuality of the man (or woman), that says far more about the utter-er than the target. 

* Gay is still one of the standard insults in the chat box during online poker games.  Usually, it not only reveals that the player is immature but also a crappy poker player.  Holy tells, Batman!

Sure, I had homophobic attitudes when I was a teen and felt insulted when someone called me gay, but then I grew up.  Too bad more folks cannot just grow the hell up.  I hope that the efforts of Dan Savage and others will make a difference.  I will say that this ad campaign is moving and touches me every time I see it.  Surveys do show that attitudes are changing.  Better late than never?  Absolutely. 

Up in the Air: A Bird? A Plane? A Series Finale

Last night was the end of Smallville.  I have long been ambivalent about the show, as it has had much good stuff, but also heaps of lame.  Last night's episode appropriately had both, but it had enough chill scenes* that made it a good way to go out.

*  A scene that gives you goosebumps--from Bill Simmons's Sports Guy columns.

 Spoilers, of course, await below:

Over-Reacting to the Obvious

Canadian newspapers have been suggesting that we should be shocked and surprised that: (a) the US put some pressure on the Canadians to stick around in Kandahar; and (b) that Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he'd think about it. I wonder what this says about US-Canadian relations that these "revelations" via wikileaks are the best they can do.  Let's unpack this, shall we?

First, of course the US did not want Canada to leave Kandahar in July 2011.  For one thing, the Canadians have proven to be among the most reliable and effective troops in Afghanistan.  That may or may not be saying that much, given how many other countries have not been willing to deploy to the hardest parts of Afghanistan.  Moreover, it is one thing for the Dutch to leave since they had a government fall over this issue, but it is another thing for a stalwart ally like Canada to be an early departer.  So, the US didn't want the Canadians start a stampede towards the door.  So, no one but no one should be surprised the US wanted Canada to stay.  Even so, I remember op-eds and letters to the editor over the past couple of years with Canadians being upset that the US was asking the Canadians to stick around.  They should have taken it as a compliment.

Second, the articles on this "news" seem to suggest that Harper was being two-faced with the Canadian people--that he was saying no to anymore combat to the public but thinking about it in conversations with the Americans.  Given the outcome, a non-combat mission in relatively safer parts of Afghanistan, it should be pretty clear that Harper was more honest with the Canadians than the Americans. 

His comments appeared to give hope to U.S. officials that "the minority government of Prime Minister Harper may not have actually ruled out extending Canada's 2,800-member military contingent, including combat forces, in Kandahar beyond 2011."

This gets to the larger points about wikileaks: (a) governments will soft-pedal their resistance to requests so that the relationships are not damaged; (b) the US diplomats reporting stuff back home may be wrong.  Harper told the Americans that he would think about it--that is hardly a commitment of any kind.  It was a way to put off the Americans without making any kind of commitment at all.  The Americans, guilty of wishful thinking, sent back reports that suggested that the Canadians would change their minds.  They should have (and probably did) sent back reports observing that domestic dynamics and Harper's lack of enthusiasm for the mission would make an extension highly unlikely.  Indeed, wikileaks does not put out a complete set of cables--just those that would be most embarrassing.  So, the ones where the US diplomats accurately gauge the Canadian stance have not been released, if they exist.

Which gets to a larger point--if this is the kind of stuff that they think is most embarrassing and potentially harmful to the relationship (since that does seem to be the goal of wikileaks--to sow discord), then US-Canadian relations are pretty healthy.  If this "controversy" is the best they got, then perhaps US-Canadian relations are extremely boring.   Not a bad thing.

Xenophobia Trumps Euro-Elites

I have long been puzzled by how the European Union could make decisions that might face strong opposition within the various members.  Specifically, I did not speculate in my book with Bill Ayres about the domestic politics of the enlargement process, just that the conditionality was less than credible (countries were going to get in even if they fell short of the stated criteria).  But I did wonder: given that the new members would be contributing markets but sucking away resources, wouldn’t groups that benefited from the status quo oppose the new members?  And wouldn’t they be more passionate than those that might dream of benefiting from the new members?   Particularly those countries that were poorer off and benefiting from the Regional Funds that subsidized them, if they were no longer as poor (Ireland)?

So, I am not surprised that the European Union has hit the wall—almost literally.  The organization is backtracking on one of its fundamental aspects: borderless within.  It looks like border controls for migrants will be reinstated. 

• Driven by what?  The threat of small numbers of refugees flowing from the Arab Spring. 
• Driven by whom?  Italy and France seem to be in the lead, but also xenophobic parties in Denmark, the Netherlands and wherever else they serve as critical supporting parties for minority governments.

“Italy's anti-immigrant campaign is headed by the interior minister Robert Maroni, of the xenophobic Northern League in the Berlusconi coalition. The campaign in France is seen as an attempt by President Nicolas Sarkozy to dilute the growing appeal of Marine Le Pen, the new leader of the extreme Front National.”

