Talking Civ-Mil With the CAF

 The past two days I had the honor/honour to talk civil-military relations (some in the room called political-mil or mil-pol) with pretty much all Canadian generals and admirals (day 1) and a hunk of colonels and captains (N) (day 2).  I don't which was more intimidating--the audiences each day (that was a heap of leafs on shoulders that first day) or the other speakers.  I was joined on the panel by Peter Feaver, the biggest name in the study of Civil-Military Relations, former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers (day 2), retired 4 star general John Allen, retired CDS Wayne Eyre, and retired Deputy Minister and National Security Adviser Jody Thomas.  The soundtrack in my head was very Sesame Street.

The first event was part of an annual symposium of the senior officer corps of the Canadian military, and the second day was taken advantage of us being around.  I had never done anything like this before.  I had met a few of the GOFOs before yesterday, so I had some folks to chat with before the event kicked off.  And I had met and chatted with Jody and, um, Wayne? (feels weird to call him by his first name) on multiple occasions including when we had them both on our podcast.  

It was a very cool event for a variety of reasons--I learned much from the other presentations, I really enjoyed listening to Eyre, Thomas and CDS Carignan talk over lunch, and I also learned much from the other officers I spoke with, including the rounds of "knowledge cafe" which followed our talks on the first day, where we would speed-date/chat.  For 10-15 minutes, each SME (subject matter expert, pronounced smee) would sit with a group and chat about whatever civ-mil questions/thoughts they had and then rotate. 

I was chosen to speak at the event in part because there aren't that many civ-mil scholars in Canada (Peter couldn't really speak to the Canadian case) and because I tend to be, um, blunt.  I don't think I can say what the others said, but I can discuss what I presented. 

I started by arguing that some of the foundations of civ-mil that they have been exposed to are wrong.  That Sam Huntington was wrong to argue that there are two worlds--political and military (yes, some civ-mil pedants will contradict me, but I was there and they weren't).  This has caused a variety of problems as Risa Brooks identified quite well, but I focused mostly on the notion at the military is apolitical.  Nope, Clausewitz rightly argued that war is politics by other means, which means essentially that everything a military does or does not do is inherently political.  What we want the military to be is not ignorant of politics but to try as hard as they can to stay out of partisan politics.  I explained that politicization refers not to the military doing political things, but getting involved in partisan politics, mostly by getting dragged into it by one party/politician or another.  I didn't get deep into Michael Robinson's stuff, but it did inform what I had to say--that a military can stand still but be seen as moving closer to or further away from one party or another due to the other actors moving. I had another analogy in the Q&A (see below).

I then discussed how the conception of civilian involvement in military stuff in Canada is often seen as an intervention or a series of interventions, which is inherently problematic since interventions are episodic, temporary, unwelcome, and unnatural.  That it sets up expectations in a very bad way--civilian control should be continuous, dynamic, and expected.  

My third opening point was referring to a reading that they were assigned--former Chairman Martin Dempsey's take on civil-military relations, where he talks about two cultures.  I referred to an important omission--that military folks tend to think that expertise is only gained through experience where as academics and other civilians tend to think expertise can be gained through analysis/research.  Oh, and that perceived expertise gaps play a big role in creating tensions in civil-military relations.

Yes, I used this moment to plug the
forthcoming book.

In my next slide, I went through the various civilians in Canadian civ-mil and argued that most fall short of what is required.  The PM has many jobs to do so they can't be focused on overseeing the military.  It should be the Minister of National Defence's job, but we have had a mixed record there. I should have talked about the Prime Minister's Office, but I really don't understand it so much.  Something I should figure out one of these days. I talked about how one didn't know what is job was and said so in parliament and should have been fired.  I then discussed what we (me, Phil, Dave) had learned about defence committees and legislatures--that the Canadian case inspired the book project because I was so profoundly surprised by what the Canadian Defence Committee (NDDN) does not know, what it isn't interested in, and what little power it has.  I then moved onto DND, which was fun since that spoke directly to Jody Thomas's former bailiwick.  I argued that since DND sees itself as a supporter of the military, that limits its ability/interest to engage in oversight.  I then argued that in 2021, a few journalists--Mercedes Stephenson, Amanda Connolly, and their team were the only real overseers over the CAF as they tenaciously broke the sexual misconduct story.  But I also noted that we have only two full time defence journalists and one of them is seen as not so legit. I did suggest that we shaggy academics have a role to play since we are critical and we are, dare I say it, experts on some of this stuff.  Finally, the public is the ultimate principal and thus the ultimate overseer, but they don't focus much on who is doing good oversight. Because I talked my slides but didn't actually present them, I didn't really hit hard enough the conclusion that the CAF actually faces much less oversight than most other militaries except when it comes to procurement.

