Diagno-thanks.

I posted recently about the indomitable march of medicine and how the medical establishment, if not people in general, is terrified by the thought that death is natural and even quite proper.

Now it seems the same problem is happening in the field of mental health. It's getting ever harder to be in a bad mood without having a diagnosis attached to it.

Just because I like bashing commandments, or Walt al Arrabiata!

Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, has just produced a list he's calling "The Ten Commandments for Ambitious Foreign Policy Wonks." I don't know if I qualify, but I'll give my two cents anyway.

1. "Thou Shalt Not Question US Membership in NATO." Walt just provides the reasoning that 'it isn't done' without questioning why not. NATO often gets unfairly panned. Sure, it probably produces more hot air and useless military jargon, but it's also kind of nice to have an alliance of stable-ish, liberal-esque democracies. Although everybody has a veto, it's sometimes able to do things other fora can't seem to manage, like bombing Serbia.
2. and 3. "Thou Shalt Oppose the Spread of Nuclear Weapons" and "Thou Shalt Not Question the Need for a Nuclear Deterrent." Walt says that you must hold both opinions simultaneously to be consistent, but that confuses horizontal proliferation (who can have nukes?) with vertical proliferation (for those who have nukes already, how many can they have?). There has always been an injustice in the weapons-for-watts bargain contained in the NPT. Those who were supposed to get help developing nuclear power for peaceful uses often get snubbed, the 5 legitimate nuclear powers don't always behave responsibly with their weapons, and there's a troubling amount of tolerance for countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel that disregard the nuclear taboo. There's also the compelling argument that, if horizontal proliferation is going to happen anyway with the nuclear states just watching, then it might be better to have more weapons than fewer. If India and Pakistan each have 5 nukes, they might calculate that they can afford the probable losses, but they are probably not even going to think about it if they each have 500.
3. done
4. "Thou Shalt Not Question the Desirability of American Primacy" I have often compared Canada's position in the world as being the nice, smart, reserved guy with the violently drunk, steroid-popping neighbour. As Julius Nyerere put it, "It makes no difference whether the elephants are fighting or making love, they still trample the grass." We could do worse, but don't expect thanks either. Hopefully there's more lattitude when it comes to non- or half-American wannabe wonks.
   
5. "Thou Shalt Not Call for an Accommodation with Cuba" He extends this commandment to Iran and N. Korea, where it makes a little more sense. They at least have ambitions and means. In Cuba's case, though, it just looks petty. Sure, nobody wants to condone the ugly Cuban regime, but why should the cow grudge the fly on its back? Arguably, making such a stink over such a small problem damages American interests. Who would respect China for beating on Bhutan?
6. "Thou Shalt Not Criticize the CFR ... or other major foreign policy institutions" This is pure instrumental rationality (a fancy word for opportunism). Sure, these institutions exist to debate questions relevant to the home country's foreign policy, but they tend to conduct long discussions only to reach their foregone conclusions. That said, the people arguing for their foregone conclusions are generally smart, which explains how they got where they are. But I hope that a characteristic of the smart is respect for people who try to poke holes in their ideas conscientiously.
7. "Thou Shalt not Take the Armed Forces' Name in Vain" I'm waiting anxiously for the day when hero-worship will be regarded as backward. While soldiers deserve some credit for being willing and competent, where applicable, they would often do well to consider what they're willing to kill and die for. "My country right or wrong" is a reprehensible sentiment found all too often parading around in uniform. If they were really clever, they might stop and think about why there are different sides in the first place. As with number 6, this commandment is directed at those who think of constituencies rather than of people. For them it's wise enough, but it's foolish as a general principle.
8. "Thou Shalt Acknowledge the Importance of Human Rights, Democracy, and Other American 'Values'". Boy, I'm glad the Americans invented or discovered these values for the rest of us and have raised their implementation to perfection. I'm glad that, in the world's most powerful democracy, no president could get elected without winning the popular vote. I'm thrilled that Americans have identified human rights and have banned practices like torture and the death penalty. Why didn't Walt mention the requirement that aspiring foreign policy wonks be schizophrenic?
9. "Thou Shalt not Question the Right of the United States to Intervene in Other Countries" Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan. It's hard to argue with success.
10. "Thou Shalt not Favour Negotiating with 'Terrorists'". As Walt implies, a lot of the art involved is about determining who and when is a terrorist. It was encouraging to see the Economist differentiate between terrorists (those who seem to recognize no rules on the use of force) and jihadists (those who fight like armies to achieve the Great Caliphate). The question about whether terrorism is a development problem certainly is debatable (and should be debated), but it is often interpreted as sympathy for the devil.

Walt mentions that he's not advocating either side on any of these debates, but his reasons for including are so bland that they called for a spicier response. Walt al arrabiata!

How would you like it if somebody did that to you?

So a Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a former navy press spokesman, has filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Miami Herald about some comments he alleges were made by one of their reporters, Carol Rosenberg. There's a story about it in the post here and you can see the original letter here.  Now I have doubts about whether he's telling the truth.  Gordon was a press spokesman for the navy whose main job was spinning Guantanamo to the press, and Rosenberg filed a number of negative stories about the place.  So it's pretty easy to imagine that Gordon wants to get even with her and undermine her credibility.

Assuming he's telling the truth though, the comments that seem to have upset the commander most were the one's where Rosenberg implied that he is gay.  Now as another reporter pointed out it's hard to imagine that a sailor isn't used to well sailor talk; I'd add that it's hard to imagine that no one's ever implied he's gay before.  I suppose it's possible he doesn't know much about Churchill and his wit and wisdom but it's harder to imagine that he missed out on this little disco gem or has never encountered a member of the army or marines (variations on the "all navy men are gay" is a favorite subject of fun in both those branches I'm told). 

Anyway apparently the utter hypocrisy of his complaint has never dawned on Cmdr. Gordon. Remember that a big part of the fun and games that went on at Guantanamo and elsewhere under the name of "enhanced interrogation techniques" was routine sexual humiliation of the detainees.  When we were kids I'd wager most of us were told after doing some nasty thing or other, "How would you like it if somebody did that to you?"  Well Gordon got just a little taste of what the detainees have went through and he does not seem to like it very much at all.  I suppose that one would not expect a flack like Gordon to have much of a sense for hypocrisy-- it's pretty much a disqualification for the job after all-- but I hope it doesn't escape the rest of us.

(He does whine that "He's been abused worse than any detainee," though I don't see any references to Rosenberg setting on him with dogs, waterboarding him, or actually sodomizing  him in the complaint.)