Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...

I must not be very intelligent when it comes to matters of foreign diplomacy. Perhaps I should request a crash course in negotiating sensitive matters of national and international security from one of my good friends, who currently works for the U.S. State Department. Or is it the U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action! as their website says?

See, I tend to think that if a person or a country is going to negotiate in good faith using bargaining chips, then those chips should already be on the table before the negotiating session begins. I may very well be wrong about that. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

I did see this article on Yahoo! news this morning, in which the Russians claim to make a wonderful conciliatory gesture towards a more cooperative and peaceful approach with the new Obama Administration. Look at us! We promise we won't deploy nuclear-tipped missiles on the Polish border because George W. Bush is no longer in office! Especially since Obama has not ruled out the possibility of continuing Bush's plans for a missile defense shield in Europe (he only promised to consider the policy on its merits before deciding what to do), Russia's move seems to be fairly magnanimous.

However, check out when Moscow originally announced the deployment of their Iskander missiles: it was 5 Nov 08, the day after Obama was elected President. So, this whole announcement of a new era of cooperation, of extending an olive branch to the Obama Administration, is really just a ruse designed to make the Russians look good. They created the faux crisis a day after our Presidential election for the sole purpose of being able to use that bargaining chip now.

That must be how international diplomacy is really conducted.

Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha...

25 Things

There is a chain-mail type of note being passed around Facebook these days. No, not this type of chain mail... ...this type of chain mail, or chain letter. It asks anyone who has "been tagged" by another writer to then create a new note with 25 random things about themselves. It's similar to the old e-mails that people used to send with "personal interview" types of questions (you know the ones: "Paper or plastic? Boxers or briefs? Vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry? Etc., etc.), but is unique in that it is completely open-ended. People can, and do, write about any and all things that might describe themselves. Which does create a window into a person's thinking, character, and personality, after all.

The full set of instructions that accompanies the note is here:

Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

My own wife was the person who tagged me on Facebook, and I'm still debating just how to answer her note. On one hand, I don't want to go overboard and list anything that anyone might find offensive. There's still a great deal of internal editing that happens, since you know that your friends on Facebook (which, in my case, also includes my current Pastor) are reading. No one wants to leave the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

But then that means people are writing just the vanilla things about themselves that are socially acceptable for mass consumption. Maybe I do have artistic roots after all (thanks, Dad!), because I say, "Where's the fun in that?!" If you can't push the boundaries*, then why do it? In a completely open-ended personality quiz, don't you want to provide information that people don't already know about you? To provoke some thought about what it means to be alive these days? I think so.

* This is completely off-topic, but I wanted to throw this out there: Comedians live on that edge of social acceptability, and I think it's fascinating to see what happens as they get older. Eddie Murphy? No longer funny. Mel Brooks? No longer funny. Steve Martin? No longer funny. Robin Williams? No longer funny. If you think Chris Rock will still be funny in another 20-30 years, think again. Why is that premise universally true? When comedians are young, they are willing to take risks in unexpected ways. They often go for the shock value of a funny comment, and it's all about pushing the boundaries. In order to be truly funny, that's what it's all about. See "All in the Family" and Blazing Saddles (1974) for just two examples. As the comedian gets older, he or she is less willing to take those same risks, which is all part of our natural tendencies as humans to become more conservative or set in our ways as we get older. I'm not talking about conservative in a political sense; just that those mind-sets that formed our adult ways of thinking become more and more established until the person cannot think of changing to a new line of thinking. See Archie Bunker, above.

There are other ways of treating this "25 notes" thing, of course. You could strictly play it for laughs, being as ironic or sarcastic as you wish. I'm sure there are plenty of people on Facebook already doing so. You could try to be deep with your thoughts, striving to impress people with just how smart* you really are. You could approach this list using the "things I believe" framework popularized by Bull Durham (1988). Hell, you could probably rip off 25 notes derived purely from popular song lyrics or movie lines that you felt still described your personality in some way. I haven't seen anyone do that yet, and it would be fun to try that approach. Don't give the references away, and just see how many people pick up on the joke. Hmmm...

* To which I always think of Homer Simpson, in the episode where he gets into Springfield College, burning his high school GED certificate while singing, "I am so smart! S-M-R-T!!"

