Coffee with Mark Towhey

TORONTO — Ahh… people say the most wonderful things during elections, don’t they.  It’s a time of clear-thinking, honest articulation of where parties and politicians stand on various issues that allows each voter to gain insight into how potential future governments would operate.  With such fresh, fact-based insight, the voter is thus empowered to make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Or, is it just me?

Bruce Campion-Smith writes in today’s Toronto Star newspaper (p.A17 in the Toronto edition as well as online) about the difficulties the Liberal Party is having with its platform spending commitments because of the current economic uncertainty, and because Conservatives cut taxes.  Campion-Smith quotes Liberal finance critic John McCallum as follows:

In an interview, McCallum accused the Conservatives of using tax cuts to deliberately drain the coffers and prevent future governments from enacting ambitious programs.

“I think the Conservatives are anti-government. I think their philosophy is cut taxes … and then deprive us of room to do Liberal things,” McCallum said yesterday.

– Toronto Star, Sep. 24, 2008  p.A17

Kudos to McCallum

Rarely have words uttered in an election campaign so clearly and concisely outlined a party’s political philosophy.  McCallum criticizes the Conservative government for returning unncessary (i.e. “surplus”) tax dollars back to the people who earned them.  If I was Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, I’d be proud to confess:  “Guilty as charged!” 

As I understand it, governments tax the people in order to pay for programs that the people want and need.  If, God forbid, the government takes too much money from the people = if it takes more money than it needs to pay for those wanted/needed programs = if it generates a “surplus” of funds at the end of the year, then, I say, it should return those funds.

After all, if I give you $5 to buy me a coffee while you’re out at Tim Hortons, and it turns out my large double-double only costs $1.49, then I expect some change back, thank you very much!  I don’t expect you to decide I should also buy doughnuts for everybody in line with my $3.51 in surplus funds.  Nor, do I want you to divide that money up amongst your friends so they will like you.

According to McCallum, it appears that Conservatives must agree with my approach to life.  If the taxpayer has paid the government too much money for the services it provides, the taxpayer should get the money back — or, at the very least, the government should stop knowingly taking too much money each time it dips its hand into my pocket!  The Conservatives accomplished this by reducing the rate at which they take my money to better match the rate at which they need to spend it = they reduced taxes.

According to McCallum, a Liberal government would keep taking the extra cash from taxpayers and come up with new, unwanted and unnecessary things to spend it on.  No thanks!

If the government comes up with a brilliant new thing to spend money on (let’s call it an “ambitious program”) — and it’s soooo good we just have to have one — then they should go to the people and state their case.  Then, they can ask for a bigger allowance to pay for it. 

What scares politicians like McCallum, of course, is that they know if they had to make a case-by-case pitch for more tax money to pay for their “ambitious programs”, most taxpayers would tell them to piss off.  This would vastly reduce their ability to fund unnecessary programs and curry favour in small constituencies.

Politicians like McCallum know it’s politically easier to grab more cash than necessary up front, then divert it into politically untenable programs afterwards.  In fact, successive Liberal governments mastered the art of making this political theft look like “good fiscal management.”  Wow!  They would say… Look how smart we are, we saved billions of (your) dollars.  Now we’re going to spend these “bonus” dollars on something you don’t want.

Imagine how much harder it would be if governments had to go to the people with every new ambitious program and say:  “OK, we think it would be great to build a government-owned chain of day care centers, managed by civil servants, across the country and we want each and every one of you to cough up $300 per year to pay for it!”

Wouldn’t that be more honest? 

Wouldn’t it also be harder to sell?

McCallum’s complaint is an honest one.  Liberals like McCallum genuinely believe tax dollars belong to the government.  Conservatives, according to McCallum, do not.

Score one for the Conservatives in my book.

TORONTO — Canada and the European Union are set to launch formal talks aimed at “integrating” the Canadian economy into the EU, according to an article in today’s Globe and Mail newspaper.  I’ve commented many times in the past, and only slightly in jest, that Canada should join the E.U.  The advantages of some sort of “integrated” relationship are many.

Counter-balance to the US effect

The EU represents a market of 500 million people with one of the strongest, most stable currencies in the world.  Canada’s export economy will always be very closely tied to the United States — however, this fact should not deter Canada from embarking on strategic initiatives that would diversify its markets and bear long-term fruit.  Europe is strong and likely to continue to be so.  It is in our interest to negotiate a privileged status for our companies to have access to this powerful and growing market.