Most EU members are in support of this effort.  Germany is resisting (so, for one of the few times this spring, Germany is on the right side of an issue—but then again, they have no xenophobic party of any size).  Of course, things are complicated because there are multiple decision-making authorities within the EU: a court, a legislature, a council of ministers and a commission.   So, this is not over. 

No, I do not take that much pleasure in either EU-setbacks or in xenophobia trumping other interests.  Ok, maybe a little bit of Schadenfreude, but not much, as I think Europe’s reactions to immigrants are a far greater threat to Europe’s values and stature than the immigrants themselves.  Just as North Americans fail to look to European models of health care to improve their own policies, Europe fails to consider how countries with a history of immigration have managed it.  Yes, it can be bumpy, but immigration will help their coming demographic crisis of aging populations.  Figuring it out may be hard, but I am not sure they have an alternative.

PS  Blogger was down for most of the day (and night?). Looks like they ate yesterday's posts....

Friday Night Lights Progress Report

I don't know if I am ahead or behind: FNL airs two days earlier in Canada than on NBC in the US BUT it aired last fall on Direct TV.  As I mentioned before, I am a big fan of the show.  And I am so thrilled by the most recent episode.  Why?

Warrior Dogs: Woof?

The mission to raid the Bin Laden compound has focused a lot of attention on the one dog apparently involved.  The use of dogs in Afghanistan and Iraq is not so much news, thanks in part to Rebecca Frankel's posts in Tom Rick's column.  Now the NYT has the warrior dogs featured on its website.

On the one hand, it is pretty cool that dogs and their noses bring heaps of talent to the fight, helping to deal with the various improvised explosive devices that riddle Afghanistan.  The idea of dropping a dog with its Special Operator into the compound is just inherently interesting.  And not just because following SealDog6 on twitter is nearly as amusing as following Drunken Predator.  But that does not hurt either.

The problem, of course, is that the dogs can and do get hurt and killed.  They may enjoy their training, but they have no free will in terms of choosing combat.  Perhaps this is no different than the good old days of using horses as part of the cavalry, but attitudes about animals have changed over the decades.  We mind that children are used as soldiers (a relatively new cottage industry has developed to study this phenomenon), and I am guessing that we will see a smaller but still passionate literature develop to address the dogs in combat. 

It is not that I am a card-carrying member of PETA.  I like to eat dead cows, pigs, and chickens; I wear leather shoes; and I have gone to circuses and zoos and seaworlds with only the occasional twinge of guilt.  I would love to swim with a dolphin (the Spew kid got to do that while I was busy conferencing in Hawaii a few years ago).  So, I am not automatically opposed to using dogs as assets in war, but I am squeamish.  Indeed, I am far more squeamish about using dogs in combat than about killing Bin Laden.  The latter chose his occupation--as leader of non-state violent actor in war against the U.S.  One of the risks of making that choice is a bullet in the head.  But dogs do not elect to join the all-volunteer professional army of the present day.  They are drafted. 

I do not know what to think.  Your thoughts?

More Internet Brilliance

After spending the day transcribing interviews, the internet is providing the comic relief:

This is in reaction to the orthodox Jewish newspaper that airbrushed Secretary of State Clinton out of the picture.  Instead:  sexually suggestive males are dropped.

Why A Slow Day at the Spew

Just go here:  http://bit.ly/l1y0uP.  Just brilliant.  And then read the comments.

Another Barrier Falls: Female Squids

Until very recently, the last big barrier* for women in the US Navy has been submarines.  Close quarters and all that.  Well, not any longer.  Officers first since that requires no modifications to the arrangements.  Still waiting for women to make into the formally ground combat jobs (they have already been serving in positions that put them in harm's way, just not the three main branches of the army).  But we have seen huge changes over the past ten years or so.  So, despite all of the frustration with the 21st century, it does not entirely suck.

* Unless one counts female Marines who cannot serve in infantry, armor or artillery.

Harry Potter Pic of the DaySimp

Simon Pegg re-tweeted this pic of a book supposedly found in a bookstore:

I wonder if there is anything scribbled inside.

Exceptionally What?

I admit that I have not been paying much attention to the whole "Obama denies American exceptionalism" stuff that has become the meat of GOP messaging.  I discounted it because I think it was utter crap, but that does not stop it from becoming covered and repeated and rinsed.  Richard Cohen has a pretty good take on it at the Washington Post. He notes the origins that focused on the opposition to socialism among the working class in the US, distinguishing the US from Europe.  He goes on to argue that there is lot that is exceptional about the US (meaning different, not better) such as a high murder rate, and then argues that the right wing is infusing the term with religious overtones:

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

 Obama upsets these guys for so many reasons, including his recognition that the US is flawed--that we must strive to perfect the Union even if the goal of a perfect Union is never reached. 

What drives me crazy is a different element of the narcissism--that we cannot and should not learn from the experiences of others  One of the things that drives me the craziest about the Canadians is that they only compare their health care system to that of the US, which means that they completely ignore better models elsewhere.  Well, the idea of American exceptionalism implies that the US is so different that we can learn little from elsewhere.  But the US is not the only Presidential system, it is not the only Federal system, it is not the only Great Power to have overextended itself, it is not the only country where immigration is at the center of its history, the US is not the only country to have a winning record when it comes to war (although the post WWII record has put a dent into that), the US is not the only country with a death penalty that is combined with an uneven justice system, and so on.