OK, now that I've gotten all of that out of the way, here are my 25 things:

1. I always overthink things too much. (Well, duh! What was your first clue?)
2. I always, always, always wanted to be a better athlete than I am. Still do. I fantasize that I could join the PGA Tour if I had the time and money to devote to training full-time. In reality, it ain't gonna happen. I just don't have the physical skills necessary, even just playing golf.
   
3. Even having said that, I still think I could have been a great race car driver, if given the chance early enough in life to hone those skills. In racing, the car does an awful lot of the work. It still takes great strength, hand-eye coordination, a seat-of-the-pants feel for what the car is doing, and lots and lots of practice on the driver's part, plus one other thing I discovered I have while racing go-karts in Thailand and Germany: the top drivers can control their emotions while running in traffic, which allows them to focus just on their own line in and out of the turns. I can do that. And yet, as fast as I was in the go-karts, there was always someone just a wee bit faster.
4. I feel like I missed my calling in life. I was tempted to put "sometimes" at the end of that sentence, but left it off.
5. When I was young (middle school-age), the first thought I had of what profession I would pursue when I was older was that of author/writer.
6. Then I fell in love with flying, and pursued that instead. Despite becoming airsick in planes smaller than commercial airliners. Despite all the travails I endured while a cadet at USAFA. Despite the Air Force drastically cutting back on its estimates for just how many pilots they needed at the time. It's probably amazing just how long I banged my head against that door after it was closed to me.
7. I annoy my wife any time we watch football together. My natural tendency, honed from years of watching football games with my family and with the guys in the Squadron Activity Room (SAR) at USAFA, is to talk to the TV non-stop during the games. About 95% of the time, the same words come out of my mouth about 1-2 seconds before they come out of the announcers' mouths. She no longer watches football with me.
   
8. The same typically applies when it comes to watching movies with my brother: we talk to the screen almost non-stop. The robots of "MST3K" are our heroes! I never had more fun in a single movie than when Bentley and I went to see Troy (2004) together. Fortunately, the theater was pretty well empty that night, or we would have been booted.
9. Did I mention I'm a geek? I never wore the nerd label very well, but I am more than happy to call myself "King of the Geeks" for some reason.
10. I always fret about work. I dislike work for work's sake, so I'm always looking for shortcuts when it comes to getting something done. I sometimes call myself lazy for that very reason.
11. I don't like my current career, but it pays the bills and gives me something to do. But because I'm in work that I don't like, I try to spend as little time doing it as possible. See note 10, above.
12. We've been told that we should love what we do for a living. One retired UIUC professor said he never spent less than 60 hours a week doing his work. Did he ever see his children as they were growing up? And if everyone does just what they love, then who would be the janitors in society? Actually, I adore the comic "Frazz" because it's about an elementary school janitor who has time to train for triathlons. Sure, he doesn't make much money, but he's happy interacting with the kids. Hmmm...
13. In college, I received similar guidance from my first calculus professor at THE Ohio State University. I went in for some extra help, since I was completely lost on logarithmic functions. His only advice was to do more homework. If I don't know what I'm doing, what's the point of doing more work wrongly? I withdrew from that class before I got an F.
14. Not to think too highly of myself, but I tended to get good grades in high school, which made me think I'm reasonably smart. High school physics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, biology -- all of those were fine and I did well in those classes. When I got to college, the freshman-level versions of those same topics completely kicked my ass. That's why I was a history major for my undergrad degree.
15. Just try getting a job with "Russian History" on your resume.
    
16. Oh, and in my senior-level history capstone course, when we read our essays out loud in front of the entire class, mine were about the worst. There were clearly much smarter people than I am who later went on to grad school in history. On Rhodes scholarships and the like. Pretty humbling stuff.
17. Did I mention I feel lost in my mid-life career path? There might be things I like about the work I do, but I have the feeling I'm on this path only because I can read and write. Literally. Oh, sure, I got my foot in the door with IT Systems Integration Management because I had an active security clearance at the time. I've learned quite a bit about IT systems and Project Management over time, even earning my PMP credential this past year. But sometimes I feel just completely lost. I'm trying to learn the relevant parts of the software development life cycle (SDLC) right now.
18. If I'm having a mid-life crisis, it started when I was 27. Where's my red convertible and hot blonde?
19. I do have to give props to my wife, who was gracious enough to say yes when I asked. Yes, the famous Winston Churchill quote "My most brilliant achievement was my ability to be able to persuade my wife to marry me" applies to me, too. I think it applies to darn near every man aware enough to realize it.
20. I didn't get married until I was about to turn 32. We didn't have children until I was 35. I never, ever realized what I was missing by not having children in my life. Sure, I loved being an uncle, but it's completely different. As frustrating as kids can be at times (and no one can make my kids cry faster than I can, to my eternal shame), they are such an incredible blessing to have in my life.
    