My last slide focused on what the military can/should do about this. I argued that the norms, what is standard, expected, correct conduct is not always clear.  That "Fighting Spirit" which is the military's latest document about professionalism is a good statement, but is just something on paper.  The hard part is figuring out what it means and how to live it.  General Eyre did ask me as I talked about this whether I noticed the language about retired officers speaking out, as well, he and others know quite well my, um, relationship with a certain retired LGen.  I had.  I argued that the military needs to speak truth to power but behind closed doors. Eyre did get that I was criticizing him a bit as he was a bit too vocal about defence spending.  I didn't remark that his fondness of Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command book and its conceptualization of the Unequal Dialogue is interesting because the book tends to focus on leaders, such as Lincoln, firing generals until they found one that followed their intent.  I argued that the military needs to be more transparent and welcome oversight, as one of the themes of the two days was about trust as a lubricant reducing friction in the relationship.  Being transparent helps build trust.  While the military folks kept saying that it was their job to educate the civilians about civil-military relations, I argued that the responsibility lies more in civilian hands since, yes, the civilians are the bosses.  We live in a time where some civilians are trying to drag the military into politics in a variety of ways (Trump), and putting the military into difficult spots where saying something is seen as being partisan, such as when Trump filmed a campaign ad in Arlington National Cemetery, breaking the rules, but staying silent can be seen as being partisan and complicit.  It is on the civilians to try not to put the military in such spots.

The Q&A for both days went in a variety of directions.  One of the questions was about whether there was a crisis not in Canadian civ-mil but in Canada's international relations.  Folks argued that the mil-to-mil relationship is still strong.  Of course, I got to play the role of doomsayer by suggesting that the CAF needs to re-think damned near everything as the foundation of Canadian defence policy is the relationship with the US.  Who will provide medevac if things get hot in Latvia?  Who will provide air defence or deep strikes?  That with Trump as President, we simply cannot count on the US to show up when needed, so plan accordingly.

The organizer, Dr. David Emelifeonwu, asked about the realities of being attuned to politics but being non-partisan suggesting that they are not two coats that one can choose to wear one or the other.  I think that was the question, so it led me to a different metaphor.  That partisan dynamics are like someone spinning a can of paint that is spewing paint in all kinds of directions. If one is aware of the political dynamics of the moment, they can dodge and weave and avoid some or most of the paint, but that some might end up getting some stains along the way.... but if one is not aware, one is very likely to step into big puddles of paint or get splattered in a big way.  And once stained by the paint, it is hard to get off.  I used the example of  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley making the mistake of walking in Lafayette Park in combat dress (more or less) after the park had been forcefully cleared of protestors. This made Milley seem like the US military supported the suppression of free speech, and he spent much of the rest of his term trying to remove that stain.  Instead, his efforts ended up leading him to being covered by more and more partisan paint.  I wish I had shown this video because he is saying the right stuff, but how we says it makes it clear he is being anti-Trump rather than just pro-Constitution. 

Again, I learned a lot.  Having these conversations with sharp people on the other side of the civ-mil relationship forces me to think harder about this stuff, how to communicate it better, and to nuance my views (ok, sometimes.  Nuance and me are acquaintances at best).  I am very grateful to have had this opportunity, and I am very glad that these folks are taking very seriously the challenges facing Canada (and not just Canada). 

My Local Politics is National

Coming home to Canada days before the election, and, on the drive from the airport, I saw plenty of Poilievre and Carney signs.  But not because they are their party leaders but because the route went through PP's riding and the riding (district for Americans) that Carney is running in.  I live in the latter and bike through the former (not today as I am a fair weather biker, so the cold rain will deter me).  

The election has stakes nationally, and, locally, who wins my riding really matters not just in terms of one seat more or less but whether the leader of the party gets to sit in parliament and have legitimacy to serve as the Prime Minister.  Right now, Carney has no seat, and that has happened before, as party leadership can shift in between elections, but he couldn't carry on as PM if the Liberals win but he does not (a very unlikely outcome).  

I don't know Carney, never met him.  He does have a heap of credentials, and he has run a very solid campaign.  I have met his Conservative opponent (the NDP candidate is barely visible and has no chance).*  Barbara Bal was knocking on doors last August, and I happened to be home.  I was not impressed. This was at the same time that the Republicans were inciting violence against Haitian immigrants re the supposed missing dogs and cats, so I remember the timing and content of this conversation well.