Yes, there are key differences, such as the US spending way more on defense spending than the remaining major powers combine, that the US military has far more reach than any other, that US consumers (even through this recession) are far more willing to buy foreign goods (which gives the US power), and so on.

But we can and should learn from other countries as the US does not have a monopoly on good ideas about governance, about accountability, about democracy, about regulating markets, etc.  The cry of American exceptionalism is an effort to do two things--return the US to an idealized past that never existed (yes, minorities must have loved the 1950's so much, before the Civil Rights movement, just to name one element) and that we cannot import ideas from elsewhere. 

This is really quite funny since I believe that Locke and the other philosophers who influenced the founders of the US were not from America.  Ooops, the founders were largely not from the US either.  Perhaps that is what American exceptionalism is all about--the acceptance of immigrants not just into the society but into the power structures of the country.*

* But, of course, other countries have immigrants rising high as well, but perhaps not as quickly or as frequently.

Superteam Activate

The internet is a wonderful thing. Latest proof:

From Josh Rogin (http://yfrog.com/gzlctaoj) via Abu Muqawama retweet.  I just have three corrections to make:

• that Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Spidey here) be portrayed as Superman or Mr. Fantastic--more of a leader rather than loner/teenager.
• that the guy in the Superman suit (Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command) should be Wolverine or somebody else sneaky since he is commanding the SOF guys--Nick Fury?
• Robert Gates, the SecDef, should be somebody else besides a Green Guy with whom we are unfamiliar.  Perhaps Iron Man due to the defense contracting ties or perhaps he should be Green Lantern.

I do like that both DC and Marvel are represented here, just as Obama has Republicans (Gates, mostl likely the military guys) along with Democrats on his team.

Is this too much analysis of a funny take on the instant-classic photo?  Absolutely. 

Amusing But Increasingly UnTrue Graphic of the Day

From DoghouseDiaries (HT to RC), which I am now going to have to check in on as it is a nice addition to the http://www.xkcd.com/ kind of cartoon universe.

Old Montreal, 2009 Champion of Montreal Grandmaster Tourney

But I must say that this is no longer an accurate depiction of ultimate as I am far from the only graybeard playing these days.  Sure, I am usually the oldest on my team, but lots of folks on my teams are beyond college now.  Plus the number of masters (32 and up or so) and grandmasters (40 and up) tournaments has been steadily increasing. 

I did not necessarily expect to be playing deep into my forties, but now that I have played with folks who are deep into their fifties, I hope to do the same.  If my body holds up, or at least enough of it does.  More ultimate is, indeed, more ultimate.

Jesus Made Me Fumble follow up

I blogged earlier about the invoking of deities to explain sports outcomes.  In today's Monday Morning QB column, Peter King mentions some things said by a sportswriter/pastor: David White in the same vein. 

White wrote a poignant final column for the paper Sunday that I wanted to take note of, because it has so many good points for those he leaves behind, both on the field and in the press box. Whether you're an atheist or a believer in a higher being, take a minute to read his column, particularly these bullet points about religion and sports, starting with the coach he formerly covered for the 49ers, Mike Singletary:
• "Thou shalt not wear a cross around your neck if you're going to verbally wring the neck of third-string quarterbacks and local sports anchors in full public view. The Scripture says to take up your cross, not nail everyone else to one. Represent or tuck it in.
• "When thou tear an ACL, don't say it's because God lets everything happen for a reason. There is a reason. A 320-pound defensive tackle landed on the back of your knee.
• "Thou shalt not thank God when only you win, and never when you lose. What, is it his fault that fourth-and-inches call was a few yards off? Did he fumble away the game-winning interception? The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.
• "Thou shalt absolutely not say your team won because it was God's plan. What does the Lord have against the other team? And why should God even care in a world of suffering how our games play out? Maybe you think He doubled down on your end of the Vegas line? He didn't.''

 Well said.

Vetting Works?

Obama also said “the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper, it meant that we had thought through all of our options.” NYT

 I really, really have to get back to work on a piece I have been thinking about since my time in the Pentagon, and President Obama has reminded me to get my act in gear--that a competitive marketplace of ideas within the government is a good thing, that bureaucratic politics is not always a bad thing.

Anyhow, that is for later this summer, two papers to go before I get to that one.  Oy.

They Call Me The Xenophile

Check out my new column at Current Intelligence.  Why is it called Xenophile? It is the opposite of xenophobe--I do not hate that which is foreign to me.  Instead, I am most curious about those things beyond my experience.  Such as writing a web-based column.  How is that different from this blog?  Much less frequent and perhaps no references to pop culture or ultimate.

Take a look and you can comment there or here to let me know if I am making sense.