“Pivot” Opportunities

Being “integrated” in some fashion with the EU and being an integral partner within the North American Free Trade Agreement could provide Canada with a unique, powerful and lucrative position as the “pivot” point between two of the world’s most powerful economies.  As the Globe article points out, it is unlikely that the US will itself become integrated with the EU for powerful political reasons on both sides.  This could leave Canadian companies in a unique and favorable position:  being able to trade freely within both North America (under NAFTA) and the EU (under a new agreement).  This may provide a boom for our economy at the same time it diversifies our markets and reduces our dependence on a single large trading partner.

I hope that the current election does not force Canada’s political leaders to take opposing perspectives on an EU trading agreement, or back them into a corner in order to win over a minority segment of the voting public.  Because, in the long run, this type of trading deal is exactly the kind of thing the Canadian government should be negotiating to grow our economy and insulate it from future shocks.

TORONTO — Strategic voting is all the rage in some circles as voters who support parties they believe will lose, try desperately to keep victory out of reach for the party they most dislike.  At the end of the day, their party still loses and so does democracy.

Canada is governed by a parliamentary democracy.  At its heart is the simple concept that neighbourhoods or districts elect one person to represent them in parliament.  It’s a simple enough concept.  In my home riding of Etobicoke Lakeshore, the incumbent member of parliament is Michael Ignatieff, deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.  In this coming election, he would like to be re-elected to represent my neighbours and is the Liberal Party’s candidate here.  The Conservative Party has nominated Patrick Boyer, a former MP from this area during the Mulroney years.  The New Democratic Party candidate is an impressive young man named Liam McHugh-Russell who also ran for the dippers in 2006.  The Green Party candidate here is David Corail, of whom I know (so far) nothing at all.  No doubt there will also be a handful of “also ran” candidates from the Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist Party, and other fringe factions.  At the end of the day, I will have four “real” choices to represent me:  Michael Ignatieff, Patrick Boyer, Liam McHugh-Russell or David Corail.

Here’s how democracy works

Democracy works best when I put aside all notions of “strategic voting” and look at my local candidate.  Which of these four men (and, in my case the four main party candidates all happen to be men) will best represent my interests, my concerns, my values in Parliament?  Who understands my community?  Who shares my concerns?  Who shares my aspirations for our community, our country?  Who is likely to support the initiatives I believe in and oppose the proposals I disapprove?  That is the person I will vote for.

If all of us voted this way, we would have a parliament that truly represents the predominant interests of our community.  The party who elects the most members forms the government.  Period.  Dead simple.

Presidentialism rising

Many Canadians decry the increasing centralization of political power within Ottawa into the Prime Minister’s Office which is slowly, over time and successive governments of different political stripes, accruing a “White House” style of presidential power over policy making.  Those same people who most ardently despise this development are, very often, the people who call loudest for voters to elect a particular party or particular party leader so that he, or she, can form government.  By admonishing voters to ignore their local candidates and vote instead for a national party leader, they are solidifying the very presidential nature of politics which they despise.  Ahh… blissful ignorance.

So we have it then, that political pundits say local candidates can influence only 10 to 20 per cent of the vote in their own election.  Common wisdom (as before noted as not at all common, nor particularly wise) has it, therefore, that some 80 to 90 per cent of voters in my riding will cast their ballots not for Michael, Patrick, Liam or David… but for Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton or Elizabeth May — none of whom is running in my riding, nor knows anything about it.  Of course, if knowing anything about my riding was a prerequisite for election here, Michael Ignatieff would not be my MP.  But, I digress…

By voting for parties or their leaders, rather than for local candidates, voters are de facto simulating a presidential style election.  They are hoping to elect a prime minister.  And, they are often unhappy when their choice doesn’t win.  This leads some voters to ridiculous lengths.

Strategic voting rears its ugly head

“Presidential style” voters who want Prime Minister “A” may fear the “A” Party candidate in their local riding doesn’t stand a chance of winning.  So, rather than voting for the local candidate they want, these too-smart-by-half voters may instead vote for candidate “B”, from a party they dislike, merely to deny victory to candidate “C” from a party they despise.  In so doing, they hope to deny party “C” more seats in Parliament than party “A”, thereby preventing party “C” from governing. 

