Policy-Academic Divide Redux

See my latest CIC piece for my take on academic/policy divide.  Not getting worse, I say, perhaps getting better.

Red Dawn, Eh? Strategies and Tactics

Yesterday, I suggested that a Red Dawn with Canadians as the invaders would be more credible than one with North Koreans or Chinese.  I answered the why question--tis about hockey.  But this, of course, leaves wide open the question of how.  The Canadians, as good strategists (aside from the choice of living where it is cold), know that ends and means are tied together.  An invasion to take back hockey does not need to be an endless occupation.  But they need an exit strategy that reduces the chances that the pesky Americans invade to steal hockey back.  The good news on that score is that most Americans will not notice that anything is missing.

So, the parameters of the strategy are set by the goal of taking back hockey.  The Canadians only need to occupy key routes through the US to misplaced hockey teams--those in Arizona, Florida (2 teams!?), Tennessee, North Carolina, and California.  Note that the strategy would leave a few teams in the hot zone: The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim so as not to offend the awesome power that is Disney (Canadians like Star Wars and Toy Story too much to alienate these folks); the Dallas Stars (to keep alive the mythic affinity between Texas and Alberta).  The difficulty here is that all of these targets, except NHL headquarters in NYC, require traveling over long stretches of hostile terrain.  So, one of the keys to this is:

Timing: Winter!  Of course, not just because this is when Canadian passions will be at their height but because the Americans handle winter so poorly.  Indeed, a potential tactic might be to water the cold roads of the northern US to create icy roads that will limit the ability of the Americans to fight back on the key roads.  The Canadians could then patrol I-5 and I-95 and similar highways on skates.

But how will the Canadians defeat the US military?  First, by encouraging the US to continue to stress its forces in distant Mideast wars.  Notice Stephen Harper's more hostile than thou approach to Iran.  Second, the deployment of increasing numbers of Tim Horton's franchises should help to slow the American response by, well, encouraging American obesity.  Third, Canada co-commands NORAD--the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  They could use the positions here to confuse the Americans--to insist that the first wave (and only wave, given the numbers of CF helos and planes) of attacks are merely Canadian geese migrating south.  If the attack is timed with the Super Bowl (akin to Israel's Yom Kippur?), then the Americans will be taken by surprise.

The big question is: could they hold the highways for a week or so while the trucks run down, grab the Panthers, the Hurricanes, the Coyotes, and the other misplaced teams, before enough resistance builds?*  Well, the US is late to most wars it fights, so it might just work.

* The Canadian special ops units would be focused on Gary Bettman and the NHL HQ in NYC. 

As long as the Canadians do not insist on changing American signs to add extra "u"'s and changing lots of "s"'s to "c"s (as in defence), the Americans may not even notice.  The Canadian troops would be trained to speak in more declarative sentences and cut the "eh's" so that the Americans would just assume that the uniformed folks are just American troops with less equipment.

Red Dawn, Eh?

I was reading a review of the Red Dawn remake in Entertainment Weekly, and it said that "the aggressors could have easily been Indonesian, or Cambodian, or any foreigners, really for all that politics matter ..." and it struck me: why not Canadians, eh?

Sure, the invasion fears, outside of South Park, are all in the opposite direction--that the US would invade Canada in search of maple, beer, oil and water.  But aside from that whole 34 million vs 315 million plus population ratio problem, isn't a Canadian invasion just more realistic?

The advantages of a Red Dawn with Canadians as the enemy:

1. Geography in so many ways.  No need to come up with a falling dominoes through Mexico story (RD original) or figure out how the North Koreans or Chinese manage to leap the Pacific (RD remake).  The Canadians are just right next door with no real defenses along the border.  Also, you could shoot the film in Canada since they have much practice at imitating American cities and towns.
2. Casting: heaps of Canadians in Hollywood so getting folks who can talk in a Canadian accent would be easy.  
3. No worries about offending anyone.  Substituting North Koreans for Chinese by just switching a few flags around is probably pretty offensive to both Chinese and Koreans, bu the movie-makers did the switch to avoid offending a very large market.Would Canadians get offended about being seeing as the aggressive invaders?  Nah, they would just be happy not to be ignored.

