Cold War and Cycling--Together Again

It has been a long time since I've had anything to report about my own riding, and the kind of riding I've done is partly to blame. Yet, every time I begin to tell someone that this year I've just not done the kind of rides one would like to do (hilly rides, century rides, all-day-there's-nothing-else-that-really-matters-rides--no Sardinia!), I realize that, of course, I did do the Grandfondo Val di Cecina last March. Come to think of it, I had two weeks, in two different regions, in France with my bike in the summer. Furthermore, just this month, thanks to a nuclear history workshop held in nearby Prato, I did two very nice loops south of Florence (that would be Florence, Italy, not Florence, Kansas--although I would not mind at all doing a Flint Hills ride again). So what's my problem? I don't know either. The Granfondo was spring training (although, with a good friend of mine, one might rightly ask: training what for, mr. "I-don't-race-anymore"?), France was summer vacation (but with beautiful roads in the Tarn region, and this, this, and this climb, among others, in the Alps), and this month, Cold War (the workshop) and cycling (the couple of extra days we took in Florence) came back together again. Why not take a few extra days if you have to travel to a place like Tuscany? Especially if there's an institution such as Florence By Bike? I was able to rent a full carbon Bianchi from them for two days, and not only that, they also went out of their way to help me find my way around. How many kilometers was I thinking of? Did I like to climb? And so they mapped out a 105 km loop with lots of up-and-down on quiet little roads. Given that all this was south of Florence (in the direction of Siena), there's no need to dwell on the fact that it was also a beautiful loop. I was surprised, however, how quickly after leaving town the roads already got quiet (almost the whole way to Impruneta, with its metally-tasting water). After Impruneta, I had the roads almost to myself (or so it felt): Strada in Chianti, Dudda to Radda in Chianti, and back up via Lucarelli, Panzana, Mercatale, to San Casciano. The last twenty kilometers back into the city (by way of Galluzzo) were a little busier, but it was still rolling, it was still Tuscany, so nobody heard me complain. The loop was so nice, I did it twice, also because the second time around I would not have to stop so often to double-check my map. I'd certainly recommend it, but not to a beginner. On the way out, there are some nice, longer, steady climbs, maxing out around 6%; between Panzana and Mercatale you get treated to steeper up-and-down stuff, where on the short 10-12% uphill sections it's hard to find a rhythm. On the whole, an excellent loop if you'd like to get a real ride that still leaves you with a little energy for strolling around Florence later in the day. About that nuclear history business, I'll write something later.

America, the Economizing Power

My friend and colleague Jeremi Suri, he of the new Liberty's Surest Guardian, has an op-ed in the New York Times today in which he argues that the United States rigorously should set priorities--and shed responsibilities and ambitions--in foreign policy. This goes beyond the Obama administration's national security strategy of last year (although it echoes it), and it also goes beyond the Libya "leading from behind" mantra. I like the article but wonder whether it doesn't expect too much of the president, who, of course, should still lead, and too little of others, especially the Republican opposition. Suri's first national priority, after all, is to preserve the dollar's global reserve currency status, and if there's anything we've learned this year is that getting America's financial house in order requires bi-partisan decisions. There's more to be said about this piece, which does get us into the specifics of how a declining hegemon like the U.S. ought to reorder its priorities, but I have to go read about the Cold War now.

It's More Than a Political Crisis, It's an Existential One

It's hard not to think all the time about the crisis that Europe is wading into ever more deeply. Reading the papers these days really reminds of the stories from the early years of the Great Depression: lots of trouble, availability of certain effective responses, but inability of leaders to implement them, individually or collectively, and often even measures that exacerbate the problems. I'm not an expert on international finance or economics, but there are many people writing who are, and if you try to interpret what they're really saying, the picture is grim. Greece won't be able to pay its debts (ever) or even meet Europe's requirements for the next transfer of aid money, but European leaders can't recognize this, even though to some observers (for example my trusty Economist) it's been clear for close to two years. The consequences of a restructuring of the Greek debt would hurt, especially in better-off European countries, like France and Germany, but it would hurt far less than continued uncertainty--uncertainty about what will happen to Greece (stay within the Euro, or not? go bankrupt, and if so, in what way?), but uncertainty especially about whether "Europe" is capable of addressing its most fundamental problems in an effective way. This particular kind of uncertainty also makes it more likely that other European countries become more vulnerable to falling market confidence. Some, we've all seen their names mentioned regularly, do have structural weaknesses in their economies and large budget deficits, but the biggest problem seems to be lack of confidence in "Europe's" ability to contain the real crisis to the weakest link--Greece--and protect the others.