This strategy is so smart it never works out as intended.

Instead, what normally happens, is that ridings overwhelmed by strategic voters end up with members of parliament that no one wants, and the country gets stuck with a parliament filled with politicians who have little support in their home constituencies and no public credibility whatsoever.  No great surprise, then, that parliament fails to represent the interests of the people, or that the people quickly lose faith in parliament.

Here’s a thought:  vote for the candidate you prefer!

There is a simple way to make democracy work better in Canada.  We don’t need complicated proportional representation or other complex surgeries on our political system.  The problem with democracy in Canada is not our political system:  it’s us — the voters.  Here’s the answer, Canada.  When you go into the voting booth on October 14 (or any day until then, as you can vote today if you like) put your “X” beside the name of the local candidate who will best represent your interests, concerns and values in Ottawa.  Leave your concerns about national politics outside.  Forget any complicated strategic voting algorithms.  Ignore what your neighbour said about the best and worst political party.

Vote for the person you want representing you in Parliament.

Then, we’ll all win.

TORONTO — So, one of the best (and worst) things about living in a rich, western democracy is talk radio.  There may very well be good talk radio in Tajikistan too, but since I don’t talk any of the local languages, I wouldn’t know.  Still, my guess is the smart money’s being laid on the square marked “no good talk radio” in Tajikistan and other non-western, non-democractic states.

The best thing about talk radio is that it keeps you awake when you’re driving long distances at night.  Second best is that it gives you something to focus your road rage on when you’re fighting rush hour traffic in the big city.  Better, I think, to scream at the radio and tear the tuning knob off in your hands … than scream at the stupid drivers around you and try to tear one of their heads off.  And, of course, when I refer to the tuning knob, I mean the figurative tuning knob because, while I am old enough to remember when car radios had knobs not buttons, I am neither poor enough nor rich enough to still drive a car with knobs.  On the radio, anyway.  But, I digress…

This morning on the radio, callers were whingeing and whining again (still) about the lacklustre state of our democracy.  There were the usual complaints that the election campaign is full of attack ads and negativity from the party leaders when all the gentlefolk of radioland want is an intelligent discussion of the issues and a clear understanding of where the various parties stand in relation thereto.  You see, dear reader, the whingers and whiners of radioland… and their cousins in TV news man-on-the-streetsville (”person-on-the-streetsville” simply doesn’t have the same cache)… want is for their intelligence to be respected by politicians.  Personally, I think their intelligence is being respected in the tone and content of the debate.  So, however, is their ignorance.

You see, only an ignoramus would not know what the issues are.  Only someone completely disinterested in politics would not already know exactly where each party stands on each major issue.  Anyone with half a brain can watch the six o’clock news for 15 minutes and get the gist of where each party stands.  Anyone with access to a computer can browse the web for 15 minutes and become fully informed.  Anyone with enough money for a morning coffee at Tim Horton’s can scrounge a newspaper from an empty table and catch up on what’s going on in the political world before their coffee gets cold.

Anyone who doesn’t know what the issues are and where the major parties stand on them — either (a) doesn’t want to know, or (b) is too stupid to understand.  I’m betting it’s (a) that applies to almost everyone.  In either case, however, these people shouldn’t be casting a ballot.

A similar whinge surrounds Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.  Nary a newscast is broadcast, nor a paper printed, without a journalist, pundit, reader or “person on the street” complaining that the government needs to “explain the mission in Afghanistan so the public can understand why we’re there…”  Newsflash:  The public doesn’t care why we’re there.  If they cared, they’d know — because the matter has been explained to death in the simplest of terms since 2001.  Anyone who doesn’t know why we’re in Afghanistan simply doesn’t want to know.

Next time:  why strategic voting is for idiots

TORONTO — Yesterday, I commented on the Pooping Puffin conundrum regarding an animation on a Conservative Party of Canada website.  Today, I write to confess that I’ve explored the Notaleader.ca website and found it, well… enormously fun.  Whether you’re a Conservative Party supporter, a Liberal Party supporter, or support someone else or no one at all — I recommend you visit the site and check it out.  Warning though — it’s flash intensive and probably works best on a fast internet connection.