 Disadvantages:

1. Is it hard to believe that the Canadians could be so aggressive?  Just start the movie with some selected hockey brawls and hockey-related riots.  It would be hard to depict credibly Canadians being willing to torture the Americans, but if the kids insult the seal fur industry enough, you can probably see some genuine Canadian rage.
2. That 34 million vs. 300+ million problem?  Well, this would just make the insurgency that much more believable, right?  If you need a good ratio to win a counter-insurgency, then the outnumbered Canadian aggressors can be credibly defeated by the American high school kids.

The Big Challenge:
What would motivate a Canadian invasion of the US?  They cannot bring the warmer weather north, and they have their own oil ...  Perhaps some Canadian singer or movie star is mistreated by the American tabloids, resulting in a crisis?  No, the answer is actually obvious.  The Canadians, frustrated at the damage that the American-dominated National Hockey League has done to their beloved sport, seek to take over the US, so that they can gain control of the NHL, end the lockout and bring back the lost franchises that are melting away in Arizona and Florida and elsewhere.

I will leave the key plot points and tactics for next time, but how does this sound so far?

Dissertations as Merit Badges

Today, there was an interesting conversation (or dueling lectures) between Dan Drezner and Joshua Foust about PhDs as necessary for advancement in the policy world.  Dan uses the Paula Broadwell story to discuss the problem that occurs when people seek a PhD because they think it is necessary for advancement in a policy career.  This is a problem because the capabilities and tactics used to advance professionally in the policy world may have little to do with what it takes to excel in grad classes, pass comprehensive exams, and especially complete a dissertation to get a PhD.

Josh points out that many folks in DC highly prize a PhD as it serves to separate individuals from the masses--those who may have been more willing to spend half a decade or more to fulfill the arcane random rigorous requirements of a PhD program to get their merit badge in PhD-ing.  These folks then get jobs that other folks who are just as smart or even smarter on policy issues cannot get.

Dan has probably faced way too many folks who seek graduate degrees as stamps on their list of qualifications rather than the pursuit of knowledge.  An MA is a professional degree for the policy-maker but most PhDs are not that.  They require patience, analytical rigor, the ability to think theoretically, to be open to criticism, and so on.  So, he has seen those who are in it just for the stamp flounder and fail.  Josh has seen too many people who have an extra credential that does not really give them extra qualification.

The problem is that both are right--the system is gamed to provide incentives for folks who otherwise would not want to spend a few years developing skills and then applying them to a particular question while facing a barrage of criticism along the way to go through this experience.  So, we get people who should not be pursuing PhDs doing so because the particular job market makes it seem logical.

This should not be all that new to us--we who study politics often see incentives that lead to sub-optimal behavior, whether we are game theorists or not.  Job markets are not efficient in these areas.  As I have blogged before, even where there are huge amounts of dollars at risk and significant amounts of expertise deployed to discern quality in the hiring process, mistakes are made all the time.  If NFL teams often make poor choices, it should not be surprising that policy employers (think tanks, lobbyists, whoever else exists in a national capital to affect public policy) rely on inexpensive (for them) but unreliable shortcuts for sorting job candidates, such as the PhD merit badge.

So, I really do not see Dan and Josh being in disagreement.  They just exist and work in different parts of the process and see the dysfunctions from different angles. 

A Pie Crust Promise? Nay!

Mary Poppins made a deep impact on my family.  Why?  Because when Teen Spew was merely Toddler Spew, she had surgery and so we ended up watching Mary Poppins over and over and over again.  Not a bad choice by her or for us since it is a long movie and a good one.  So, we saw fewer iterations of it than we would have of a typical disney movie.  Still, I saw enough of it that it burned itself into my brain--it became the handy example of a run on a bank and the phrase "Pie Crust Promise" became an article title for a piece I co-wrote on the limits of NATO/EU conditionality (not to mention how many times I put the phrase in the title of blog posts).

Anyhow, I am getting sappy this Thanksgiving.  When Mary Poppins showed up on the tv, I got a little misty, remembering the tough week or two in the aftermath of the operation.  It was not life-threatening, just stress-inducing.  Then I was amused as the kid came down to watch with me and marveled at my recall of not just the lyrics but the dialogue in general. 

So, my tip to parents out there--if you have to divert your kids with TV/movies, MP could not be a better choice.

Best Thread at Poli Sci Rumor Mill?

Check out this new thread at the long reviled website dedicated to Political Science Job Rumors and to insulting people.  The core idea is that it is hard to explain our enterprise, our profession to those outside of it.  So, what analogy best applies?  I like the athlete analogy--the stars can dictate the terms, the middle range folks go where they have to (drafted, traded), and most folks aspire but do not make it.