The past day or two, we hear a lot more talk of a likely Greek debt restructuring, but this doesn't mean that the Euro zone's political leaders have accepted its inevitability, let alone their respective public opinions. So we still need to get leaders, Merkel, Sarkozy, to accept the inevitable. Once we get there, however, the next step is reaching a concrete European agreement on this new course, which for its part will then have to be cleared by the many national parliaments. (And as of today, September 23, we're still waiting for the ratification of Europe's last major plan for Greece and the Euro zone, dating back to July 21. You read that right: it's crisis time, but Europe takes more than two months to ratify essential and urgent plans to deal with the situation. Democracy is messy, but this looks more like self-mutulation).

Time is of the essence here, and the way "Europe" operates therefore virtually assures failure. "Europe" has always operated this way through its half-century of integration: very incrementally, often acrimoniously, certainly not always logically, let alone efficiently. (In hindsight, it really wasn't such a good idea to launch a common currency before having the concomitant common fiscal and economic policies in place). According to Angela Merkel recently (probably the one person who could, if she wanted to take the political risk, enforce a different modus operandi) it's still the way things get done, and her implication was that we'll just have to accept this. The scary thing is: she may be right: "Europe" as it exists right now--its institutions, its political leadership, its peoples--really may not be able to act swiftly and decisively, not even when the future of its currency, its standard of living, perhaps its many accomplishments since the 1950s are at stake. Measures that on the merits would make the most sense are politically unreachable, and so leaders don't want to go there, or they go there so slowly as to make the whole process virtually irrelevant.

And so too little gets done too late. That's irritating, but not lethal, in good times. In a dangerous financial situation such as ours today, it may well lead, not just to a new major global financial and economic downturn, it could also end "Europe" as we know it. Of course, if "Europe" can't, won't reach for available, constructive measures to save itself, by definition it cannot be saved, doesn't deserve to be. We'll be sorry in a few years, because for all of "Europe's" significant flaws, life without it is likely to be more chaotic and less prosperous, for Europeans, but also others. It's not that long ago that, in an disorderly post-Cold War or post 9/11 world, we thought that at least Europe had figured out how to work together on an ever-growing number of subjects--a model for other regions, really. Boy, were we all wrong.

Froome Watch: Stage Winner

Our man attacked, got reeled back in, and attacked again for the stage win. For a minute, it looked as if his attack on today's final climb would take him to the overall lead, but Juan Jose Cobo didn't really crack but instead fought himself back to Chris's wheel and even passed him. You could see how both racers were each giving the absolute maximum. But after being passed, Chris found it within himself to get to the finish, and the 20 seconds bonification, first. He was, however, just one second ahead of Cobo, who himself receives 12 extra seconds, and so the total gain was only nine seconds, which still leaves Chris 13 seconds short of the race lead. But it was the most exciting couple of minutes of bike racing I've watched all year. Chris just did his post-race interview and called today perhaps his hardest day ever on the bike. It showed, and what more can one expect? He's on the podium now, and actually looks the women in the eye (all around nice guy!). There aren't too many opportunities left, but Madrid is still a couple of days away (he's happily spraying the champagne around now), so who knows. It won't be the fans who will keep him from winning, if we go by today's conduct. When Chris was on the attack, and Cobo appeared to be cracking, I worried about some person interfering with the race, but even though (as usual on these steep climbs) the fans were all over the road, people cheered Chris just about as enthusiastically as Cobo. So there's probably some battle left, although Cobo seems very strong (and he has a good team). But it's awfully close, especially with these bonification bonuses at the finish every day. Of course, second in the Vuelta is more than anyone, including this Froome fan, expected at the outset. Chris himself seems very pleased too, and why not? It's his big breakthrough: grand tour contender--how many people can say that?

