And then there were eight

After yesterday's conference in Prague, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Now, I can't say this really has much of an effect on my life, but I am left with the following question. How am I going to remember the order of the other planets when my favorite mnemonic device no longer applies. For over a decade, I've relied on "My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas" to guide me in my planetary ramblings. Now what?

Here's a suggestion; others are welcome:

Many Very Eager Majors Join Squadrons Under Noriega

A Finger in the Dike?

A Northwest Airlines flight to Mumbai was turned back to Amsterdam's Schipol airport today, and 12 passengers were detained following suspicious behavior involving post-takeoff cell phone use. The cabin crew noted the odd behavior and informed the Captain, who radioed the for support. Two Dutch F-16s escorted the plane back to Amsterdam where the passengers were detained.

Alright. Good job on the part of the crew for being attentive, on the part of the Captain for following appropriate protocol, and the Dutch for responding promptly. But this begs the question: assuming there's a plot afoot, how do the various intelligence agencies fail to pick up at least a few of these potential security risks, particularly when they all board the same plane? It also begs another question: if you were running a terrorist operation, would you put all your operatives on the same plane? These two questions lead to a few possible answers (probably several others, as well).

1. None of these people is a terrorist, and all are unfamiliar with the rules governing cell phone usage on airplanes.
2. Some of these people are terrorists, and they are flying with their families, who are unaware of what they're up to.
3. All of these people are terrorists, but none of them has a prior criminal history, and therefore, their aggregation is not seen as a risk.
4. All of these people are terrorists, none of them has a prior criminal history, and their aggregation is part of a larger plan, where the strateic aim outweighs the risk.

Well now. Isn't that fun? It seems that, despite our best efforts at reacting strategically in the GWOT, we just keep reacting like the little boy trying to stem the flood.

And now we'll just have to keep an eye on the news to find out what really happened. Enough speculation on my part.

Sweet, Sweet Justice

In a decision that makes me glad I'm an American (yes, that was cheesy. deal with it.), US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in favor of the ACLU, determining that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. The argument, "We can't prove it's legal because that would violate national security," was never particularly sound, particularly considering the entire country was following the particularls of the case, and now it's been officially determined to be bull-hockey. Of course there is already an appeal to the 6th Circuit in the works, but still, I'd put this up there as Good Guys 1, Bad Guys 0. Hah.

In other news, Tobacco companies suffered a loss in a ruling by US District Judge Gladys Kessler, who backed the Justice Department's racketeering suit. In her ruling, she stated that the racketeering charge be upheld, as the "defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted." They won't have to pay the $280 billion, but at least something good is coming out of the Justice Department these days.

And finally, in a note that's more "just desserts" than "justice done," the Washington Post ran an article yesterday about how K Street lobbying firms are starting a hiring push to find Democrats. So, it seems that after 6 years of painful Washington partisanship, the tide is finally turning, and as always, the lobbying firms are on the front edge of the wave. Here's hoping I won't have to put on nude stockings and pearls just to walk downtown anymore.

See, I'd invade Kamchatka

And so it was in the days of my boss' college experience that Dubya lived also in the dorms at Yale. And lo, there were final exams, and yea, there was gamesmanship.

So, it turns out that the 'Merican president was a year behind my boss at Yale. And apparently, he was the kid who spent the study period before finals playing Risk. Now, there are so many good metaphors here that it's almost making my brain overheat. So, we'll stick with the easiest one for now.

As anyone who has played Risk knows, it's a pretty black-and-white game. It's not the game of world leadership, it's the game of world conquest. Force trumps strategy when the dice roll your way, and unlikely maneuvers can pay off if you have enough willingness to go all in and keep betting on sheer probability. That's how my uncle once managed to conquer the world from a nice, secure base in Australia.

However, as anyone who has played Risk also knows, the Middle East is the worst place to start your world takeover. Unlike some more friendly venues, when you start in the Middle East, you have enemies (or, in a less dramatic sense, other players) at every conceivable turn. It's nearly impossible to defend, since you have no safe place to put your back, and you have to marshal resources on all your borders. Sound familiar, anyone?

It seems that Dubya's penchant for Risk has carried through to today, but now he's playing it with a much bigger board. Perhaps we'd all be better off if he'd spent that time studying, or at least playing Diplomacy, instead.