What is your best analogy for the professor profession?

Being Belatedly Thankful

My latest at CIC: I relied on the old "I have no good ideas so why not go with a holiday-themed column even though Canada's Thanksgiving was last month" tactic.

Notes from the Road this Thanksgiving

On the long drive from Ottawa to DC, the Spew Family listened to podcasts (Greg Proops, Doug Benson, Nerdist) to make the time fly by, more or less.  So, between the podcasts and being trapped with each other for nine hours, we had a few thoughts and revelations along the way:

• We learned that the word for a group of cheetahs approaches a "murder of crows" for best collective noun--a coalition of cheetahs!  This is so incredibly ironic, because as we know from the study of coalitions in either the domestic form or the international form, speedy is usually not the adjective that comes to mind.  A coalition of cheetahs would be like using Politburo to describe a group of young capitalists.  
• Mrs. Spew worries a great deal about the catsitter/housesitter getting to the house the first day of any trip, so I pondered whether she had an over-active anxiety gland.   And, sure, there is going to be a gland or two that endocrinologists will consider an "anxiety gland" but I just like the idea of a gland pumping out anxiety as a wired, biological response to various stimuli.
• We stopped at the Cozy Restaurant on the way to DC.  This is an old-fashioned (including the prices) spot that campers would often visit on their way to and/or from the summer camp I spent all of my teens (and a bit more).  It is also located close to the President's retreat--Camp David, so they have a mini-museum there.  So, we spent a few minutes while waiting for the main course checking it out. The last time I ate at the Cozy?  1986--my last summer as a counselor, and we had our end of the year banquet there.  

One last bit of Thanksgiving gratitude--free wifi at Starbucks!  Thanks.  Sure, I buy a drink to ease my guilt at using their wifi, so it makes sense for them. 

Anyhow, again, enjoy your Thanksgiving!

Oy, Thanksgiving

As I hit the road, here is a neo-classic take on the holiday:

Larry David's Thanksgiving Special from Larry David     

A Year Deserving Much Thanks

This has been a pretty amazing year, so I have much to be thankful for.  As I am behind on nearly everything thanks to the grant application that ate my semester, let's just go to the list:

• The move went so well.  Aside from the movers forgetting to put the door back on the hinges (and I had quick heartburn as I looked for the pins), it really was pretty simple and easy.  We now have a great new house in a very friendly neighborhood.  It only took me a couple of days to find a new ultimate team or two.  And the only boxes left to be unpacked are awaiting bookshelves as we have too many books (yes, very surprising).
• I am very thankful for the friends we left behind.  My kid realized in her last month in Montreal that she really developed an excellent network of friends, as they gave her some great going-away celebrations.  Same for me.  I am thankful for the folks I left behind.  I was incredibly touched by the surprise pickup ultimate game.  A bunch of folks showed up to play an extra game with me before I left town.  
• I am very thankful for my new job.  I really like the new setup at Carleton.  I can get to meetings with government types in fifteen minutes, and the real challenge is figuring out what not to do, given all of the events in town.  Indeed, I am being asked to more (including a business lunch on Monday where I got to hang out with business types), which helps to explain why I have been blogging less.
• I am very thankful that all of my McGill grad students successfully defended their dissertations.  It meant a long fall of train trips to Montreal and back, but it was nice to see them (AA, TM, JT) finish, and it was nice not to have to work on their stuff anymore ;0.  I am already accumulating commitments to Carleton graduate students in my School of International Affairs, but also in the Political Science dept and the School of Public Policy and Administration.
• I am very grateful for my friends in Ottawa.  This is the first time I moved to place where I actually knew a few people, and it has been terrific.  Not only has it been fun to hang out with them, but they have also introduced me to new, interesting folks.  
• I am very, very, very thrilled that the oft-mentioned Dave and Steve book on NATO and Afghanistan passed muster at a prestigious university press, so it should be out in 2013 hopefully.  I would be more thrilled about my book contract for my next book on learning about Canada from its experience in Afghanistan (with a really cool title), but the grant that ate my fall also ate my my progress on this project.
• I am very thankful I got out of Quebec before the PQ took power although it would have been nice to have been around when the Mayor got knocked out of office and replaced by an Anglophone!  Oh well.  
• I am very thankful Hurricane Sandy only inconvenienced but did not harm my family spread across the Northeast.
• I am very, very grateful that my wife and daughter, the Spews, are enjoying their new home. Moving a family can be problematic, but they were great sports.  
• I am thankful that #voterfraudfraud ended up being counter-productive.