Froome Watch: Live

I am taking a break to watch the last hour of today's stage in the Vuelta, and who's mixing it up in the last intermediate sprint, coming away with two seconds time gain? Yes indeed. On Sunday, Chris also left his leader, Wiggins, behind on the horribly steep Angrilu, and now he's the best-placed rider on his team with a shot at the final victory. My Flemish commentators, Michel Wuyts and Jose de Cauwer, have been in awe of Chris for days now, and who can blame them?

It's About Politics And It's Not Looking Good

I'm not reporting anything new--shouldn't, at least--but even though the current crises in Europe and the U.S. continue to be referred to as "financial" or "economic" or "debt," they're really crises of politics. In Europe, plans that appear to have the best chance at stabilizing the common currency situation require greater political integration (a kind of European government), but no leader interested in his or her survival in power is going to put this to the electorate. Some appear to think that the old European muddling-through approach can get us to the same place without explicit voter approval, but I think they're deluding themselves. The alternative is letting countries like Greece fail as members of the Euro (it may be closer than we think), but that would cost banks and others in wealthier Euro countries money (and it could also trigger another economic downturn), and so we don't want to countenance that either. So what do we, what do Europeans want? Europeans don't want to good times to be over, don't want to make the downward adjustment after collectively living beyond their means for a decade or so. The Greeks don't want to do it, but the Germans don't want to either, and there do not appear to be leaders who can persuade them otherwise. It's not very different in the U.S., as we were able to see during the debt-ceiling farce this past summer. The national debt is a problem, but from what I read, it's especially a problem over the longer term and could be brought under control by some sensible policies for that longer term envisioning both tax and entitlement reform. But either kind of reform would inflict pain, and there's been a lot of it in the U.S. in the past years (though not divided evenly, just like wealth has not been divided evenly--less so than ever in the past 20-30 years), and so there's great resistance to it. This being America, the greatest clamor has been for budget cuts and entitlement reform, but in a time when the division of wealth is skewed so much in favor of the top 5%, and government revenue as a proportion of GDP is as low as it has been in 30 or so years, it's just not politically feasible to try to find all the money there while not doing something about tax loopholes and revenue increases. But a grand compromise appears very remote, maybe impossible before next year's presidential election. I think that the nitty-gritty of political compromise in both cases is so difficult because psychologically neither Europeans nor Americans have truly left the pre-crisis days behind. Many have been forced to do so, of course, but collectively we seem to believe that it just can't be that the 1990s, and even the early 2000s, really are history and that we'll have to adjust to a lower standard of living for the foreseeable future. It's easy to speak of a crisis of leadership, but what leader is going to go to the electorate with this message? It really does look like it has to get worse before it can get better; it may be that we need the collapse we avoided in 2008-2009 for enough people to realize that we're in a different era--a bit like the 1930s. (And maybe then there will be leaders who can force through the reforms needed to repair things). I'm not looking forward to it, and it's not inevitable, but given the problems and the way they fester, I think we may as well brace ourselves. That would be the ultimate irony, though: incapable of reaching for the compromises available to avoid disaster, we'd be preparing instead for the disaster. It would be (at least could be seen as) the bankruptcy of liberal democracy.

Froome Watch, the Bandwagon Version

Not sure if this is the right way to resume, but Christopher Froome, the Team Sky member whom I met last year at the start of the Giro d'Italia, has been doing very well in the Tour of Spain (Vuelta). He stayed close to the lead all through the first week and then did a hell of a turn at the front in support of his team leader Bradley Wiggins last Sunday, grinding off lots of big names in the process (and hanging on when Wiggins took over!). He next surprised everyone, including himself, with a second place in Monday's time trial, beating specialists like Wiggins and Fabian Cancellara ("Spartacus," he of the alleged electric bike--alleged!) on the way to first place overall and the red leader jersey. He lost the jersey to Wiggins yesterday, but he's still sitting pretty in second place. It's great to see a talented young racer pull it all together in a major stage race. So here we are: a new season of the Froome watch, a resumption of blogging here, and very soon also words about matters relating to war and peace.