A Marvel-ous Summer

I took the family to see Thor today.  This is part of my grand plan to see heaps of movies this summer yet avoid 3D as much as I can.  Of the three Marvel superhero movies this summer (Captain America and the new X-movie are the others), I was least excited about Thor.  I don't think I bought more than a handful of Thor comics in my youth, and I only sporadically followed the Avengers.  I did read some about Norse mythology way back when, so I am familiar with Odin, Thor, Loki, the rainbow bridge, Asgard and all the rest.  I knew that the movie would face a greater challenge than the other ones, since Thor is, after all, a god.

So, how did they do?  Spoilers beyond the bridge break:

An Academic Problem

The Chronicle of Higher Education has some great columns week by the collective known as ProfHacker.  I already posted about the review of one book, and this post has a list of books new profs should read.  What I find ironic is that while these books might be really, really useful, such a list ignores the reality that new profs have very little time to read books that are not related to their research agenda or that one is using to teach a course.  New profs, that is former grad students, have no clue about how to handle the chore of multi-tasking.  Sure, the books might help in teaching someone how to multi-task, but it is very hard to focus on the long-term benefits of reading such books when one is focused on the short-term effort not to drown.  Anyhow, I thought I wold note this irony while still promoting this list of books of that I have not read.

Will the Dark Side Rule Your Desinty?

Here is a short review of a general book that is supposed to be of much assistance to academics--how to deal with @ssholes in the workplace and not become one.  It has led me to ponder whether I have already crossed over to the dark side or not.  The good news is that the book provides an online quiz to help determine whether one is or is not an @sshole. 

The problem with the quiz is that most of the questions are true/false:

• You secretly enjoy seeing people suffer and squirm?  Not all people, but some? Um, yes.
  
• How about this one: "You are constantly “buttering-up” your boss and other powerful people, and expect the same treatment from your underlings."  I think my current and past chairs would comfortably say nope.
  
• Guilty:  "Your jokes and teasing can get a bit nasty at times, but you have to admit, they are pretty funny."  Not intended to be nasty and certainly not always funny.
  
• "People seem to stop having fun when you show up."  Mais non. [Although there was an @sshole at my first job that would flee during my second year there whenever I turned up, but that was more about him than me]

My score: 3: 0 to 5 “True”: "You don’t sound like a certified asshole, unless you are fooling yourself."  As I often write of misperception, I realize that I might, indeed, be fooling myself.

While some of the questions are focused on how others react to you, the quiz itself is kind of flawed because it requires one to address one's own perceptions, and isn't "@asshole-ness" a socially constructed identity?  That is, it depends on how others see you and react to you, not just your behavior, although behavior does influence the perception.  

I was very tempted in this quiz to answer "sometimes" or "to some people" as my behavior varies over time and depending on the person.  I turn the other cheek badly (I wanted Bin Laden dead).  While I do think some people fit into the category of always and some in the category of never, I think most folks are in the category of "it depends."  The real question is how to handle the folks who are always or nearly always, as I have mentioned before, the trick is how the community handles the bad folks.


I probably need to read this book, as my reactions to @ssholes almost certainly does not make things better.

World's Apart: Reactions to the Killing of Bin Laden

I am not a legal or moral scholar so I am ill-equipped to get into a sophisticated argument about the legalities of Bin Laden's demise.  Yet, I have to note that the sentiments in Europe (or at least Germany) are a stark contrast to those in the US.*  See here for a short review of the criticisms thus far. 

* Yes, there are Americans are who most critical of this, but not the mainstream.  Michael Moore proved himself out of the mainstream and out of touch by claiming that this is where the US lost its soul.  If the US had a soul to lose, it would have been lost after Dresden, after My Lai, after Iran-Contra, after the invasion of Iraq or the revelations of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, etc.  Moore is in desperate need of some perspective sauce.

My reactions to particular takes on this:

Der Spiegel, under the headline “Justice, American Style,” reports an expert’s view that it’s “questionable whether the USA can still claim to be engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaida.”

• The intel collected thus far suggests very much otherwise.  AQ never declared a cease-fire or surrendered.  Instead, it was still planning further attacks with Osama involved, at least at the conceptual level.

But Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann went even further. He alleges that the chancellor’s statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday.
“I am a law-abiding citizen and as a judge, sworn to justice and law,” the 54-year-old told the paper, adding that Merkel’s words were “tacky and undignified.”
In his two-page document, Uthmann, a judge for 21 years, cites section 140 of the German Criminal Code, which forbids the “rewarding and approving” of crimes. In this case, Merkel endorsed a “homicide,” Uthmann claimed.

• Huh. Merkel can be tacky, no doubt.  But going so far as to prosecute her for saying she is glad Bin Laden is dead?  Oh my.  How would this guy feel about Valkyrie?  The effort by German officers to kill Hitler?  Were they homicidal maniacs?  Yes, comparing Bin Laden to Hitler is a bit much, but they both committed mass murder and neither one declared any intent to cease and desist before they died. 