While there are many challenges ahead for the US, Canada and everyone else, I have much to be thankful for this year.  I hope folks enjoy their turkeys, their pies, and their families.

Yeah, Math!

I love the victory lap!

Best Dissertation Analogy Ever

I chatting with a NPSIA grad student, and we were joking about what it takes to complete a dissertation.  I said exhaustion--that after drafts go back and forth and comments get sent to the student, the professors agree to hold a defense because they are tired of the dissertation, and the student finally revises as they desired because he/she is tired of getting the same set of comments over and over again. 

But the student had an appropriate analogy from the civil war termination literature--mutually hurting stalemate!  Civil wars end in one of two ways generally--somebody has a decisive victory, leading the other side to surrender (Nigeria/Biafra) or the situation becomes one where both (hence the mutual) sides are facing significant pain as long as the conflict endures (hence the hurting) and neither side sees it as likely that they can win in the near or medium term (hence the stalemate).  Once both sides realize that neither can win and the pain accumulates, then they can start to talk. Of course, this does not guarantee that the two sides will agree to a peace.

Well, a dissertation is done when both sides think it is done, that further tinkering is unlikely to improve it substantially.  Actually, to be fair, all of the dissertations I have read the past few years are victories--that they end is apparent because the question has been asked, an answer has been posed, the research has been done to demonstrate whether the answer is credible/convincing or not, and the implications have been developed.  But sometimes, it does become a matter of exhaustion/stalemate.  And then something matters here that does not matter in a real civil war--there are rules about time of degree for many/all grad schools and penalties that are enforceable and credible become relevant.  Sure, outside actors can also promise such things to end a civil war, but they are often not all that credible.  On the other hand, someone can take longer to finish a dissertation if they get outside assistance that reduces the hurting part of the stalemate, like a spouse with a very good income....

Any thoughts about the advantages/limitations of this analogy?

Out of the Comfort Zone

It was a strange day for the residents of Spew-ville.  I was asked by the folks at Carleton to attend the Canadian-American Business Council event in Ottawa.  Carleton had paid for half a table, and wanted me to be one of the folks who attended.  While I am applying for a grant to build a Canadian network of folks who do/study civil-military relations, I am not that great a network-er, especially in a crowd of business folks.  At conferences, I almost always network sideways or down, so I only inadvertently am connected with any of the bigger names in the profession.

Anyhow, it was an interesting event that I had to cut short because of a class in the afternoon (meaning that I missed my first chance to be in the same room as Canada's Prime Minister--Stephen Harper). The first major event was where the two Ambassadors and a former Ambassador chatted about US-Canadian relations and the election.  I seem to be in the same room as the US Ambassador every other week these days.  Anyhow, I was strongly tempted to ask these folks how long the street cred Canada earned the hard way will last, how long is the American memory, but I forgot what I wanted to ask.  Perhaps because I was still thinking about the song they used to introduce the panel.

The next speaker, Jim Prentiss, who used to be in government and is now Vice Chairman of CIBC (bank), spoke about US-Canadian trade relations, and argued, pretty convincingly, that relying solely on the US market to sell one's energy stuff is a bad idea.  It means Canada ends up earning less.  Anyhow, interesting times ahead. 

Then off to lunch.  Which was remarkable in the sense that I have some remarks about it.  They had four of the Governor-Generals Foot Guards march in the flags.  Then they had a guy sing both national anthems.  I could not help but note the strange juxtaposition of a guy singing a song inspired by a key battle of the War of 1812 (which the Canadian government pays for ads on TV about the US invading Canada [before Canada existed]) with Canadian uniformed folks with guns behind the singer.  Hmmm.  That kind of activated my American nationalism just a bit.  Then my multicultural Canadian nationalism was activated when the Canadian national anthem was song sans francais.  Usually, folks since part of it in French and part in English, but not today.  Holy faux pas!

The first lunchtime keynoter was the Chairman and CEO of Imperial, who indicated that the anti-oil and anti-oil sands folks didn't know what they were talking about, given new technological developments.  I was thinking of fracking and of oil flowing out of a broken platform in the Gulf, so I was not too persuaded.  I had to leave during the discussion with Nancy Gibbs, who wrote a fun book about the The Presidents Club--how the ex-Presidents work with current ones.  But class was a-calling.  Nice to be able to zip from this interesting event to my office in about ten minutes.  Ottawa rocks.  Gently.

