Random things I've been reading:
Defense Secretary Urges More Spending for U.S. Diplomacy
NYTimes | Interesting turn of events
Defense Secretary Robert M Gates called Monday for the United States government to commit more money and effort to “soft power” tools, including diplomacy, economic assistance and communications, because the military alone cannot defend America’s interests around the world.

Related:
What the SecDef Didn't Call for, But Should have
SWJ | Another call for public diplomacy, missing the bureaucratic point, but still
On November 26, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, speaking at Kansas State University, recalled how the United States marshaled its national power at the beginning of the Cold War. Mr. Gates reminded his audience that sixty years ago the United States dramatically restructured itself in the face of a global threat and passed the National Security Act of 1947, created the United States Information Agency and the United States Agency for International Development, among other agencies and institutions. Key to the success of all of these was the timely creation and transmission of quality information, or truthful propaganda.

Counter-Insurgency Class
WSJ | "Now we run..."
... Six years into the Afghan war, the Army has decided its troops on the ground still don't understand well enough how to battle the Taliban insurgency. So since the spring, groups of 60 people have been attending intensive, five-day sessions in plywood classrooms in the corner of a U.S. base here, where they learn to think like a Taliban and counterpunch like a politician. The academy's principal message: The war that began to oust a regime has evolved into a popularity contest where insurgents and counterinsurgents vie for public support and the right to rule. The implicit critique: Many U.S. and allied soldiers still arrive in the country well-trained to kill, but not to persuade.

It's the Tribes, Stupid
Kaplan, via Atlantic | Priceless that this comes below a very ernest Iraqi Red Crescent ad.

The Office Pessimists May Not Be Lovable, But Are Often Right
WSJ | Co-worker sent this to me for some reason...
Research shows that relative pessimists are more accurate at gauging success and failure rates at a simple laboratory task than optimists, who undercounted failures and overcounted successes, says Edward Chang, associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan. Also, evidence shows that pessimism can be highly motivational, as what's called "defensive pessimism" drives people to achieve their goals.