21. I secretly think that if I were separated from my kids for any reason, I might not be able to continue living. Hey, that would make a pretty good Post Secret postcard.
22. I really wish I were a better creative writer. There is this post from a computer scientist that just blows me away. I wish I had that kind of talent, but I'm just too literal. My brain doesn't work in more creative ways. I also use way too many words to describe anything, current post included.
    
23. I've never been a good story teller, but love to listen to those who are. Garrison Keillor comes to mind.
    
24. I should have at least one item related to gaming, shouldn't I? All my life, ever since the first Atari 2600, I've always loved finding ways to play games on computers and console boxes. Inevitably, I would spend way too much time playing a game, and then have to feel sick to my stomach that I couldn't devote the time needed to my schoolwork to get a better grade. That's still true today, but I'm desperately curbing my desire to buy a Wii and play games with my kids nonstop.
    
25. What else? Jesus saves; all others roll 4d6 for damage. If you don't get that reference, I'm not gonna explain it to you.
    

Now that I have these things written here, I'm tempted to pick up the list and transfer it over to Facebook. Larry Tesler is my hero! How many times have you heard those words? Not enough.

Russian Help on Afghanistan

No, the headline above is not a non-sequitur, as much as it may seem like one. It springs from this article I just read on Yahoo!'s news aggregation service.

Now, there are many ways of reading this fairly short news article from Reuters. On the surface, it appears like the incoming Obama administration is already fostering hope in renewed or strengthened relations with the international community. That could be one way of looking at it, since the U.S., NATO, and Russia had a bit of a falling-out after Russia's war with Georgia last summer. Perhaps Big Bad Vlad Putin and Russian President Dmitry* Medvedev felt like they could mend relations with the new Obama administration better than they could with the outgoing Bush administration.**

* I still can never think of a Russian President/Soviet Premier named Dmitry without thinking, of course, of Stanley Kubrik's all-time classic Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Dmitri Kissoff... ha! Still makes me laugh! There are not many Peter Sellers roles that even begin to approach the hilarity of the three he had in this one movie.

** This, despite Bush's famous quote about meeting with Putin and seeing into his soul.

Another way of looking at the news is that Russia, perhaps, sees another opportunity to exert its influence in a region it has long coveted (unless coveted is too strong a word) during a time of leadership transition in the U.S. government. Russia's offer to "help" us in Afghanistan comes hard on the heels of Tuesday's Inauguration, you have to admit. This honestly could be Obama's first foreign-policy test, but it is too early to tell the true intent of the Russians here.

I loved this quote taken directly from the Reuters article:

"Let us hope the new U.S. administration will be more successful in the Afghan settlement than its predecessor," Medvedev told a news conference after talks with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

Or did he mean, "...more successful than WE were in suppressing the Islamic Mujahideen resistance during our decade-long entanglement in Afghanistan"?!! Which raises a great deal of questions all on its own.

I was old enough to remember the nightly news covering the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when I was a child. I clearly remember President Jimmy Carter boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in retalliation for the invasion, which then was repaid in kind by the Eastern Bloc countries boycotting the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, CA.

One thing I was never fully clear on, and I don't think the nightly news programs* ever answered on their own, was WHY the Soviets felt compelled to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was pretty clear why the U.S. responded the way it did, and the movie they made starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts on Charlie Wilson's War (2007) provided a nice historical perspective, even if it wasn't 100% true. On this topic, the Wikipedia page provides some information related to the events leading up to the Soviet invasion, but it should not be trusted as a source for a deeper understanding of the Soviet rationale.

* The one we probably watched over any others at the time was Dan Rather on the CBS Nightly News, and oh, how long ago does that seem now! Who watches the evening news any more these days?