Overall, I was completely out of my comfort zone, but enjoyed the strange experience.  But this tale explains why blogging has, well, limited today.  Also, I was prepping my Thanksgiving thanks posts here and at CIC that will go up Wednesday and Thursday respectively (yes, different posts for different audiences, but same gimmick for those short of imagination/inspiration).

Oh, one last note--the Toy Story song was not the only odd choice.  They played this a couple of times:

They "used to"?  Is this a slap at the British or the US or both?  Should have been Vertigo, given how I was feeling.

Closer to the Finish Line

Yesterday, my co-author, David Auerswald, and I got the news: the NATO and Afghanistan (with a spot of Libya) book got the go-ahead from the editorial board of the university press to which we submitted the manuscript.  I will name it later, once we actually have the contract in our hands. 

We were doing happy dances yesterday as this is the product of several years of work, many trips abroad, over two hundred interviews, heaps of drafts flying across the internet back and forth between Dave and myself, multiple talks around the world, not to mention heaps of blog posts. 

Some folks are not impressed?

But these folks have high standards.  The non-gold medalists and the non-Presidents are pretty thrilled with this outcome.  So much so that I went on an epic twitter rant once I realized that Band of Brothers was on TV.  See the thread for how the two connect:

Losing is Normal, Suck It Up

Teen Spew was outraged this morning when she saw that Romney was blaming his loss to Obama on the latter's gift-giving to segments of the population, such as free contraception to young women.  I didn't need to prompt her--she readily pointed out that big tax cuts were gifts, too.  So proud am I.

Anyhow, the theme of the past week, other than generals being generally irresponsible, is the same as four years ago.  The Republicans are sore losers.  Sure, losing sucks, and the Democrats didn't enjoy losing in 2000 (where they had some right to complain given how it played out) or in 2004.  But all the talk of secession, the blamecasting towards people who dared to vote their interests, and all the rest speaks to a general problem with the Republican Party--they suck at losing.  Four years ago, the Republicans vowed to deny Obama success even if it mean hurting the country.  Now the GOP is already opposing potential replacements for Hilary Clinton (who used to inspire such ire).  They are arguing about mandates when Obama got a majority of the popular vote and of the electoral college (never mind that they would have been upset with him winning just the electoral college, which would have been like Bush's first victory).

The problem here is this: democracy works when people accept losing.  We measure whether a new democracy is real or not by whether it has gone through one or two successful transitions in power.  In a majoritarian system like the US, usually somewhere between 40 and 49 percent of the voted for the losing Presidential candidate. So, a good large hunk of the country is always unhappy, but which candidate actually credibly claimed to care about the other side?  Obama's acceptance speech was not just to his voters.  Romney's 47% comment and the incredibly appropriate outcome of 47% of the vote reflect something else. 

Am I surprised that the GOP are sore losers?  No.  I remember four years ago.  I am curious about who will win the arguments in the aftermath

• those that argue that the party should not narrow-cast to white men, that the country is more than just white folks, and that a real national party needs to appeal broadly; or
• those who argue that they had a bad candidate, that the media was unfair, or that Romney was not conservative enough.

Given how the Senate races went and how the propositions played out (being for gay marriage is not bad for one's political success anymore), I know what I think happened.  But will the GOP learn and really change?  I have my doubts.

The funny thing is that being a sore loser is unAmerican.  Americans lose all the time, but they don't give up.  They adjust, change, adapt.  In most wars, especially the ones of which we are most proud, the Americans lose early, learn and then win.  The American Revolution consisted of mostly losing battles until Saratoga.  World War II was a frickin' disaster with Pearl Harbor and then defeat at Kasserine.   The favorite American stories are those of folks who get knocked down and then get back up.  Rocky lost the big fight in the first movie, for instance.  Some day, the GOP will return to being a center-right alternative of responsible folks.  But I think that is in the long term. In the short term, the blame-casting will continue and the learning curve will be shallow unless they accept losing.

Perhaps the Most Useful Movie of All Time

A football broadcast relying heavily on Princess Bride?  You don't say.  Inconceivable?  No, plenty conceivable:

h/t to Jezebel

Grant-Writing Equals Non-Blogging

I had a beer with a visitor to Ottawa last night--Ottawa's own Roland Paris, who has been in Paris for a sabbatical.  He complimented me on the speed of my writing as we chatted about stuff, like how far behind I am on my next book project.  Anyhow, I was amused by the comment, as this fall has been a long slog through a grant-writing effort.  It has crowded out the book and heaps of other stuff, including the volume here at the Spew. 

Hence this post--explaining why this is the token post du jour.  Got to get back to the grant.  More on that later.

Lose an Election and Cry Secessionism

Or just cry, you silly sore losers.  The spate of secessionist petitions shows mostly that Republicans are sore losers (and some other folks, too).  When we speak of contagion/diffusion--how do things spread, and the claim is made that secessionism might be contagious, we need to be about what it is we are seeing right now: an online petition.  Which is a long ways away from being a secessionist movement, which is a long ways away from being a real political entity with any relevance.

There has been a long-lasting separatist campaign in Texas by a small group of folks.  How do we know not to take them seriously?  Their embassy is a trailer .... in Texas.  If you are going to secede, then the embassy needs to go outside one's territory, right?

Anyhow, not only have I studied secession--the causes and the international relations of--but I have lived in Texas and in Quebec, so I have both scholarly and real life experience with secession.  What we see here is nothing more than a small percentage of folks (as in under 1% if the link above is correct) doing the very absolute minimum.  That is, they don't have to leave their couches and they are exposed to no risk. 

So, let's pour some perspective sauce on all of this.  Quebec has been pursuing secession for the past thirty-five years or so, and are not getting much closer.  The Quebeckers at least have the advantage of a real identity divide--language.   And with heaps of institutional support.  The US is still run for and by white folks, white Christian folks, and Obama's election just means that minorities had their say. The reality is that the internet, when combined with a media that needed to fill some time on its 24 hour networks (until the Petraeus mess hit the waves), amplifies all of this--but, to quote that Shakespeare guy, it is sound and fury signifying nothing.  I will let you folks consider who the idiot is in all of this.

The Last But Not the Least

Today was my last train to dissertation defence-land.  I went back to McGill for my last McG PhD student's defense.  Jessica Trisko was the final but not the least of my students.  Despite the fact that I had been pretty impressed all the way along, I was even more at the defense.  She not only explained what she did and did not do in her effort to understand how foreign aid can be diverted to facilitate repression, but she displayed a mastery of the data and of the cases. 

The work required a mighty slog through some ugly datasets and some creative work to put it all together.  She displayed diligence and determination along the way. The dissertation was quite interesting to read, and I learned much from her and her work.  Like most of her predecessors, Jessica asked interesting questions that took her far from my expertise.  As I said earlier this fall about another student, I don't need to promote Jessica as she has a tenure track position.  I am simply most proud of her, and I am looking forward to her doing great things.

To mark the occasion, I took a few pics of McGill.  I don't know when I will be going there again.  I knew I was going to have three return trips this fall, but that is over now.  The funny thing is that today was the first day they were holding job talks/interviews to replace me.  If only I had known, I would have crashed the job talk and asked pesky questions..... Alas. 

Fourth generation civ-mil?

I am applying for a grant to build a Canadian Civil-Military Relations network this month, and now I have a thorny problem.  Given the space restraints on the various documents, do I have to explain that what I don't mean by civil-military relations are the affairs, email-exchanges and other linkages between four star generals such as Petraeus (former) and Allen (current) and various women (Broadwell, Kelley, etc)? 

When we speak of civil-military relations, we can think of three generations:

1. The first focused on coups and the threat militaries posed to democracies
2. The second focused on how democracies control their militaries and whether there are gaps between the two groups.
3. The newest focuses on getting the military and civilians to work together well in a "comprehensive approach" or "whole of government effort" as counter-insurgency or state-building is pursued.  
4. Officers messing around with civilians.

 Oy. The latest news, that General Allen of ISAF and designated to become the head of NATO's military arm (SACEUR), indicates that someone has dropped a big bottle of distraction sauce, causing it to spray in every direction.  The FBI clearly needs to distract folks from the fact that this whole thing happened because a woman getting some threatening emails asked an FBI friend who appears to be quite ideologically biased to look into things.  It does explain why Eric Cantor got involved, but not why he behaved so responsibly.

Anyhow, it looks like I am going to have to explain what civil-military relations is NOT for the next year or three.  Oy squared.