I would really like to see a poll taken of Europeans (I am sure this is already in the works): are you glad Bin Laden is dead? Do you approve of the US effort to kill Bin Laden?  I think the elites might just be out of touch with their populace.  I cannot help but note the contradictions--that Europeans Germans seem to be more upset that there are more Muslims in their society (almost entirely peaceful) and upset that the US killed the one Muslim (technically and avowedly but a bad one, given how many Muslims he helped to kill) who actually was responsible for killing significant numbers of Europeans (and Africans, Arabs, Americans, Australians, Indians, etc).

On the other hand, this is actually somewhat consistent.  After all, the Germans opposed the effort to take down Qaddafi (ok, Merkel did, the parties disagreed).  So, the basic approach is to let Muslim leaders kill Muslims, but that it is wrong for Americans to kill Bin Laden. 

I have not read the European press.  The piece linked above focuses solely on the Germans.  What are the Dutch, the Danes, the Poles, the Italians, the French, the Brits, the Spaniards, and all saying about this?  Will public opinion vary by which countries got hit by AQ terrorism?  After all, with regard to AQ, Germany has only hosted terrorists and have prevented all (or nearly all) attacks.  I doubt the Brits or the Spaniards feel quite the same way.

All I can say is that it is easy to be smug when one's hands are not near the wheel.  But when one has choices, very difficult ones, then you must make the best call possible.  Afghanistan and Pakistan always, always present us with a set of bad alternatives and the hard part is figuring out which is least bad.  The Obama administration faced a very difficult set of choices.  Better lucky than good, although on that night, the troops (and dog) were both. 

Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust?

Al Qaeda has acknowledged on its websites that Bin Laden is dead.  So, will that deal a, ahem, deathblow to the Deathers who deny that the US killed Bin Laden?  Probably not so much as Truthers never took Bin Laden and folks at their word.  Conspiracy theories do not die, because the zealots who buy into them are very good at ignoring reality.  Always easier to hold onto a belief than try to fit uncomfortable bits of reality into one's world view. 

So, just as Obama's long-form birth certificate only convinced some folks, AQ statements about the death of Bin Laden may not be bought by the Deathers.  Still, for those who can be persuaded, this acknowledgment is significant.  Confirmation is not a bad thing at all.  I just wanted to point out that it will not convince everyone. 

Dive! Dive! Dive!

I find this video to be wonderfully strange:


Why?  Because laying out for the frisbee, on offense or defense, has been a part of my game for as long as I have played.  You see, I have no ups but plenty of downs.  That is, I cannot jump very high, but have long been willing and eager to throw myself horizontally at a flying disk.  Not something that everyone is willing to do.  I never trained to do it.  It just happened---I was reaching for a disk and focusing so much that I extended myself as far as I could go.  As a result, I find it funny that step three here is focus on the disk.  That is step one.

The video also raises a long-debated issue--front first or side first?  I have almost always dived with my body turning over, so that I hit on a shoulder blade (nearly always the right one, and then slide across a diagonal from top right shoulder blade across my back to my left hip. My favorite grass strains come from such a pattern of impact.  People argue that you are most likely to blow out a shoulder that way, but the folks I know who have broken a collarbone or popped out their shoulder were those who dive more like Superman--chest first.  I also think that if it is about extending reach, then it leads one to reach more with one hand than the other, naturally causing the body to go on its side. 

Injuries from diving? Well, besides getting kicked in the face once or twice, the most frequent injury would be scrapes--on my forearms so that they now have scars where I repeatedly land, on my hips (though UnderArmor prevents those mostly), knees, and such.  I did get a hand stepped on last year, which did more damage to my wedding ring (now it is more oblong) than to my finger.  Perhaps I should not jinx it by saying that I have never hurt my shoulders by laying out.

Yes, I take pride in it.  Nothing feels better than laying out to block a pass.  Not even laying out to catch a scoring pass.  Most of my laying out these days is catching errant dump passes, but I occasionally will layout on defense and stop a pass.  My favorite layout of my ultimate career came early--my third year at Oberlin, I believe, maybe fourth, at a big game in a tournament at Ohio State, playing the big school that we had either never or rarely beat.  Twas late in the game, Gabe Brownstein attempted a Hammer throw (which was just making its way into Ohio in the late 1980's) towards me while I was in the endzone.  I had to stop suddenly and dive backwards to catch it since it was behind me by a good bit.  I caught for the penultimate score of the game, if I remember correctly. The team was most impressed.

I am not sure I would teach someone how to dive.  I would just encourage folks to play on wet fields since impacting on a soft, sliding surface (a la the slip and slide in the video) is far easier than on a hard-packed surface.  Field turf is actually ok, if you have Underarmor type gear covering elbows and hips. 

My only regret--a narcissistic one: while there have been pictures and videos of games in which I have played, I have never seen tape of any of my dives.  Mostly, I just see myself throwing (which is about 95% of my game).

Bin Laden's Last Bequest

I probably should not overestimate Bin Laden's cleverness, but might it be possible that he located himself near Pakistani military institutions deliberately so that if he were found and killed that it would upset US-Pakistani relations and destabilize Pakistan?  Is that giving OBL too much credit? 