On Hiatus, Obviously

It's not that I don't have things to say, it's more that I don't seem to find the time to think anything through, anything other than work-related stuff, of which there always seems to be plenty and which always seems to take priority. I'm still riding, I'm still reading, and I'm still writing, just not here for the moment. But "here" is on my mind, and here is where I shall return.

I'm in the Paper!

Today. Not that it has never happened before. I'm in the paper somewhere in the Netherlands just about every month. Have been for years. But late last year the syndicate of regional papers I've been contributing to for the past ten years had to cut cost, and so the occasional op-ed writers were let go. Since that time I've made contact with several of the individual papers, and in January (on the Arizona shooting and the political debate in the U.S.) and earlier this month (Wisconsin union battle) this led to articles in the Leeuwarder Courant (of Frysland), and today I have commentary on President Obama as "imperial president" in the Nederlands Dagblad. They told me yesterday that it would come out today, so I went to buy the paper this afternoon. It had been a while since I had done that. The article is a commentary on the way the president took the country into the Lybian intervention, and how members of Congres have criticized it. The argument is that Obama is much like his predecessors in the office, including George W. Bush: he's an imperial president at the head of a powerful national security state. I don't dig too deeply into the reasons why there seems to be such a big difference between Obama the candidate and Obama the president on this, but the suggestion is that the structure, the machine, the complex that is the national security/surveillance state has a way of severely limiting the room for maneuver individual politicians may seek for themselves. This very much includes the president, on whose desk the national security buck stops. Of course, given that in the Lybia case no vital U.S. national interests seemed to be at stake, is has worked a little differently here as far as the motive is concerned. (Secretary Gates's apparent reluctance for the U.S. to get involved suggests that the Pentagon certainly was not chomping at the bit to get the country into this operation). It's a war of choice, and maybe it will turn out to have been the right choice. Let's hope so. But I think the way Congres feels taken for granted (it's probably right about this) is revealing of how much leeway presidents have in these matters nowadays. The unhappiness has not developed into a firestorm, and if things work out in Lybia it probably won't. But I'm wondering if we're not gradually reaching a turning point in executive-Congressional relations similar to what we saw at the end of the Vietnam era. Such a Congressional push-back would fit nicely with the insurgency type of politics we're seeing right now. Might not be a bad thing, if it was done right.

Club of One?

In the run-up to last week's Superbowl, there were some communications between the founder of Pittsburgh's Dirty Dozen and the founder of Wisconsin's Bone Ride if the representative of the losing city/state might finally have to do the other's ride. This discussion was not resolved, but in the course of the back-and-forth it occurred to me that I don't know of anyone else who, like me, has completed both unique cycling events. The two founders could not name anyone either. In 1997 I tied for rookie of the year on the Dirty Dozen's thirteen spectacular hills in and around Pittsburgh (for those in the know: I got points on several hills using as my lowest gear a 39x26; didn't get the honor because unlike Mark Nicholl and Adam Pollock, I did not win any hills). At a much busier time in my life I rode it again in 1999, just to finish (but I managed to sneak ahead to the Liberty Tunnel passage to exit first). One day, I'll get my name on the list of people with three or more DDs to their name. Living in Milwaukee several years later, in 2005, I rode the 155 miles out and back between Wauwatosa and Madison along with about 100 others, divided into pelotons of 25. There are no points on the Bone Ride (other than for style and conduct, as on every group ride), but I remember that the pulls I took on the way home started to hurt more and more. The two founders raced together in the 1980s. When Tom won the national championship in1987, Danny also finished in the top 20 (Tom has a film that shows Danny). Which founder is going to have a harder time on the other's ride? Tom never liked climbing very much, but that championship course had a very nasty hill in it. By now, it really doesn't matter at all. It would be fun, however, to see the mutual guest appearances take place, so that I'm no longer in this club of one (or is there already someone else?)

