In one of my International Relations classes many years ago, we did an exercise where we played a model of nuclear disarmament negotiation. I guess that dates me a bit. In the mid-80's, disarmament was all the rage. We were even talking about it at West Point.

As I recall, the model that we played was something that the actual negotiators did for practice (one of the advantages of the Military Academy, I guess). The rules went like this. Each side got 100 points to assign to various weapon systems, and then the other side got to take away 10 points worth. (I don't remember the details exactly - it could have been more, like 20 or 25.) The basis of the game is like ensuring fairness when cutting a piece of cake in two - one person cuts, the other person chooses. I think we did it for 4 rounds, and the results of each round were fed into a computer (not sure if it was PC or mainframe based at the time) and each move was scored for its effect on the "stability" of the system. We knew generally what factors were said to comprise stability - essentially if one side had something that the other side couldn't readily counter or account for - i.e., if you had something that you could defeat the other side with - then that made things less stable. On the US side of things, the MX missile system and our sub-based systems made things less stable.

That seemed silly to me, trying to negotiate to "parity." I believe in MacArthur's dictum that there is "no subsitute for victory." Our first move kept things in the stable territory, and the guys playing the Soviets did the same thing. But I looked at how they had "priced" their systems, and I saw how we could win - we could take several thousand of their weapons in exchange for getting about 100 or so of our oldest and least reliable systems off the table, while keeping our most modern systems. It took some convincing, but we decided to do what I suggested. It worked as I had predicted, we improved the reliability of the US stockpile, and we got rid of a sizable percentage of the Soviet arsenal in one move. Win-win, in my book. But the computer hated it. We took a nosedive out of the "stable zone," into a danger zone, with that one move.

Well, my team got nervous with that - they wanted to be where the model wanted us to be. So even though I argued that we could essentially halve the Soviet arsenal at little cost to our own, we ended up splitting the difference between my path toward victory and what the demands of stability were. So the next round, we still depleted the Soviets more than us, but we lost what to me were critical assets that we did not have to lose. And the score crept back toward the stability zone, but we were still in "danger." The last round, my team ended up sacrificing to the god of stability, putting the modern systems up cheap, practically giving them away (the equivalent of unilateral disarmament) so that the model thought we were winning. It worked, and we just barely got into the zone. That was the damage my one really good stroke had done to our position.

That bothered me that we were training our negotiators to work not for victory, but for a tie. The assumption was that if there wasn't a tie on the nuclear front, that the side that had the least assurance of being in a tie - i.e., the losers - were going to go ahead and strike first, so even if we had "won" the battle of disarmament, we all lost in the end. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

What made me think of this was a Sally Quinn piece in the Washington Post about Ahmed Chalabi. As happens often in the Post, an article that seems actually insightful about Iraq ends up in the Style section. What struck me was the opening paragraph:

He smiles a knowing smile. He's got this baby in the bag. But then, he always does. That's what makes his detractors crazy -- and his supporters so loyal. Never, they say, underestimate Ahmed Chalabi. It is always a mistake.

Ms. Quinn has wrapped up the core of our supercharged political atmosphere, not just Ahmed Chalabi. Success makes detractors crazy, and supporters loyal. I wrote a few weeks ago about a David Broder column where he praised Bob Michel, the former Republican Minority Leader in the House. Of course Democrats liked him - he was a force for "stability" - permanent rule of the House by Democrats - rather than for victory. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, was about winning, and he did. And he was reviled, and loved for it. President Clinton engendered that same kind of love and hate. Why were his supporters so loyal, his detractors so crazed? Because, agree with him or not, he was successful at achieving his goals. Senator Jesse Helms wasn't just "Senator No," he was Senator "No, not if you don't do it my way." On the flip side, President George H. W. Bush lost on the "no new taxes" pledge, and tried to accomodate the Democrats. He was opposed, not reviled. But he lost.

Generally, I think, the polarizing figures in politics are those that are successful at doing what they aim to do. And that is why we see such division over this President Bush. He has been succeeding in achieving his goals, in this country, with or without Democrats, in the world, with or without the support of France. This drives his opponents crazy, and it makes his supporters loyal.

As pittspilot notes below, the trip to Baghdad was part political theater, and people want it. But people criticize it because it was a sign of victory. And in that, I think we should take heart. Yes, it is disgusting to read what some are saying about it, but the point of it was not to win over the Angry Left, but to boost the morale of the troops and demonstrate American resolve and power. And with those things, we will win.

Bush's campaign Web site already has signed up 6 million supporters, 10 times the number that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has, and the Bush operation is in the middle of an unprecedented drive to register 3 million new Republican voters. The campaign has set county vote targets in some states and has begun training thousands of volunteers who will recruit an army of door-to-door canvassers for the final days of the election next November.