The larger point is that it cannot be unintentional to put his hidey-hole McMansion/compound next to the Pakistan military academy.  There was some intention--we just don't know what it was.  Perhaps the food is especially good here?  The sunsets?  The hiking trails?  I have no clue, but there will be heaps of speculation about this.

For a sharper take than anything I can provide, see Chris Fair's piece* at, yes, you guessed it, foreignpolicy.com.  Also, see Vali Nasr's* op-ed: "If history is any guide, Pakistan cannot be relied upon to make the right decision. In the coming weeks, Islamabad is likely to hunker down in reaction to bin Laden’s death and then go after the CIA’s eyes and ears around Pakistan."

* This raises a completely different question--do I like certain stuff because I have met the people, or do I meet the people because I like their stuff?  Well, the cases of these two people, I met them more or less accidentally, so no intentionality there.  Moreover, I really do not know squat about Pakistan (despite appearing on local radio yesterday to talk about it) so it cannot say that I like their takes because they confirm my beliefs--my beliefs are embryonic.

Best Cameo Ever?

My wife and I watched Piranha 3D (without the 3rd D) at home recently and were stunned by the following cameo:

Best Illustration of CA Election Du Jour

To be fair, McGill students can handle their own noses, thanks.

Better Explanation of CA election

Cannot show here, but go to this link and see for yourself.

What Happened in Quebec and Why I Care

Ian MacDonald of the Montreal Gazette has a pretty good analysis of what happened--why the Bloc got crushed. That Duceppe could not use Quebec grievances effectively.  That he tried to play up the difference between the Bloc and NDP at the end--that a referendum and separation were priorities with the ushering out of Jacques Parizeau, the old nationalist diehard--just told people that the Bloc didn't have much of a message.

Why? Because Quebec's grievances are largely those of any federal unit.  The big grievances that distinguish the distinct society of Quebec from the rest of Canada have been addressed: Quebec controls its own immigration process, it controls education, it enforces language laws to preserve the superiority of French, it now gets significant subsidies from the federal government, and Quebec is now much better off economically and politically than it was twenty or thirty years ago.  The nationalist movement won nearly all of its objectives, so Duceppe as leader of the Bloc could not really articulate a party platform to attract votes.

The only thing left is secession--which Quebeckers mostly do not want.  How do we know this?  Because the Bloc got thrashed when it became the big difference between the Bloc and the NDP.  The NDP pandered like no one's business, as I tweeted and blogged about.  The promises were mostly permissive not active--that they would recognize a referendum result pretty easily, not that they would be part of a separatist campaign. So, the more desperate the Bloc became (bring out the old dinosaurs), the more folks voted for others.  It was not just that the NDP did very well, but that less than a quarter of Quebeckers voters for the Bloc.  Wow.

Why am I opposed to Quebec separatists or sovereigntists?  Why do I care about these results?  Yes, I am anglophone American who teaches at McGill.  I don't actually think a referendum in the near to medium term would be successful so I am not worried about a McGill in the independent country of Quebec.  No, what worries me is that the nationalist competition (the competition between the sovereigntists and everyone else) does great damage to Quebec, especially when it intensifies.  During a referendum campaign, the economy gets sucked into the vortex as property values go down, people flee, investment declines with all of the uncertainty.  In normal times, the nationalist discourse serves to distract the population from quality governance.  Occasionally, the Parti Quebecois says it needs to consider good government (after it became a third party for a few years), but how well the PQ would govern is not the priority.

The problems of Quebec day are not in Ottawa--they are in Quebec City and they are in Montreal.  We here suffer from incredibly poor governance and steep corruption--much more money comes into the governments here than we get out of it in the way of good public services.  The roads and bridges are the most obvious indicator of all of this.  But we fail to hold the politicians accountable because we get distracted by who takes what stands on the nationalist issue.  The current mayor won re-election because, in part, the major opposition party was led by a separatist who had run and legislated against Montreal.  If there was no nationalist obsession, perhaps Montreal could get a decent mayor rather than one who only notices corruption when he only gets a third of the vote.  And then actively spikes efforts to deal with it anyway.

So, yes, I am pretty stirred up.  It is only party because I speak English.  It is only partly because I am a scholar of separatism and I know that Quebec's grievances are nothing compared to those of separatists elsewhere.  But it is mostly because the politics of nationalism do not do the Quebeckers any favors any more.  Yes, it used to do so, but not now.  They won.  Declare victory and move on to focus on providing good government.  Please!  My car's shock absorbers are begging for it.

And Quebec?

It is strange to watch my lefty Anglophone friends despair at the election results and suggest that they might support separation rather than be in a Conservative-majority run Canada.  This was the reaction I was least expecting, but, as always, things are funky here in Quebec.