Reagan and the Netherlands

Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 years old today, and to mark the occasion the Dutch news weekly Elsevier's weekblad has published one of its special commemorative issues for which Giles Scott Smith and I provided an article on "Dutch" Reagan and the Netherlands. We drew on our respective archival research on the 1980s (and that of our friend James Graham Wilson), so even though the piece is very accessible, it actually contains some bits and pieces of material that are fairly unknown. The booklet (in Dutch) is still on sale at all newsstands in the Netherlands, and you can also order the abundantly illustrated and nicely produced booklet on-line.

January Legs

I have them, this was confirmed last Saturday on the first team ride of the year. Last year I logged 6452 miles, but about half of those were from the 87 times I did the out-and-back to work in Amsterdam (32, 34, or 36 miles, depending on the route). So I resolved to do more team rides this year, because riding with the Eendracht guys (hard men all, and one woman; I now wear the jersey) makes you better. I need to get better. Amid the awful winter weather we've had since early December I've tried to keep things going, but a telling statistic is that since December 1 I've only ridden the bike to my Amsterdam office once. Last Sunday my riding partner was able to hurt me a little (while being twelve or thirteen years older). I had been out on Saturday also, and he had not, but I think it is a sign that I don't have endurance, and I don't have high end. All that was confirmed on Saturday, when twelve of us went out on a beautiful winter day. Sunny, dry, a light breeze, and temperatures just above freezing. The first half was with a tailwind, to the town of Woerden, but from there it was into this chilly wind to get home. Having just taken a pull on the curvy little road along the Meije river I let myself drift to the back of the group when a strong guy got to the front and gaps started to open up ahead of me. So I tried to bridge up, but stranded at about 30 meters from the little group that, without really aiming to do so, had separated itself from the rest. In the summer, you just buckle down and sprint across the gap, before it becomes a real separation. This past weekend, I really wanted to do this but just did have it in me. Maybe the pull I had just taken had something to do with it, but I don't think there's a sprint in me right now regardless. I'm still speedskating, and this does impact what you can do on the bike (the infamous "skating legs" that prevent you from spinning easily--or pushing significant gears), but the legs actually moved pretty well the first hour on Saturday. January legs, in other words. The only good thing about them is that if you have them in January, there's still plenty of time to improve. I'm riding to work tomorrow.

Historian on TV

That would be me. Not really tv, just a clip on the web from last Tuesday's History orientation for high school students. We run a class and discussion the way we would for our own students, so that prospective students can get an idea of what it would be like to study with us. I did my current research topic--the Dutch role in NATO's 1979 Dual-track decision on intermediate nuclear weapons--also because it provided an opportunity to draw parallels (and identify differences) with today's debate over a new Dutch mission to Afghanistan (more about that soon). It's all in Dutch, but you can just feel the excitement.

Obama and America at the Crossroads

This may be the common subject of recent pieces--in very different venues--by my colleague Artemy Kalinovsky and me. In an original, and somewhat ominous, discussion for the Foreign Affairs website, Artemy compares Obama, not to one of his U.S. predecessors, but to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It's an interesting piece and you should read it yourself. The ominous part is where Obama's political style looks similar to that of Gorbachev, that is, usually trying to find a middle way, looking to reconcile opposing positions. Sticking with what historians now also call this indecisiveness cost Gorbachev support, and ultimately it played a big part in his undoing. Artemy believes that Obama can still avoid this fate, arguing the president should probably make some choices soon. In a short piece for the Leeuwarder Courant last Saturday (it's not on the website) I asked if the political debate was likely to become more civil and perhaps lead to a more productive policy process in Washington as a result of the Arizona shooting. I wrote it prior to the president's speech (go here for a lively exchange I had with a friend who, unlike me, does not believe it was beneficial), but I don't think that speech changed (could have changed) the main reasons why the debate is likely to remain deeply ideological and therefore an obstacle to pragmatic politics. Relative U.S. decline is one of these reasons. It is manifested for example in unemployment, national debt, and budget figures, it is real, and it's unprecedented in U.S. history. It's also profoundly un-American in the sense that throughout their existence Americans have become used to--indeed, have seen their national identity defined by--growing opportunity. There were usually enough concrete examples to keep alive the national myths of individual and national opportunity and growth, in spite of eras like the Great Depression, in spite of many stories of personal failure. But in the last couple of years, something seems to have changed. Anxieties about the rise of China is only one, although an important, example of how many Americans seem to understand this. Herein lies a source for the anger, because the change is profoundly unsettling to many Americans. Worries about finding, or holding on to, work are connected to the unsettling realization that things may never be what they used to be. This is more about (national) psychology than about what are still very real day-to-day economic realities. I don't think this relative decline of U.S. financial, economic, and political power in the world is irreversible, but it's real nonetheless and it will go on for a while. At the very least, the country will have to continue a long adjustment after long years of excess, of living beyond its means collectively and often individually. Think of what it's going to take in real pain for real people to get state budgets in order, of the kinds of adjustments envisioned to regain control of the federal government's finances. Depending on where they stand politically, Americans are going to argue passionately over that (they're already doing that), but what will add to the fire is the underlying fear that the old myths no longer hold, that something fundamentally has changed and that someone--the other side--is to blame for this. Much of America's relative decline is indeed the result of its own actions. Most are complicit, either because they actively and consciously acted in ways they knew were not sustainable (ways, at least, not in the general interest), or through willful ignorance. But few are willing yet to acknowledge they may have played a part. The good news is that because the problems are mostly of America's (and Americans') own making, they can also be addressed by things Americans do individually and through their common institutions. The bad news, and the reason why Americans will likely continue to vilify each other, is that until enough people take responsibility, the problems will continue to grow. More people seem to be taking a more pragmatic, and humble, view, but I don't think we've reached a threshold yet. Meanwhile, the presidential primary season is just around the corner. Leadership can make a difference in all this. For all his alleged faults, I think that the kind of vision for the nation's politics that the president has put forward is an excellent place to start. We shall see if in the upcoming State of the Union he will be equally compelling on policy. But leadership can only get you so far. Ultimately Americans themselves (Goldman Sachs very much included) will have take responsibility to stop the bleeding and to infuse the old American myths with new meaning.

Peter Post, R.I.P.