This website is a fun use of partisan communication.  Sure, you’re not going to like it if you’re a Liberal, but you have to admit it’s a bit fun.  It’s sticky and takes time to explore as you work through the various pages including the “excuse generator”, “street debating game” and “policy slot machine.”  In each case, it mocks Stephane Dion the leader of the Liberal Party as indecisive and whiny.  Nothing new there… the Conservatives are attempting to paint him head to toe with that brush.  What’s new is that by creating this site and making it fun, they’ve enlisted you — the surfer — in their mockery.

Does the messaging work?  Not sure.  It certainly derailed the Conservatives’ main message very briefly yesterday with the Puffin Poo issue… but it stole equal time from the Liberals:  while they complained about the Puffin stuff, they weren’t talking about their messages.  Are visitors to the site likely to change their opinion of Stephane Dion and the Liberals.  Unlikely, I think.  My guess is that 90 per cent of the traffic is from young net-savvy Conservatives, many of whom may well be too young to vote.  The balance of the traffic are probably equal parts media, pundits and Liberals.

Then again, if it can go viral… as it may well have gone simply because of the Puffin flap… it may reach a broad swathe of younger voters — voters who typically would be apathetic or more likely to support the left wing NDP or Liberals than the Conservatives.  If the website succeeds in making the Cons cool with a younger crowd, it may bear long-term fruit.

TORONTO — Apparently Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada are not best of buds.

I just watched Williams address the St. John’s Board of Trade (the local chamber of commerce) luncheon and slam Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper big time.  The speech was beamed live into the nation’s homes by the country’s public broadcaster: CBC TV.  William’s tirade would be more hurtful to the Conservatives in this election campaign if it hadn’t been delivered with figurative foam bubbling from his mouth.

Calling for everyone in his province to vote “ABC” (Anyone But Conservative), Williams worked himself into a red-faced tirade calling the prime minister a fraud and intimating that a Conservative majority would be a political doomsday for Canada.  As he spoke, you could see the hatred and personal dislike for Harper dripping from his chin with every word.  In fact, his emotion rendered the speech much less effective than it may have been.

A personal call, from an extremely popular provincial premier, to snub the governing party in a federal general election should be big news.  It should be extremely influential — not just in his home province, but across the country.  While watching the speech, however, it was obvious this attack was borne not so much out of legitimate policy differences, but from a deep personal enmity.  That bitterness neutralized much of the impact of the speech, I think;  it comes across as a personal grudge and simply not as a credible complaint.  No doubt, it comes across more credibly to the hometowners in St. John’s.

Lesson Learned:  If you really want to slam someone, it can’t look like personal.  If it does, you come across as petty — not aggrieved.

TORONTO — Yesterday’s Puffin-sized speed bump that interrupted Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s message of the day serves as a good example of why it’s essential that communication teams include senior members who do not drink from the same Kool-Aid® as everyone else.

A federal election campaign has just begun in Canada and, for a short time yesterday, an animation on an interactive website run by the governing Conservative Party of Canada showed a Puffin flying over Liberal Party opposition leader Stephane Dion’s head, crapping on him. Ahem…

The animation was quickly revised and, while the Puffin remains (an inside political joke in Canada), the poo is gone. Purely in the interest of research, I point out that the original version remains available to the poohardy on Youtube.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper issued a quick public apology for the incident.

When the pooping Puffin on a Conservative website usurped the Prime Minister’s announcement of a planned reduction in diesel fuel taxes, it became clear that the poo poo had been a boo boo. My Conservative friends generally think the Puffin poo was just funny; it’s similar to other types of humorous animations they’ve seen on TV and online in various circumstances.

However, with all communication and especially with political communication, it’s absolutely essential to include amongst your communication decision-making team some senior, trusted advisors who bring an external perspective. When I ran communication for a major financial institution, one of my strengths was the fact I had not been a banker for years. As an “outsider,” I was able to see through the eyes of our customers, hear through the ears of our neighbours, etc. This often provided just enough “sober second thought” that we avoided most Puffin Poo moments.

Later, as a consultant, when I was asked to review the issues management organization in a state-level prison system, I recognized the “insider flaw.” All of the issues managers (those responsible for identifying issues that would cause a public relations flap, embarrass the cabinet member responsible for prisons, or simply generate undesirable media attention or community concern) were long-time insiders. In fact, they had all been prison guards for many years before assuming their issues management functions.  They had all drunk from the same Kool-Aid® and shared common assumptions which they assumed, wrongly, were universal.