So, before I go off to the library in search of more scholarly tomes on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I thought I would post the question here: does anyone know which book(s) are the best one(s) on this topic? Wikipedia actually does a decent job of listing source material for the footnotes, all of which are found at the bottom of the page linked above. I could sift through those footnotes to find books on the topic, I suppose. Even then, you always want to be reading the right books, right?

All I know is this: the rationale for the Soviet invasion I remember as being provided at the time, that the Soviets were looking to secure a warm-water port outside their Black Sea fleet, is completely bogus.

On The Run from AJC

Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains some humorous anecdotes from the Presidential campaign trail here. The bit that caught my eye was that Russia decided to turn down John McCain's request for campaign funding. I know! First McCain wants to kick Russia out of the G8, and then his campaign solicits Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, for funding. Well, if your opponents is busy raising $150 Million in a single month, why not look under every stone?

The bigger question is what Obama plans to do with all that money. Better yet, with such a downturn in the economy and the vaporization of wealth on Wall Street (best characterized as simple paper losses, unless people actually sold their shares after stock values plummeted), why are people funding a single campaign in such record numbers?

Especially when the presidential race seems to be almost a foregone conclusion with just 14 days remaining until the polls close.

It's always nice to receive a personal note from the current Governor of Alaska in my inbox, however:

Dear Supporter,

If you caught my guest appearance on Saturday Night Live this weekend, you may have seen an ad or two (or twenty) from Senator Obama's campaign.

This barrage of advertising is adding up to the most expensive negative ad buy in political history. And these ads are funded with the nearly $200 million the Obama campaign and the DNC raised in September.

With this new money, they'll only step up their media buying efforts to flood every network with ads attacking our shared values. These ads are full of inaccurate information designed to mislead voters in key media markets.

We need your support to stop the Obama-Biden Democrats' media buying binge. Your immediate contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or more will help fund our team's ads in key media markets across the country.

The current media buying gap is a direct result of Senator Obama's broken pledge to accept public financing. This summer, Senator Obama chose to break his promise to the American people by opting out of the public financing system. But, you can be sure that our entire team will honor all of the promises we make in this campaign because we are men and women of our word.

Our team of reformers has a plan to take America in a new direction. Our economic policies focus on providing economic relief to those who need it most. While the Obama-Biden Democrats say they want to "spread the wealth around," our team won't support economic policies that punish Americans for working hard and pursuing the American Dream.

I'm asking you today to help our team get this message out. The funds you give today will help pay for upcoming ad buys and get-out-the-vote efforts.

If Senator Obama is elected and Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are in charge of Congress, there will be nothing stopping them from raising your taxes, immediately pulling out of Iraq and placing your healthcare decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats.

We can't let this happen and that's why your financial support is so critical to our efforts. Every dollar we raise goes directly to help fund media buys and get-out-the-vote efforts in important races across the country. So, please make the most generous contribution you can give - whether its $25 or $250. We're certainly grateful for any help you can give. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

Too bad the e-mail didn't include pics!

Russia - Ukraine Relations

I mentioned this the other day, and it's gonna happen. Russia will find some pretense, some provocation for sending its troops into the Crimean Peninsula, and then that part of independent Ukraine will be independent no longer.


The news yesterday morning (WSJ article: subscription req'd) was that the government of Ukraine fell apart, in no small part over disagreements between pro-NATO and Western leaning President Viktor Yushchenko and pro-Russia Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The two are pictured here in happier times, probably when they announced their ruling "Orange" coalition. It was a shaky coalition to begin with, and now there were simply too many disagreements over how cozy Ukraine should be with either the West or with Russia.

They now have one month to try to put together another ruling coalition, or face new elections.

One quick glance at a map shows just how valuable Sevastopol and the Crimean Peninsula are to Russia:

Sarah Palin Speaks

Hmmmm...

That's my official reaction to hearing and reading what Sarah Palin said on ABC News this week, during her first unscripted appearance and interview on a major news network. As I said before, I believe that she deserves the opportunity to speak for herself and to prove to the country that she deserves to be John McCain's VP candidate. Now that she's had that opportunity to defend her own record in an interview with Charlie Gibson, I'm now scratching my head a little.

Let's start with Charlie's questioning about whether or not she's ever met a foreign head of state. She admitted she has not. Ever. She rightly pointed out that she is not the first VP candidate to be in that position, but she clearly does not have any experience negotiating tough deals with foreign heads of state. Since the VP position tends to be more ceremonial than functional (well, it did before Dick Cheney), that inexperience might not be a drawback for Palin.