One of the great in post-World War II cycling, Peter Post of Amsterdam, died yesterday at the age of 77. Most people may remember him as the creator and leader of the innovative and dominant TI-Raleigh and Panasonic teams of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, but he was a very good cyclist during a sixteen-year (1956-1972) career on the road and, especially, the track. Thanks to an enormous desire always to win--and a big, powerful physique--he was victorious in no fewer than 65 Six-Day track events. He probably would have won more had a crash in 1972 not put an abrupt end to his career. On the road, his biggest win came in 1964, when he won Paris-Roubaix, averaging 45.129 k/h, which is still the record. (In comparison, last year's winner Fabian Cancellara averaged 39.2 k/h). I mostly followed Post in his capacity of TI-Raleigh team director. (Although I was also excited when, for my 9th or 10th birthday party in 1969 or '70, my dad took my friends and me to the bowling alley Post owned for a while in the Amsterdam suburb of Amstelveen. I remember looking for Post, but have no memory if he was actually there during our visit.) Built around classics specialist Jan Raas, classics threat and time-trialist Gerrie Knetemann, and a cast of supporters capable of winning big races themselves, the team seemed to win at will in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One obituary today claims a total of 1000 victories for the team from 1974 to 1983. Occasionally, they'd also have strong contenders for victories in major stage races, as in 1980 when Joop Zoetemelk (five times runner-up before joining Post's squad) won the Tour de France. In that Tour, the team won no fewer than eleven stages. For years, Post's teams were virtually unbeatable in team time trials, and it was there the "Post formula" was perhaps the most in evidence. Not only was Post a real taskmaster, more than anyone at the time or before he was a team builder, warning riders that their individual interests were subordinate to those of the team (and the sponsor), that the goal for the team always was to win, and that there was nobody, no other team, that could--had a right to--consider themselves equals. This made him an innovator and it has become a central part of his legacy. No small part of the Post formula was about attitude. Riders also had to look good, on the bike and off, because that too was part of being a representative of the team and its sponsors. Post himself always dressed very well--not that he needed it to be noted or respected (his calm but compelling personality took care of that), but it nonetheless became part of his aura. Riders might complain at times about his hard hand, but usually you'd hear how well everything was organized, how well riders were supported if they did their part, the formula so obviously working. The rider who arguably was his most successful, Raas, also gave him the most problems, eventually in 1983 leaving the team to start his own, taking half of Post's riders with him. The two men probably were too much alike, and two of these strong personalities in one team proved to be unsustainable in the long run. Post had a very good second run with his new sponsor, Panasonic, this time primarily with non-Dutch aces such as Eddy Plankaert, Eric Vanderaerden, Phil Anderson, and Viacheslav Ekimov. During the early 1990s he himself began to indicate that professional cycling was developing beyond what his formula would accommodate. At least, I remember a comment about riders' tendency (pioneered by Francesco Moser) to work closely with doctors in a scientific approach to training and racing. Post was skeptical, if not dismissive, and pulled out his much quoted admonishment: riders should "just go" ("rije!"). Don't sit on a trainer with a tube attached to your mouth and sensors taped to your chest, just go out early (Post sometimes would call his riders at 8:30 in the morning to see if they were still at home, instead of out training) and log five, six, or seven hours among the elements. Whether he knew the new medical/scientific era was one in which things like EPO played such a big role (he most probably did--in 1965 he had quite openly declared that he could not do all the racing he did if he didn't take a little doping every now and then; probably amfetamines), by the mid-'90s it had become time to retire. I'll always cherish the memories of the TI-Raleigh years, when the victories just kept on coming, and as a rider I continue to draw motivation from that essential admonition: just cut the bs and go, "rije!"

Afghanistan, again

Have to resume, even if it's hastily. Afghanistan is what it is: we, the West, are there, it's important, and it's not entirely hopeless (at least, that's one way in which one could read Ahmed Rashid's recent article in the New York Review of Books). But we're there, have been there for years, and thereby have made it our problem, if it wasn't that before. Problem is, the public in the West is less and less committed, less and less interested. The new Dutch government last week announced its intention to send 300-some police trainers to the Northern part of the country, supported by several hundred military, as protection. In doing so, it took up an idea, expressed in a proposal passed by parliament last spring, by the Green party and the centrist D'66. These two parties are now on the spot, because due to the rejectionist stance by the Geert Wilders party, the PVV, the two governing parties (Christian Democrats--CDA, and conservatives--VVD) do not have a majority in parliament. The PVV has agreed to support the government, but without joining it, thereby keeping its hands free. The opposition Social Democrats (PvdA), who last winter brought down the old government over the question of a possible extension of the Dutch military mission in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province, have already found a reason to keep looking away from the uncomfortable reality of our, the West's, long-standing involvement, our interests, and our responsibility toward the region, and have stated they will not support this new mission. Politically, it's very safe, because a new opinion poll shows that more than 70% of the Dutch electorate is against the new mission too, and parties (PVV, PvdA, and the Socialists--SP) that oppose it are making gains among the voters. So the easy and politically expedient position would be to say no. There are forces in the Green party (a merger of, among others, the old pacifist socialists and the communists) arguing against last spring's initiative by its parliamentarians, and all opponents have an easy time pointing to the difficulties and the long odds, because there are many. But that's not really the point. The point is that "Afghanistan," of "AfPak," is there, and that we're part of it. Have been, at a great cost to ourselves and others. We can't just throw up our hands and walk away (the implied alternative of the rejectionists), and as much as many among the public apparently would like, we can't just look away. We can't stay forever either, and we can't "fix" it. But there's a strategy to make it a little better (see the Rashid piece, which is all about a feasible exit-strategy) and it deserves a chance. Will the Greens and D'66 come through? It is a tough call, and it would be unpopular. But for the reasons stated here, and others, it would be the right thing to do.