While this experience enabled the issues managers to manage operational issues well, it prevented them from seeing reputational issues through the eyes of outsiders. As a result, when a very high profile child rapist and murderer celebrated a birthday inside the prison, complete with “Happy Birthday” banners, cakes and candles — all of which were captured on film — they saw it for what it was: a routine, every day event in a major prison.

Unfortunately, they were not able to see it as it was destined to be perceived outside the prison system, amongst the general public, by the media and the opposition political parties: an unacceptable pleasure afforded an inhuman child torturer and murderer. Anyone communication professional, who was not a prison insider, would almost certainly have recognized the risks inherent in these photos. They would have briefed the cabinet member and prepared an issues management strategy. As it happened, the former prison guards did not see the scandal coming — and, therefore, the cabinet member was sandbagged by media and opposition criticisms later in the day.

All of which subsequently led to my involvement in reviewing the organization!

The Puffin Poo incident was not a serious mistake. And, it was managed deftly by Mr. Harper.  However, it is a minor example of the type of misunderstanding that can happen when all the decision makers reviewing a communication plan, campaign or an individual element of a plan, all share the same inside perspective.

The fact it is so minor and happened so early in the campaign may be a boon for the Conservatives who, assuming they learn from the experience, will be better able to prevent similar, but more serious, incidents from occurring later in the campaign when the impact may be harder to manage and may lead to greater damage.

Lesson Learned: Make sure your issues management team includes some senior, influential people who do not share all the same experiences, assumptions and predispositions that senior insiders bring to the table. The role of “honest broker” or external advocate can be invaluable in helping you to understand how external stakeholders will respond to your initiatives, before it’s too late.

TORONTO — The Globe and Mail today reported that a Taliban spokesman has acknowledged they intend to actively target Canadian Forces operating in Afghanistan during the current Canadian federal election.  On Monday, I warned that exactly this would happen.

The election, coupled with the rising death toll which is closing in on the psychologically significant 100 figure and the troop rotation currently underway will make this next six weeks exceptionally dangerous for Canadian troops in the country.  Not just the troops, however.  The Taliban have previously threatened to target Canadian civilians delivering aid and development services to the impoverished people of Afghanistan — and the election will, no doubt, magnify those efforts as well.

TORONTO — The “consortium” of Canadian television networks that broadcasts the national leaders’ debates during each federal election campaign has decided that Elizabeth May, leader of Canada’s Green Party will not be invited to the borefest during the current campaign.  No surprise.

Still, the Green Party has hired a lawyer to argue its case — saying it has met the “traditional” requirement of having a sitting (sort of) MP. 

Blair Wilson, a Member of Parliament from Canada’s west coast, was elected as a Liberal before resigning from the Liberal caucus while being investigated for financial irregularities in his campaign.  About a week ago, he made headlines by joining the Green Party to become its first (sort of) elected MP.  (Sort of) because he was elected as a Liberal, not a Green.  Also (sort of) because the House of Commons is not sitting, so he’s not technically a “sitting” MP.

Like dinner, the Green Party is done 

Not being welcomed to the leaders’ debates is, however, the least of Elizabeth May’s concerns.  To this pundit, at least, it seems the Green Party ship has sailed without them. 

Conventional wisdom says the Greens should be poised to elect their first MPs during this campaign with the environment running as close to top of mind as it’s ever been.  Since the environment, and “green” issues in general, are eponymous with the Green Party, surely it’s their time in the sun.

The thing, though, about conventional wisdom is:  it’s rarely wise.  Try as they might, the Greens in Canada have never grown beyond their single issue focus on the environment.  Ask anyone (even a Green Party candidate) where the Greens stand on crime, the economy or defence and you’ll get a blank stare.  In fairness, the Green candidate will scramble to find her policy book and read aloud from it while trying to find the answer. 

The Greens are a single-issue party: environment first, last and only.  While environmental issues have never been higher in the minds of voters, the very prominence of environmental issues may be the undoing of the Green Party. 

For years, the Greens have built a (somewhat) successful, though never profitable (electorally) brand on the environment.  And now, just when the voting populace gives a damn — whoops, all the other parties have largely come on side.  The environment is no longer “owned” by the Greens. 