Charlie moved on to discuss Sarah's perspective on specific national security situations, the first of which was dealing with a resurgent Russia and the recent events in Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Here are the direct quotes, straight from the ABC News website:

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Now, of course, I'm very happy to hear that Palin does not advocate a return to the Cold War. She's flat-out wrong about no shots fired during the Cold War, naturally. Francis Gary Powers springs to mind. The US also might not have much of a choice about a renewed Cold War with Russia. I'm not saying that Big Bad Vlad (Putin) wants to reinstate the Iron Curtain and rebuild the buffer zone of Eastern European countries in another USSR. However, he does seem to want to reassert Russia's zones of influence and return Russia to a resurgent role as superpower on the world stage.

This about this from Putin's perspective. Russia was bankrupt towards the end of the Cold War and simply couldn't keep up with Reagan's military buildup in the 1980s. (Then again, how well did the US afford that buildup?) First Gorby and then Yeltsin promoted the idea of Glasnost and Perestroika, encouraging more transparency within the government and warmer ties with the West. In exchange, Russia was shown to have significant issues within its military, and while they always maintained their importance in the UN Security Council, The West learned we didn't have quite as much to fear from Russia as we thought during the Cold War.

Which meant the US was then free to act much more unilaterally and with some impunity when it came to matters of national security. What did Russia get in return? Some free market reforms that made the oligarchs and Russian mafia rich, but certainly a diminished role and very little opposition to US objectives. War in the Balkans? The US stepped in during the Dayton Peace Accords and still maintains boots on the ground there. War in the Middle East? The US has conducted not one, but three different wars since the early '90s with very little to no consideration for Russian goals or objectives in the region. Of course, the Russians might have the last laugh if the US also has to leave the mountains of Afghanistan without a long-lasting solution against the Islamic fundamentalists there. But the Russians aren't providing the remnants of the Taliban with guns and Stingers the way we did during their occupation of the country in the '80s.

So, for Palin and, I assume McCain also, to suggest that we need to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO against Russian opposition to such a move is dangerous and reckless at the very least. I understand that leaders in Ukraine and Georgia are asking for membership in NATO and the European Union. They have much more to gain by aligning themselves with Western Europe than with Russia. However, I would not be surprised in the least for Russia to invent another provocation against ethnic Russians living in Sevastopol, their long-time warm weather port and home to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Any excuse they can use to send in troops and control the necessary land of Ukraine, I believe they will do. Putin has shown he is willing to commit troops on such a cause, and they are looking for ways of provoking a fight with the US as this WSJ article shows (subscription req'd). Why else would Russia claim a stolen US passport was evidence of US meddling or mercenaries in Georgia? Russia is itching for a fight, and we don't need to provoke them by trying to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

Let's get back to Palin. She also discussed the Bush Doctrine* with Gibson. (Watch the video on ABC News/Yahoo here.) More appropriately, it seemed as though Gibson had to tell Palin what the Bush Doctrine was, and then she had to react to being caught off-guard. She certainly supports Bush's ability to strike at Islamic extremists at will, pre-emptively if needed, but then she wanted to resume the McCain-Palin ticket's claim to being agents of change.

*As perhaps one of the most significant foreign policy shifts since the Truman Doctrine stated the U.S. would do everything in its power to prevent Greece and Turkey from falling under Soviet influence after WWII, the Bush Doctrine is certainly worth knowing cold for any future Presidential candidate. It's also certainly worth contrasting with the Powell Doctrine, used so effectively by Bush 41 in the First Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Frankly, it can be quite confusing. Would a McCain Administration continue prosecuting unpopular military actions in Afghanistan and, increasingly, Pakistan, with the prospects of expanding the war on terror? Pakistan poses its own high wire diplomatic drama, with factions taking hard line stances against having US troops conducting offensive actions in western Pakistan. The official government line, for now, is resorting to diplomacy, but how long will that last?

So, all of this once again makes me think, "Hmmmm..." How much could we trust a McCain-Palin administration to keep us safe in the new world order? How much should we trust them with foreign affairs? How well do they understand all the issues? And would an Obama-Biden administration do any better?