My first reaction to this claim is to stress that democracy means winning AND losing.  The key way to measure whether a country has democratized is whether a country has gone through two changes in power.  That is, elections are not the real measure of a democracy, but the willingness to accept losing and waiting until the next one (or the one after that) to come back into power.  The hallmark of the Quebec separatists has been not to accept the verdicts of the past--losing two referenda.  Indeed, the striking thing about Duceppe's statement after losing his supposedly safe seat (while his party got crushed) was his saying that he knows to accept the verdict here, unlike 1980/1995.  Anyhow, I say to my Conservative-fearing Quebec friends that they can stomach the bad times.  After all, the only way to win all the time is if one games the system.  Not a good thing.  So, you take the bad with the good.  Having a Conservative majority means that Harper will have to be accountable the next time around. 

My second reaction is to remember a conversation with Jacob Levy about the Bloc--that it assured Quebeckers that they had some voice in Ottawa.  Now that voice is gone.  Ooops.  So, this election produces mixed signals and results for the cause of separation.  The Bloc was obliterated so that suggests that enthusiasm for sovereignty and referenda is, um, down, right?  Quebeckers supported a national party that pandered to them--the NDP.    So, the NDP could be a long-standing replacement for Quebec nationalism?  Um, no.  I am not sure if the NDP will dry up and blow away like the ADQ did, but relying on McGill undergrads (pretty cool, right!) is perhaps not a sign of a strong bench.  So, will a new or old Quebec separatist party emerge to compete for seats at the Federal level?  Absolutement (that would be yes).  This leads to the next issue.

The bigger question is: will Harper act in ways that antagonize Quebec nationalists and fuel the fire of the secessionist movement?  Um, don't know yet.  He may be less defensive and more accommodating without having to worry about no confidence votes or he may become more aggressive and push policies that antagonize Quebec folks.   Don't know yet. 

My third reaction is actually my first one--schadenfreude.  Any separatist energy has temporarily been sucked out the window.  It will come back, but winning conditions for a refenendum?  Not in sight.

More jumbled thoughts to come as my mind jumps back and forth from Canada to a Mc-Mansion in Pakistan.

Canadian Spring

I am not an expert on Canadian politics, but, as this blog testifies, a lack of expertise has never stopped me before.  So, here are my thoughts on the second night of surprises this week.  I will explain the title later, but first consider the parties in turn and the historic outcome.

1. The Tories failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  This was most out of character.  I guess Harper was right to limit the number of questions he would answer per day to five.  This is a horrible precedent to set, but really shows what a crappy job the other parties did of putting Harper on the defensive.  If they had pushed harder and been more creative/clever, then Harper would have had to speak more.   Instead, he didn't have to worry.  He didn't necessarily control the agenda during the campaign, but none of the other parties really did either.  
2. The NDP came in second, which came to be expected towards the end of the campaign, but did far better than anyone had a right to expect.  What were the keys to success?
1. Not being the Liberals or the Bloc.
2. Jack Layton.  The most dynamic, interesting, and Prime Ministerial of the candidates (Harper included).
3. Having Orange as their color finally paid off.  Sure, they could not build rhyming slogans around their color, but their opponents could not come up with nasty songs and rhymes either.  Good defensive color scheme.
4. Building on a young group of McGill current and former students in Quebec.  Yes, four students (three current, one former) won seats in Parliament.  I had three of them in my classes (which is not hard since I teach a 600 student intro to IR class every fall).  I just hope one of them lands on foreign or defence committees.
5. They effectively pandered.  They promised Quebeckers to open up the constitution, to respect a referendum without concern for its clarity (contrary to exiting law and Supreme Court rulings), and only posted signs in Quebec en francais. 
3. The Liberals are so very toasted.  When your leader is described as Kerry-esque, that cannot be a good thing.  In so short of a time frame, the party went from dominating the political system election after election to a minority government to leading opposition to afterthought.  Why?  Well, the last two PM candidates have had zero charisma, the party is still paying the price for past scandals, and their party platform this time around focused almost solely on their not being the Tories.  Not a very positive program.  And the series of elections over the past several years apparently bankrupted them. 
4. The Bloc?  Oh my.  From starting the campaign with dreams of having even more seats in the province and "proving" that the public favors sovereigntist parties down to two seats.  Hard to believe that the Bloc could do worse than the Liberals, but they did.  Why?  The argument has been that Quebeckers want strong representation in Ottawa to protect the province's interests.  It was not surprising, too much, to see Liberal voters abandon their party and go to the NDP, apparently Quebeckers did not find the Bloc protection either effective or necessary (don't really know which yet).  More on Quebec in a bit.

I think there are two big keys to this election:

Don't Mess with The Big O

Check out this picture.  Everybody is seriously intense.  And it shows how small the situation room appears to be.  But the look on Obama's face--I would not mess with him.  And the one star AF general is sitting but the four-star admiral (Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is standing?  That is what makes this picture look quite natural and not staged.  Otherwise, the Chairman would be sitting next to and not behind Obama.

You may like or dislike Obama, but you cannot really argue that he does not take this stuff very seriously.

And Pakistan?

Lots of mixed messages coming out of Pakistan.  Some are saying Pakistan played a key role (well, other than hiding the guy).  What else can the government say?  That the US did this while keeping Pakistan in the dark?  They have to take some credit for it, as the alternative is actually more problematic, I guess.