Let Slip the Dogs of War

Read the very excellent comment piece by Jacob Weisberg (editor of www.slate.com) in today's Financial Times re: Lieberman and the fate of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet voted to expand the ground offensive into Lebanon to meet the Litani River, and restructured ground command to sideline the (relatively) cautious Adam. Theoretically, this move will increase Israel's troop levels in Lebanon, strike a harder assault on Hizballah, prevent Hizballah from reaching Israeli territory with Katyusha rockets.

Theoretically, this move could also do the following:

Kill 300-500 Israeli soldiers (my guess is that this is a conservative estimate, as accurate death toll estimates don't tend to drum up civilian support for wars in democracies), and an unknown number of Lebanese civilians who are now trapped in southern Lebanon;

Further devastate the infrastructure of southern Lebanon;

Prompt Hizballah to use their supplies of longer-range Iranian missiles, escalating the conflict and exacerbating tensions between the West and Iran;

Recruit more Lebanese to the Hizballah cause, as the longer Israel stays in Lebanon, the more support Hizballah garners. There's a new generation of children who will have to make the choice between an ineffective national government and an effective, nationalist/Islamist extra-governmental army.

And what of the wider Middle East? Arab countries are not without their own problems, and many face internal tensions that are exacerbated by surrounding conflict. For example, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a banned organization (that still holds seats in government), declared this week that they could send 10,000 jihadists to Lebanon to fight with Hizballah. Long-held tensions between the Palestinians and the Lebanese seem to be easing as leaders from both Fatah and Hizballah see Israel as a common enemy.

This change is dangerous, as Fatah held power as a secular party. Forgive my naivete, but a secular Palestinian political party aligning with an Iranian-sponsored Islamist movement signals a move towards the sort of ideologically irrational alliances made to marshal resources before a wider war. Desperation breeds strange bedfellows.

The Bellwether?

Well, now. As I write this, polls in Connecticut are likely on the verge of closing over one heck of a primary. The nation (and the world, frankly: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2304231,00.html) is watching Celebrity Death Match: Democracy as Lieberman takes on Lamont in an election centering nearly entirely around the war in Iraq.

How easy to say that a Lamont victory is a victory for the blogosphere, for the liberal left, for disaffected Americans nationwide. How wrong. Lieberman's politics, although I don't agree with all of them, show a consistent, smart approach to foreign policy (and the funding thereof, although a lot of his support for the foreign affairs budget stems from funding for Israel), a fundamentally liberal voting record on social issues, and a refusal to give in to one-issue electioneering. Lieberman's a liberal of the educated sort.

It's lucky for the left and the center that Lieberman is considering a run as an independent, not least because trading the influence of Lieberman for Lamont would be a blow to Connecticut's standing in the Senate (I assume here that a Republican would not take Lieberman's empty seat in a final election, but . . .). There are other, more subtle reasons to value his determination to run the race, regardless of his party.

There are not enough independent minds in the US government today. I seriously doubt that Lieberman as an independent will vote any differently than Lieberman as a Democrat, but how refreshing to have a senior member of the Senate cut ties with party affiliation, however nominally.

The second issue does, I admit, center again around Iraq. Lamont's message resonates with voters, but the "get out now" approach to foreign policy is just unrealistic and dangerous. Regardless of the reasons why the US embroiled itself in the Middle East, we did it. They (nearly) all voted for it. We have made a mess, and made a dangerous situation more dangerous, for Iraqis and their neighbors, and for ourselves.

It is irresponsible in the extreme to suggest that troop removal (while continuing training and technical assistance) will have a positive outcome. I can tell you right now that I wouldn't go back to Iraq if the US military wasn't there, and I'd wager there are quite a few aid workers that would agree with me.

We aren't doing the right thing in Iraq right now, but Lamont's proposition won't remedy the situation, either. We need intelligence, strategy, and long-term planning, not rhetoric and name-calling.

So, is this election a bellwether? Is anyone surprised that a New England state would come out anti-war? Does it really show a leftward tilt in the democratic party? Does it even matter, if Lieberman garners a win as an independent? The answer is no.

Oh, yes, we're drowning

It's time for a change.

In the past, I've focused my blogging activities (http://ririaroundtheworld.blogspot.com) on my personal travel stories. I've decided that the world has gone a bit crazy, and the rules I've set for my travelblog don't give enough room for expanding.

So, now I welcome you to ophelianic world, where the topic is global in scope, and nothing is sacred.

Enjoy!