Another year as an ex-pat sees another attempt at trying to educate the Brits (and whoever else is around) about what Thanksgiving means. Nick, the Frenchman, has once again proven that he is tremendously thankful for being my friend, and is sad that he only has the chance to show it once a year by devouring every scrap of turkey within arms reach. Christian was his usual dashing self, apart from the tiredness from days of rowing. Kathleen was in true form with her sweet potatoes, and I might add that Doris said the gravy gets better every year. See the pictures here.

Expectation
The warm home bustles as lives move in and out
Breath like the puff of a pipe escapes the bundled as they chat on a street corner
And then they’re off!

The cold day makes their cheeks rosy, the sun makes their eyes sparkle
They dance from one event to the next
laughter and smiles mix with business and more cold air.

Fresh pies, a job complete, they settle in for conversation
Wits are matched, parried, and sharpened
The day complete, they snuggle in
Tired, but dreaming of tomorrow.

Strange Brew

On another note, I have a story for this one:

Bizarro

When my family lived in Guam, we had a house on a cliff overlooking Apra Harbour. In the two years we lived there, we had dozens of typhoons and tropical storms blow over our house. Sometimes we evacuated to the Bachelor Officer Quarters, and sometimes we hung on, but miraculously, our wooden house remained intact year after year. The house had actually been there since the middle of the 20th century. Then, shortly after we left the island, the winds changed, the storm brewed, and *whoosh*! There went a 5000 sq. ft. house off the cliff.

At last night’s Strategic Studies Group meeting, I had a thought about a contradiction in the war on terror. I know that there was a debate when Bush started the war on terror as to whether one could fight an idea - or something that wasn’t physical. Other examples of such wars include the war on poverty or the war on drugs. It occurred to me that, while fighting terrorism might be ‘good’, translating that to fighting fundamentalists or rogue states isn’t so good. Let me briefly expand.

If you are playing a game, you are expected to follow the rules. If you break the rules, there are generally consequences (you get reprimanded, sent out of the game, etc). The consequences are handed out not because of who you are but because of the choices you have made. Start making the choices that are within the rules, and the game goes on.

I know that it may not be useful to consider the international arena in terms of game theory, but there are some insights we can gain by doing so. Consider the war on terror as a game, albiet a game where the rules are set by the US. What are the rules? Theoretically, if war is being waged on terror, then any terrorist act is a breach of the rules. Therefore, consequences should come about when terrorist acts are committed (there’s a whole section to my argument on preemtive action that I won’t deal with here). The US, as self-proclaimed referee in the game, should only be concerned with preventing terrorist acts.

What this means is that the US should not be focused on particular groups, saying the war on terror is a war on them, no more than a referee should be picking on a single player. As long as the US keeps a perspective on why it is in this war - to prevent terrorist action - then there are some grounds for its justification. It’s focus should therefore not be on dismantling any opposition it comes up against, but rather showing that opposition that it can still oppose US/Western interests, but that it can’t do so using terrorist tactics.

The US is actually in a bigger game; one where it is not referee. In this game, there are groups who actively oppose some aspects of the US worldview. That opposition should not be squashed, but should be channeled into constructive debate. Both parties would benefit from such a debate. The rules of this game, then are that each player should be allowed a voice, and other players should not prevent that voice from being heard. As a player like any other in this higher level game, the best the US can do is 1) to prevent the harm to it when others try to squash its voice - which is not really much of a problem at the moment, and 2) to help other players develop a constructive argumentation style. The second point, then, is where the war on terror comes in.

Thoughts?