Any Pakistan experts reading my blog want to comment? 

Big Day, Long War

There will be a lot of time to think about Bin Laden's death, but I wanted to get a few points out while I catch up on the coverage online.  There are a bunch of surprises and non-surprises.

First, in restrospect, the non-surprises are:

• Seal Team 6 (the super-special Forces) did the job, not a drone.  This is not a surprise, because we always wanted to have complete proof that it was Bin Laden and that he was dead.  A drone cannot do that.
• That the US took the shot.  Yes, there are tradeoffs involved, especially backlash against the US and within Pakistan, but this is one campaign promise that Obama had to fulfill if he had the chance.  More importantly, the whole "US is a superpower but cannot find one guy" impotency tale had to end if possible.  Done.
• That Pakistan played a mixed role in this, perhaps helping at the end, but very clearly providing some support (by individual government officials certainly, by the government itself who knows) to Bin Laden during his years of hiding.
• That the speech was delayed an hour.  Sure, they had months and months to plan the op, so they could have spent months planning the speech, but the secret was tightly held (see below), plus word-smithing is a DC disease.  My minor memos got vetted to death and those were small stakes.  I can only imagine how many people were looking over the shoulders of the speechwriters--who did a nice job.
• Osama was with his youngest wife.  Well, duh.
• Burial at sea.  What other choice was there?  Take him to the US?  Afghanistan?  Create a location for folks to use as a rallying point?  Quick burial according to Islamic (and Jewish) tradition meant that they could not spend lots of timing figuring this out.  Will, of course, raise questions about whether he is dead, whether he was assassinated, etc, but smarter people than me spent months thinking about this, and it was probably the least bad choice.
• That the mission ended with Osama dead.  He had sworn he would fight to his death.  I also would not be surprised if the troops were ordered to kill on sight, given that a captured Osama would have been far more complicated.

Second, the surprises:

• That Bin Laden was hiding in a pretty fancy place (not a mansion but an Mc-Mansion perhaps) in the suburbs of a major city.  This is not entirely surprising since it is easier to hide in a crowd than by oneself. But it seems that the elaborate hiding place gave him away.  Indeed, more proof for the "Normal Accidents" approach--the multiplicity of tactics to hide Bin Laden (big walls, no internet, etc) ended up undermining the effort. 
• That the US government kept the secret for so very long.  No leaks at all.  Nice to see that we can work together when the stakes are super-high.  Still, this is very striking.  There is even a great pic of Obama laughing while Seth Meyers was joking about finding Bin Laden--when the choppers must have been on the way or just about to be.  Obama definitely was very busy in the public eye in the days leading up to this--the WH correspondent's dinner, going to Alabama to see the tornado damage, going to the Shuttle launch (which was delayed).  He did a very good job of not tipping his hand.

What does this mean?  For the US?  For Pakistan?  For Afghanistan?  For the Arab Spring?  No one knows.  Lots of wild speculation to come (and not just from me).

There will be some complaints about the Americans cheering a death, but that is pretty lame given how much Bin Laden and his pals did of this cheering for much less precise attacks on far less guilty folks.  The man declared himself to be a mortal enemy of the US.  Of course, he proved he was exactly that yesterday--mortal.  I liked that Obama pointed out that Bin Laden was a murder of Muslims.  Indeed, combining the totals of the folks killed in AQ attacks over the years with OBL's indirect responsibility* for those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, that is a lot of blood.  Not Hitler-esque, but still awful no matter how you count it.

*  By all accounts, Bin Laden wanted the 9/11 attack to trigger an American war in Afghanistan.  It is also pretty clear that attack made it far easier for the Bush Administration to launch the Iraq invasion--note, no real planning of that war until after 9/11.

These are just the first few thoughts I have.  I am sure that we will all be thinking about this for a while.  Your thoughts are most welcome.

Can He Be Like This All of the Time?

Sadly, no.  Obama can only roast at a roast. 

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

NYT Discovers Corruption in Afghanistan.  Yes, I, too, am shocked.  I kind of miss the stories of billions being wasted in Iraq.  Wasting millions in Afghanistan seems quaint after years of much larger hunks of cash sunk to Iraq.  Now, I don't want to say that the money wasted in Afghanistan due to the corruption challenge is not a problem.  I just want to put it in perspective.  Iraq has been much, much, much costlier to Americans in terms of blood shed, in terms of $$ wasted, in terms of lost political capital, and in terms of diminished values.  And perhaps, just perhaps, Iraq also cost us time.  That by distracting the US from Afghanistan, we lost years and also leverage that might have enabled the effort in Afghanistan to be more successful.

Of course, this does not entirely excuse the US from making lots of bad choices in Afghanistan.  I just wanted to put the latest "news" into perspective.  We know that corruption is a huge problem in Afghanistan, but we face fewer options because we started so late in the game.  Of course, we can forget about the roads and just focus on President Karzai's family if we want to be sufficiently depressed.

Time to enjoy the spring day and do yard work--which I hate--but will take my mind off of the money wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan.