The Students are Really Revolting!

The latest moves are really disgusting.  A large group of students entered classrooms, confronting those who wanted to go to class, canceling classes through their physical confrontation.  Apparently, these folks are fighting for a fundamental right to education--for free tuition--and find it necessary to violate this right to education for those who are interested in partaking of that "right" right now.


The key here is that today's events are not driven by random protesters but by some significantly organized group--there were apparently more than a hundred students that were in this effort to shut down classes.  They knew their way around UQAM.  While the student groups that have been doing most of the bargaining and protesting can claim that they are not responsible, their refusal to condemn these activities, their refusal to respect the court injunctions, and their refusal to, well, have a decent grip on reality have created this environment.  It is time for them to "seize the moral high ground" by calling for their supporters to step down and stop protesting.  Otherwise, they will continue to be blamed for the efforts of what "a few" who are clearly tied to the movement.  This is not four folks throwing smoke bombs but a much larger effort.

Today's protest involved assaulting students and violating injunctions.  These protesters should be arrested and do more than a few token days.  It is time for them to face some severe consequences in $$ and jail time.  It is one thing to be in the streets for weeks, but it is another thing to break the law repeatedly (violating injunctions) and intimidate classrooms of students and professors.  

This is getting out of hand.  If the goal of these folks to to alienate everyone, then they are accomplishing their mission.  But there is no way that the government can give into this.  If they do so, then their sole claim to their current standing goes poof.

And, yes, I am glad I am getting out of here.

I Love Charts (Political Ones especially)

Check out this depiction of American presidential elections from the I love charts tumblr:

Just so cool.

Landing the Comic Book Way

Three point landings, all the time?

Thanks to Roger Ebert.

I think the answer is--when you land from a height, you need to absorb the fall, and it is better to almost fall forward, stabilized by one hand (with another on your weapon) than fall backwards.  But that is just a guess.

Who Goes to the Prom?

There will be heaps of posts about NATO in the next two weeks as things ramp up for the summit in Chicago and not just by me.

There has been much debate about who gets invited to the summit and who attends.  Russia said no thanks, even though much of the previous 20 years was spent developing the NATO-Russia council, which allowed Russia to have some kind of impact even though it was not a member of NATO (because that would really @$#$Q@#$ things up.  France and Greece are hard enough, but bring Russia inside the tent?  Nyet).

Then the story became Pakistan--that it was not invited.  To be clear, if one looks at the list of non-NATO members invited to the summit:
1. Australia
2. Austria
3. Finland
4. Georgia
5. Japan
6. Jordan
7. Republic of Korea
8. Morocco
9. New Zealand
10. Qatar
11. Sweden
12. Switzerland
13. United Arab Emirates
 (source: NATOSource)
 one feature becomes quite clear if you consult this:

most of the invitees participated in NATO's mission in Afghanistan, a few in the Libyan effort (Jordan, Qatar) or both (Sweden, UAE).  Japan has been supporting NATO via re-fueling in the Indian Ocean, I believe., which leaves Switzerland as an outlier.

Inviting Pakistan, which is apparently happening, would mean NATO should invite Kazakhstan (and a few other stans), India, and Iran as it involves the regional dynamics of Afghanistan.  Pakistan has not (nor should it) provide troops to NATO.  Its support of the alliance effort has been fickle, with questions currently raised about whether the invitation is contingent upon Pakistan opening up the supply lines from the ports to Afghanistan.

Anyhow, the more and more I watch the prep for the Chicago Summit, the more and more I am reminded of academic conferences.  Yes, there is much consternation about who gets invited, but most of the real work for this summit and for an academic conference is ahead of time. The documents/statements/talking points, etc. have all been vetted ahead of time and get stamped at the conference.  In academia, we use conferences to set artificial deadlines so that we feel compelled to finish projects (which works some of the time).  In summitry, the same thing occurs--the appearance of a summit on the schedule sets a deadline for when the various bargaining efforts must end.  The Presidents, Prime Minister and other Principals do not really negotiate much at these affairs--it is a matter of schmoozing.

Which is why I feel less guilty at every ISA and APSA these days where I spent far more time in the bar than attending panels.

Sit On It and Rotate

In the course of researching NATO and Afghanistan, I was surprised to see so much variation in how long any contingent stayed on the ground, as some countries would rotate their troops out after four months, others six, and only the US troops would have a year in country.  Why is this important?  Because Afghanistan was/is a particularly challenging place to operate, that COIN is all about development relationships, and having very short-term focus is a bad idea.

Commanders would want to be able to show that they made a mark in a very short time frame, which means a temptation to opt for the visible but not the sustainable.

I got to thinking about this issue this morning thanks to the end of General Allen's tour in Afghanistan, and folks on twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/joshuafoust/) pointing out that none of the last four American Generals did an entire tour.  McKiernan was replaced by McChrystal because McK was not seen as being as COIN-focused/skilled.  McC got fired for his Rolling Stone fiasco.  Petraeus got shifted to head CIA (I spent part of this morning arguing with Josh about whether this was a promotion or just a slick political move--I tend to think of it as the former, Josh not so much).  Now, Allen is being promoted to head US forces in Europe--EUCOM and ... head of NATO's miltary as SACEUR.  Perhaps one is most likely to get promoted if one facilitates cutting back rather than ramping up?

This all points to a larger issue--even if each general served their full tour in Afghanistan, the job seemed to have a one year term in practice even if formally it was supposed to be two years (still perhaps too short?).  While it is an exhausting job, generals in previous wars served longer than one year.  The turnover meant a new strategy and a new style every year, which made it hard to have cumulative progress.

Allen, for instance, had a different interpretation of transition than Petraeus.  When Petraeus started the transition process in Afghanistan, the idea was to turn over the most fit parts of Afghanistan to Afghan control.  For Allen, perhaps because the clock has been sped up, advocates turning over the more problematic places to the Afghans earlier so that the Afghans will have back up as they work through it.  If those spots were transitioned later, the Afghans might be facing challenges with  little outside support.

The length of tours is not something that will probably get much attention at the Chicago Summit or in the future, but the constant spin cycle of modern military deployments obviously does not facilitate efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness or any other relevant e-word.  It would be nice if NATO tries to develop more compatible schedules, but NATO has other, bigger fish to fry so don't expect any progress on this.

And, yes, Happy Days inspired the title to this post:

No Betting Considered

I just went through a series of short clips for the shows that NBC is adding to their schedule.  Mostly, they are not impressive and I doubt that they will help lift NBC.  But there are one or two exceptions.  Let's go to the videotape, as they used to say:

• Animal Practice: Hijinks at the Vet.  Well, my sister-in-law works at a veterinarian's office and I like the lead, Justin Kirk from Weeds, but this show just reeks of 1980's lame.
• Chicago Fire: A fire department series that cannot be as depressing as Rescue Me.  The one scene was pretty tense, and it is not a law/doctor/police show, so it has some potential.
• Do No Harm: Hospital series run apparently by Mrs. Cosby-Phylicia Rashad.  Meh.  I am tired of hospital shows, not sure what distinguishes this one, although I do like Ms. Rashad.
• Go On: Matthew Perry vehicle.  Group therapy with a sportscaster (Perry), so Sportsnight meets Newhart?  Could be good.  Depends on the group.
• Guys With Kids: Divorced guys with kids, it seems.  Meh.
• Infamous: A soap of some kind.  Perhaps Revenge knockoff.  Not interesting.
• New Normal: Gay couple and the woman they hire to have their kid.  The scene is fine, but is this a sitcom?  If so, not so much funny.
• Next Caller: Dane Cook as an obnoxious radio call-in show host. It could be ok.  Kind of a Dark Frasier.
• Revolution:  The Lost of this season--JJ Abrams show with a killer concept.  All modern power production ceases to work--batteries, electricity, engines, everything.  In nearly an instance (why the cars seem to lose power in sequence, I have no idea).  So, 15 years later, with governments fallen and militias rising to take their place, with the cities covered in foilage and so on, what happens?  Well, the things that intrigue me are swordplay (guns may work, but I guess there are ammo problems, so we have crossbows, bows and swords prominently featured) and Giancarlo Esposito (Gus Fring of Breaking Bad) as the bad guy, leading the relevant militia.  So, I will watch this one--much more interesting than the high concept shows of this season (Alcatraz, Grimm, etc.)
• Save Me: Anne Heche has a near death experience.  All I can think of is that the critics will ahve a field day with that.  Bleh.
• 1600 Penn: West Wing meets Kumar?  A sitcom based at the White House.  Amusing glimpse thus far, but not sure how sustainable and how non-annoying it might be.  But worth watching an episode or two.

I will follow the coverage by Alan Sepinwall, Daniel Feinberg and Tim Goodman to see what I missed or what more there is to these shows.  As it stands now, I might watch: Chicago Fire as I am a sucker for a fire dept show until it depresses me too much;  Go On, as I have fond memories of the old Newhart show; Revolution as the one show I am actually excited to see although I have no clue if it is good in the long run; and probably 1600 Penn.

I am no longer in the business of teaching large intro classes to undergrads so there is little need for pop culture references.  But I am a sucker for more TV.  Too bad NBC does not seem to be doing enough renovation.  The good thing is we have at least one more season of Community and Parks and Rec. 

Image Bias

What is Newsweek up to?

Oh, maximizing controversy and thus perhaps selling more magazines.  I should have guessed.  I wonder which will offend more people: the halo, a rainbow halo or the word modifying President??  Religious types can upset that Obama is depicted as holy: Saint Barak?  They can be upset that the halo has gone from gold, representing .... the sun (or riches?).  Or both. 

The funny thing is that calling Obama "The First Gay President" is not the insult it once was, in part because of Obama's stands (however revised/belated) on gays in the military and same sex marriage.  Calling something gay is now a sign of immaturity--something twelve year old boys and bad poker players (as witnessed in online poker on a regular basis) say.  Sure, Cartman says it, but since when has he been a role model? 

Of course, the other question is whether Newsweek remembered to consult historians.  Given the 10% rule (or whatever the guess-timate of the % of gay people in the population), isn't it likely that we have had a gay president?  Buchanan?  Anyone else? 

The other funny thing is, of course, that the homophobes seem to be populated with men who are attracted to men.  When was the last pro-gay rights married man who was discovered to have affairs with men?  Oh that's right, it is because science tell us that homophobia may actually be related to folks who are insecure about their own sexuality. 

So, I am pretty sure that Obama will not be horrified by this cover, but I am pretty sure that other folks on the other side of the political spectrum will overreact.

Nice Dose of Perspective Sauce for Gay Marriage

NYT

Sunday Silliness: Some Star Wars

    CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

Just brilliant.

People Evolve

Perhaps Obama's "evolve" line was an excuse to address the fact that he spent about a decade or so saying something that was wrong but politically necessary.  But there is something to it.  When I left to go to college, I was the typical boy of the mid 1980s--fearful of being thought of as gay and using the word gay as an insult--disco is gay, for instance.  I never assaulted a person I thought to be gay or threatened them with an unwanted haircut (indeed, I was threatened with "shave-rape" during my summer in London by an asshole who was also on the program who did not like my beard), but I was homophobic, no doubt about it.

Then I met gays and lesbians and lived in an environment where these folks were just as normal and accepted as everyone else.  I got hit on once by a guy.  It surprised me (I was apparently as clueless about the same sex as about the opposite sex), but I didn't get angry or upset.  I guess I had evolved in college.  Not that I was necessarily any more secure about anything, but I guess I developed some empathy for people who were different and who were living difficult lives as a result.

I never found any reason to support efforts to craft laws to give gays and lesbians less rights.  I do not know when I started buying into my favorite amendment, the 14th--it just seems natural, logical, reasonable, sensible, fair, and just:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 It should have gone without saying, and it would have been nice if it did not require a civil war, but this one aspect of the Constitution is very much worth fighting a war.  Equal protection.  I cannot think of another way to put it that would be more fair, more right, more (dare I say it?) American.

I grew up in a culture where gays and lesbians were supposed to hide, and I am glad to see that "it gets better."  That one's sexuality need not be hidden, not even in the armed forces.  It is clear that society is still evolving, as gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted, just as inter-racial marriage was once rare in many places and illegal in others but now accepted.  My daughter developed her attitudes from Buffy, which was revolutionary in a variety of ways but particularly when it came to treating a lesbian as normal teenager and as a hero.  For that Joss Whedon earned all of the money that the Avengers has accumulated.

While Obama may have taken his new stance because of political calculations, it is quite clear that the politicians and the party seeking to stop the flow of history are very much in it for political gain as well.  I would rather be cynical and doing what is right than be cynical and do what is wrong.  What is the difference?  Equal protection.

My views evolved on this awhile ago.  If you need help evolving yours, check this out.

Students and Tourists

We often think of students and tourists in the same light--folks actively trying to observe and learn from their surroundings, people are not really doing a job, and people who drop a fair amount of money wherever they go.  Educational institutions and tourist traps serve the local economy in ways that are often underestimated.


However, according to the US Embassy in Canada (the helpful folks who turned out my wife's passport app in two weeks--thanks, guys!), tourists in Montreal need to be alert to the dangers posed by student dissent.  Yes, Montreal 2012 is, to the US government, risky, not unlike Cairo 2011. 

The U.S. Consulate in Montreal alerts U.S. citizens traveling to and residing in Quebec Province of the potential for continuing student protests, some of which have resulted in violence and arrests. The U.S. Consulate urges U.S. citizens to avoid the areas of demonstrations, and to exercise caution if within the vicinity of any protests.
For several weeks, there have been large demonstrations in Montreal and outlying cities protesting university tuition increases. While the majority of the protests have been peaceful, some participants have incited violence, by throwing rocks and engaging in other acts of vandalism. These demonstrations have varied in size, with some attracting thousands of protestors to downtown Montreal. Businesses remain open although vehicular traffic patterns and public transportation may be temporarily disrupted due to protest actions. Most of the protests have been well-publicized and announced several days in advance, while others have occurred with no prior notice. While the demonstrations are intended to be peaceful, some can turn into confrontational or potentially violent situations.
There are no indications that foreigners or U.S. citizens are being threatened or targeted. Nonetheless, U.S. citizens are advised to remain alert to local security developments and to be vigilant regarding their personal security. The local police service, Service de Police de la Ville de Montreal (SPVM), provides frequent security updates in French and English via Twitter (@SPVM).
The Department of State strongly urges U.S. citizens to avoid demonstrations, as bystanders can quickly be caught up in unforeseen violence and in some cases detained by the local police. If you believe your security is compromised, call the police at 911

However, that is as far as I go.  The idea of Quebec Spring is rather quite appalling since the students are asking for less tuition, not democracy.  The government has used some repressive force but not in any way on the scale or intensity as folks in the Mideast.  The student groups, having not distanced themselves sufficiently from those sending smoke bombs into the metro and doing other dangerous deeds, have lost heaps of support.  Whatever they wanted is not worth it for the rest of Quebec society--the damage, the inconvenience, the costs to business and to government. 

But given the multiplicity of groups and how unrepresentative they already are of the students, it is unlikely to end soon.  The government cannot really negotiate much further since it would look like they are giving in to terrorists. 

Statute of Limitations on Politicians' Past Mistakes

In the aftermath of the revelations of Mitt Romney's behavior back in prep school, folks on twitter wondered about the relevance of such stuff.  People change, lots of folks were douche-bags in high school.  Yep and yep.  My snarky reply was this: "my guy's statute of limitations is yesterday; yours is pre-birth."  We will tend to emphasize the sins, no matter how distant, of those we dislike, and we will focus on the circumstances that explain away the mistakes of those people we like (see Mercer's book on Reputation and IR).  This is not just me--this is basic social psychology... a.k.a. the fundamental attribution error (there is a band with this as its name)!

Anyhow, the key is not that Romney was a bully and homophobe long ago.  It is his behavior now that matters.  So, when asked about this story, he said this: “Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.”

I hate, hate, hate when people apologize half-heartedly by making it seem like the victim was over-sensitive.  "I am sorry that you are so sensitive as to be offended by my douche-baggery."  That is how it sounds to me.  Romney is not the one who makes this move of "if anyone was offended."  No, the way to apologize is to say: "what I did was wrong, and I am sorry.  I am sorry that I did something so offensive, so hurtful.  I will never do it again and will try to make up for what I have done."

My family apologizes too much for things that are not their fault.  I really just want my kid not to do x again, whether that x is spilling something, yelling at me, or whatever.  But she is a kid.  When she is a grownup, I certainly hope that she would worry not about whether someone is sensitive to offense and worry more about doing things that are objectively wrong. 

And if you are offended by this post, then I am sorry.

Update: See this piece for a more eloquent and well-researched statement on this topic. [Oops, screwed up the link, now fixed.]

Lacking a Learning Curve

As the votes are tallied against the deal that might have ended the student boycott in Quebec, the violence has ramped up with more smoke bombs tossed in the Metro system:

CTV

This is a line of folks who are taking the bus since the subway system was closed. Anarchists, I guess, don't really mind antagonizing everyone--they have no goals to realize, I guess.  But the student groups seem to have aims, wildly unrealistic ones.  Pissing away all of their political capital and alienating the province does not seem to be strategic. 

Henry Aubin has a great column today enumerating the many costs and consequences of this unending movement. The funny thing about all of this is that usually we see governments pursuing policies that hurt the young by pushing the costs down the road with higher debt (the refusal to adjust medicare, social security today).  Here, we have students saying: we don't want to pay now, assuming that the costs, in the form of more debt, will have no consequences down the road.  Bad math, indeed.  And not much of a learning curve, either.

Canadian Grand Strategy Continued

See my latest post at CIC--if there are no threats, then the focus turns to Canadian commitments--NATO and NORAD and what they require.

Ignorance Wins

The good news is that ignorance wins just the day but perhaps not in the long run.  The GOP, on a party line vote, singled out political science research to be cut from the National Science Foundation.  Apparently, they think it is better to know less than more.  That makes sense for a party that can relies heavily on a shrinking base--rural white people. 

Sure, I am being defensive about my discipline, but regardless of what I study, the fact that these guys singled out one field for de-funding speaks volumes about their desire to be held unaccountable.  The job of political science is to understand politics, right?  Why would a party want to get in the way of that?  Because it has something to hide?  The funny thing is that political scientists are not journalists--we seek to understand the broader patterns and not the scandal of the day.  However, the broader patterns might just include the impact of gerrymandering on political extremism.  Ooops.

This cut may not make it out of conference when the Senate and House reconcile the various differences, but at least this amendment is appropriately named.  Flake?  Too appropriate for parody, too perfect for fiction.  The only more perfect name for this amendment would be the Ignorance Amendment.

Update: I wanted to add what I said on my facebook stream about this:

For me, it comes down to this: political science was singled out. One can argue about public goods, one could argue about whether poli sci is more liberal, that we communicate our added value poorly, but the reality is that the other folks funded by the NSF have many of the same characteristics. The only thing that distinguishes Poli Sci from the rest of the folks getting NSF money is our subject. What is it about politics that makes it unworthy of analysis that is publicly funded? Is it less important than society (sociology)? Sure, this is among the least worst stances (least damaging) the GOP in Congress have taken but it is also, in some ways, the most revealing.

Confirmation Bias Again

Just a quick comment on the news of the day: Obama announcing support for gay marriage.  Sort of.

My twitter field is mostly on the center to left side, so mostly tweets happy this has finally happened.  The few folks I follow on the right side of the spectrum are, of course, critical, accusing Obama of pandering, of getting to where Cheney was a few years ago. 

I am not surprised as I am quite familiar with confirmation bias.  My take on this event confirms my confirmation bias: I have long been simultaneously pleased and annoyed by Obama.  He has done many good things, but he has taken some positions that I have found most awful.  His slowness to come to this side of the issue, with perhaps heaps of caveats, annoys me.  However, I also understand that this is politics, a grown up business where politicians often feel that they cannot get too far ahead of the American people.  I would have preferred that he led a bit more on some issues rather than follow.  I also appreciate that he has limited power to change things in the face of a power determined to block him in every effort, even if it undermines the country, and with a party that is feckle in the extreme. 

So, this is an important day, but it is very, very late.  It does not change how I will vote, but I will be a bit happier voting for Obama now that he finally got off of this fence.

Cognitive Inconsistency

I am so confused.  Jeffrey Simpson ranted today about the quality of Quebec education, which one can agree or disagree with, but his whole argument flies in the face of his previous stuff.  I ranted before about his column about research versus teaching (also here). Here, Simpson argues that:

For any advanced industrial society, universities are a critical element in economic development, productivity and a literate population.

I am confused--how can that be if universities are producing endless amounts of research for the private interest?   The rest of his column makes heaps of sense--that Charest should not let the students dictate the fees or how the money is spent.  I guess I will just have to like the new Simpson (quite the day for this since Robert Kaplan said something sensible today, too [not to mention Obama finally getting on the right side of history]).

Ritual Guesswork

In Canada, analysts and journalists join in a ritual every few years to guess: who is the next Chief of the Defence Staff.  Apparently, the season has begun.  David Pugliese lists these folks as candidates:

"Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the low-profile VCDS.
Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, the RCN’s commander.
Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, the RCAF commander admired in the Harper government for faithfully defending the F-35 purchase.
Air Force officers also tell Defence Watch that Lt.-Gen. Tom Lawson at NORAD is a person to watch."

Other than retired Lt Gen Andrew Leslie, who conducted the transformation study that recommended cutting a bunch of headquarters, no other army officers are mentioned.  This makes sense for two reasons:

1. Canada has had two Army officers as CDS in a row when there is usually (but not always) a rotation among the services.  But we have had air force-army-army.  So, it is the Navy's turn.  But Prime Minister's have not been bound by this.
2. Canada is turning from land-based priorities--Afghanistan--to air and sea-based priorities--the Arctic.  So, it makes sense that the CDS for the next term should be from a part of the CF that is more focused on the Arctic and that would be the Navy or Air Force.

 The article also mentions Lt. Gen Charles Bouchard, who led the Libyan operation for NATO.  He is not as tainted by the F-35 process, which might hurt Deschamps. 

Last time around, I had my favorites--that I had interviewed all three Army contenders but none of the Navy or Air Force ones, and that I had repeated interactions with one of the Army candidates.  So, I ended up getting half of what I wanted--an Army guy but not the one I knew well.  This time, I have one favorite as I have met only one of these candidates (Bouchard).  I also think, like last time, it would not hurt reaching out to Quebec to pick a Quebecker. 

To be clear, this is Harper's decision, and, when it comes to major military matters, he consults only himself.  The rest of us can only guess and wait.

Best NATO Summit Prep

We have and will continue to see a bunch of stuff as NATO prepares to meet in Chicago in less than two weeks.  I think this meeting is getting heaps more attention for a few reasons:

1. It is in the US so lazy/cheap American journalists can cover it without much sweat.
2. Chicago is just more visible than the past several at Riga, Bucharest, Strasbourg and Lisbon.  Paris, London and Berlin would all get more attention.
3. It is likely to be the equivalent of a "coup excuse" card in Junta--heaps of protests as the event provides a focal point for the mobilization of all kinds of dissent.
4. NATO is announcing a variety of initiatives including SMART defence--which is about pooling weapons purchases (hey, that F-35 is working out, ain't it?) and specialization.
5. Key items include--ratification by NATO of the "roadmap" for Afghanistan that should identify the dates of NATO's moves from combat to training and transition to the Afghans with the enddate of 2014 but much of the key milestones/benchmarks/whatever being reached in 2013.
6. This is the meeting where the French get to say they are leaving faster than previous expected due to Hollande's win this weekend.  As I have indicated before, this is not the first departure (thanks to the Dutch and Canadians), and the French, while providing one of the bigger forces, does not really own much space or a PRT.  So, big deal, but not huge deal.  

The real key here to understanding any NATO summit is that nearly all of the work is done ahead of time.  The meeting is like an academic conference in that it sets an artificial deadline to force folks to get their work done.  But there is actually very little bargaining at the meeting--mostly the talking points will have been vetted and re-vetted ahead of time, the docs that are signed will have been through the military committee and the North Atlantic Council and word-smithed by each as well as by each delegation/representative in Brussels several times over.

This is not to say the meeting is not important.  It is, but most of the business has already happened with the meeting being the rollout.  This is not unlike next week's rollout of the fall's TV schedule.  The upfronts will announce which TV shows get cancelled or moved around and which new programs will be tried out.  Those decisions have already been made but will be announced next week. And they are subject to revision as networks change their minds, as the initial ratings come in.  Likewise, NATO can revise the decisions made here--it is just hard to do so as consensus is required.  But there is nothing stopping any other country from unilaterally pulling out of Afghanistan, for instance.

Which just leaves one question: which network is the best analogy?

• FOX: whose success largely depends on one very, very successful program (American Idol), just as NATO's success in Libya (not that Libya is wonderful these days....) hinged on American logistics, drones, satellites, air power at the start, etc.
• CBS: just the steadiest network that does not seem all that innovative or hip but does it what does (procedurals, conventional sitcomes) very well year in and year out without that much fuss.  NATO is just the steadiest of international organizations in that it keeps exercising, it keeps planning, it runs occasional operations that may not be wildly successful but achieve the narrow aims, whether that is imposing peace on Bosnia and keeping it for a decade, forcing Serbia to give up Kosovo, extending the reach of the Afghan government beyond Kabul for as long as NATO is around, engaging in counter-piracy, or doing enough "civilian protection" in Libya so that Qaddafi is removed from power.
• NBC: a once proud organization that is now barely getting by, relying on efforts that critics and dedicated fans love (Parks and Rec, Community, etc) that do not have broad popularity.  
• ABC: Umm, running out of analogy power... any ideas on this one?

So, how you look at NATO depends on your expectations.  I even found myself agreeing this morning with Robert Kaplan (yes, really) as he posted a column that says that NATO ain't so bad.

Best Bad Idea

During the Iranian hostage crisis, a handful of American diplomats ended up in Canadian hands.  The Canadians managed to get them out of the country despite significant risks.  Here is the trailer for the movie:


I think this movie, Argo, is going to be wonderfully American.  That is, it will give more credit to the Americans than to the Canadians.  So, Canadians will probably end up being upset as they get slighted.  Art imitates life and vice versa, right?