Every other Party is all over the environment in a big (OK, in some cases not so big) way.  The Greens have lost their unique selling point, their competitive differentiation, their raison d’etre.

Without the environment, what’s left of the Green Party platform? 

Pretty much just the dirt under the single-plank platform.  There’s nothing else.  The Greens are neither right wing, nor left wing. They’re not even moderate centrists.  They’re activists fighting for a cause that is rapidly turning mainstream.  They’re geeky computer nerds who’ve emerged from their dad’s garage with a kick-ass operating system only to discover the whole world already owns a Windows-powered PC.  There’s very little left for Elizabeth May to do, but to fold up her tents and go home.

Real environmental activists are too busy trying to influence real political parties — those with a real chance of governing to do the right thing.  The environment is, for them, too important and the issues around global warming too urgent, to be left to a hobby party like the Greens. 

For the rest of us, who have finally awakened to the potential dangers of environmental mismanagement, the real parties are lining up to who’s “greenest.”  They are beginning to offer environmental solutions as main planks in their platforms.  And, bonus for Canada’s real voters, the real parties also have plans for the economy, health care, sovereignty, national unity, national defence, foreign affairs, etc. 

The Green Party really doesn’t.

While the Greens were busy handpainting posters decrying global warming and arguing they should be included in the national leaders’ debates, their ship sailed out of port behind them.  The only question is… when will they notice? 

Sadly, the Canadian casualty count in Afghanistan may rise dramatically over the next six weeks if the “perfect storm” comes to pass.

TORONTO – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper dropped the writ yesterday, calling a (federal) general election for October 14.  This 37 day campaign will be far shorter, much less glamorous and considerably less expensive than its concurrent American cousin:  the U.S. presidential race.  For Canadians in Afghanistan — both military and civilians — the writ also signals the opening of a 37 day period that is sure to be particularly bloody.

Three reasons this will be a bloody six weeks 

There are three reasons why this next six weeks will be marked by increased violence that specifically targets Canadians in Afghanistan.  All three reasons recognize the reality that the insurgents fighting against the Afghan government and everyday Afghans, and against NATO and other international forces in the country, are excellent strategists.  They follow world events closely and understand their own tactical limitations.  They also realize they’re more effective than we are in one critical area:  propaganda.  The insurgents, including the Taliban and al Qaeda, intend to win this war not on the battlefields of Kandahar, but in living rooms across Canada and throughout the western world.  To achieve this, they focus their resources on stand-off attacks and occasional spectacular assaults against western troops, Afghan civilians and international workers.  While these attacks are all but meaningless from a tactical perspective, they are beamed directly into millions of democractic western households where good-hearted, and somewhat naive, voters cry:  “enough, bring our boys home!”

A “perfect storm” of violence targeting Canadian military forces, and our civilian aid workers in Afghanistan, is brewing because:

1.  There is a troop rotation happening.  As I have written before, every rotation of troops brings about a period of heightened opportunity for the insurgents and vulnerability for our military troops.

2.  We are approaching “the 100th man”.  As I write this, the 97th Canadian soldier, a sergeant from 2 PPCLI, has just fallen.  The insurgents, the media, and each of us is fully aware that the 100th fatality will mark a literally meaningless but figuratively significant milestone that will capture our nation’s attention.  Expect a full-court press from the insurgents to see that this happens quickly — certainly before the end of the federal election campaign.

3.  There is an election on.  Finally, the insurgents are very politically savvy.  They want to force the Afghanistan war onto our election agenda in a big, bloody way so that voters are horrified and politicians, eager to differentiate themselves from the government, make ill-conceived public commitments that weaken our resolve.  For this reason alone, the insurgents will redouble their efforts to focus pointedly on Canadian troops as well as Canadian civilian aid workers in Afghanistan.  The more horrific the attack, the more wanton the violence, the more offensive the transgression against innocent aid workers, the better to inflame public opinion.  Expect it to be an ugly six weeks.

Remember, the insurgents’ mission is to seize control of Afghanistan with a view to oppressing the Afghan people and enriching themselves from its resources.  To succeed, they need international military forces, which are vastly superior in capability to their own, to quit the battlefield.  The fastest way to accomplish this is to target the soft underbelly of western democracy:  voters and politics.  By enraging voters, they hope to force western governments to quit Afghanistan and leave it vulnerable to plunder.

I hope we are smart enough to prevent that.