Link from Drudge.

The Democrats are all hip and stuff, but as President Bush used to say as a candidate, "If Al Gore invented the internet, how come all the web sites start with W - W - W?" (Yeah, I know, Gore never said he invented the internet. He just took the initiative in creating it.) The first internet political fundraising campaign I ever saw was for Judge Roy Moore. Yeah, that guy. And it was the first time I ever gave money to a campaign. Plus, Patrick Ruffini is in on this thing.

One of the differences between great Presidents and mediocre Presidents is their understanding of the Presidency as theatre. Carter did not understand this, neither did Ford. If Carter had understood this he would never have made the "malaise" speech, and Ford would have avoided those tumbles. Bush Sr. also did not understand this. Reagan, however, understood this facet of the Presidency better then any other President in the 19th Century, although Clinton understood it as well. Clinton was just not able to pull off the theatrics as well as Reagan (Clinton's visit to Normandy, for example) or used them at inoppurtune times. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky). It appears that GWB understands this as well as Reagan, and may surpass the master yet. While GWB may not have the rheotorical skill of Reagan, he makes it work. And both of them played the role physically as well. Reagan, after Hinkley shot him, and GWB with his landing on the carrier, and this latest masterful piece of political theater, the trip to Baghdad.

The current field of Democrats clearly does not understand this facet of politics. The comments from the group make this quite clear.

Kerry campaign "When Thanksgiving is over, I hope the president will take the time to correct his failed policy in Iraq that has placed our soldiers in a shooting gallery."

Dean campaign "It's nice that he made it over there today, but this visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place."

And so on. (Thanks to Best of the Web for collating the comments in one spot)

Only Gephardt kept his mouth shut.

What the current crop of Democrats do not get, is it that the people of this country, me included, want some political theatre, with our politics. Politics is the grand game played on an international scale. The President is the United States personified. The current occupant of the office of the Presidency has been were other great men have sat. Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and others. I need to believe that the man occupying that office is not an "ordinary" chap. The job is too big and the responsibilities too heavy for an "ordinary" man. We are in a war and we need our Churchill striding through the ruins of a bombed out London. We need our Reagan telling the enemy that they are an "Evil Empire." We need our President to act boldly, to cheer up the troops, to do what we all wish we could do. To liven up the spirits of those brave troops in the line of danger.

Did you hear the cheers of those troops? Did you shed a tear with Bush? Did you smile as wide as those troops did when they surrounded the President? I did. And I cannot imagine any other person vying for leadership doing the same. Clinton may have tried, but it would have come off contrived. Clinton played a role. Reagan lived the role, understood the history, and the symbolism. Reagan respected the symbology of the Presidency. Bush does too.

Now, of course, those on the left will refer to my thoughts as a form of psychological facism. (I just learned about this) Of course, this is a form of propaganda. And as with everything, it can be carried too far. Nazism and facism were political symbology carried way too far. But every society has a need for political theatre. It is part of the glue of our society.

His speech in Baghdad.

I'm with the President, MSG Johnson!

Rich Galen isn't doing the regular Mullings anymore- now its a blog from Iraq. Here's a picture from his travels:

HONOLULU — The United States will reassign some troops from South Korea to Afghanistan and Iraq and shift most of the 7,000 people in its headquarters in Seoul out of the capital beginning within a year, military officials say.

Thought also is being given to disbanding the United Nations headquarters in South Korea and ending the practice of keeping a four-star general in command of operations in the country.

The moves are part of a gradual disengagement of U.S. land forces from Korea and a greater reliance on sea power to maintain the American security posture in Asia.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld flew through northeastern Asia last week, sprinkling clues about the future of U.S. military dispositions even as he reaffirmed U.S. treaty commitments to South Korea and Japan. Other officials filled in details.

A primary reason for pulling back from South Korea is that the United States needs the 17,000 soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division elsewhere. As Mr. Rumsfeld and military leaders have said repeatedly, U.S. forces are stretched thin. The U.S. Army has only 10 divisions and cannot afford to have one tied down in Korea.

Good idea! Of course it's just a start. But who would have thought such a thing at the beginning of this year?

If I ever get around to doing categories, "Some days" will be one of them. For those days where I just shake my head.

Today's headshaker - Chris Muir or Ted Rall? Yep, a "Day by Day" that has hit the Godwin limit, comparing the Bush administration to Nazis. Nice.

Blaster's Blog is the #2 on Google for "monkey bongs"!!

But some days I want to just kick Allah in the nuts.

The Republicans are running their first ad. The Democrats want it pulled. The Democrats think that pointing out that they are critical of the President on the war on terror is somehow questioning their patriotism.

Oh, yes, the old "you can't respond to our criticism with criticism" trick. Truth hurts, I guess.