What did we talk about? She asked me if I would vote for the Conservatives.  Since she didn't know who I was and hadn't read my blog/bluesky posts (nor did I expect her to), she had no reason to expect she was going to get some pesky questions/opinions from, yes, a political scientist.  I responded first by saying that a politician who weaponizes hate against a vulnerable minority, trans people, is not worthy of my vote, like the way the GOP is behaving in the US.  She made a side comment about having spent time in Haiti so she didn't find the GOP hate-mongering to be problematic.  She then talked a bit about parental rights, and I said that was a canard used to appeal to the far right.  

The other topic that came up, although I forget how, is that I also said that I didn't like how her party was undermining the oversight over intelligence by its stances re the relatively new effort to create a hybrid oversight committee.  She had no idea what NSICOP is, which is not that surprising since, yes, my work with Phil Lagassé has focused directly on parliamentarians preferring to know less and speak more than know more and speak less--the original title was "Ignorant Critic or Informed Overseer." So, not really that disqualifying that she didn't know about the role of parliament in intelligence oversight, although since her party was sabotaging that effort, one might think she would have some awareness.

Sidenote: The issue of preferring to be ignorant has come up in this election as Poilievre has refused to get a security clearance.  Party leaders tend to get these, it has become more important lately with foreign election interference, as it has been the position of the government that each party should police the interference within their own party.  PP can't do that without knowing stuff.  But he refuses as he claims this would prevent him from being critical of the government.  This is, of course, bs as there are plenty of Westminster systems where party leaders get access to some info but can still criticize the government.  It would just require him to be, dare I say it, responsible. 

Obviously, I wouldn't vote for a Conservative Party candidate at a time where that party is promising to cut higher education and research funding, but my vote was determined in 2022 when Pierre Poilievre welcomed the far right anti-vax convoy that disrupted live in Ottawa for two months with donuts and smiles.   A more moderate CPC might get my vote after, yes, ten years of Liberals in power (democracy requires alternation in my mind, but the LDP of Japan might disagree), but that was never in the cards given PP's ascendance.  I have also taken to calling him the Ted Cruz of Canada--willing to support many far right causes just to get a bigger crowd, to appeal to those to the right of the traditional Conservative Party.  And just being someone who is easy to hate.

Anyhow, Bal didn't know what she was getting when she knocked on my door, but I do have a good understanding of what would happen if she won--she can't win without the Conservatives getting a sweeping victory--which wouldn't necessarily mean selling the country out to Trump. It would just mean selling the country out to far right causes, and that is a very good reason to vote against her and her party. 

*  Canadians get strategic voting--that because it is a first past the post (whoever gets the most votes in a riding wins) rather than proportional representation or another form of allotting seats, those who would prefer a 3rd or 4th party often will vote for the lesser of two evils.  In this election, the NDP, the Greens, and the Bloc are polling poorly for a number of reasons (the NDP leader is not seen as a good politician, for example), but one of those reasons is that these voters really care that the right wing party does not win at this moment.  This is much to do with Trump but not entirely so as Poilievre is both personally pretty easy to hate and has taken stances that position him much further to the right than his predecessor (including the aforementioned transphobia).  

Sequels Can Be Better: Finishing My Second Quarter-Year in Berlin

Today is my last day in Berlin, as I head home tomorrow after three months in Europe.  My second stint in Berlin was even better than the first.  I knew more people, lived in a better place, and had a better ski trip.  I was actually only in Berlin for 2/3s of the time as I skied the Swiss alps, went to Sweden to do that case study, drove through western Germany to do an interview and see lots of castles along the run, and when went to Sicily with my family.  But I still got a heap of Berlin in.

This time was better because:

• I hung out with Canadian folks who are partway through their stints at the embassy.
• 
  I hung out with my sponsor, Marine Henke, who was in the US last year but here this year.
• I got to participate in a great Hertie event on Democratic Backsliding and the roles of militaries in such stuff
• Being six hours off the East Coast
  's time was more important this year as the Trump mess didn't start every day until midway through the day.
• I, um, ate less German food.  I liked w
  hat I ate of it, but it is not the healthiest food nor is it a better cuisine than Italian or Indonesian (I finally grabbed some of this my last day) or Turkish doner.
• There was less pressure to line up interviews as I had already gotten much of what I needed last year.  I did add a bunch and finally figured out the case and how the contradictions make Germany the exception that proves the rule (If I have the rule figured out).

• 

  hard to get a bad pic
  of the Materhorn

  The skiing was better as the conditions in Zermatt were better, and, well, Zermatt is a much better ski area than Zurs/Lech--more interesting terrain, much more terrain, better views, much better food (thanks to the Italian side), and the town itself was pretty delightful.  Plus I met a number of folks while waiting and had some good chats.

Technically, it was not a sabbatical so there is less of a checklist of things I had to get done, but I did get some stuff done:

• I feel pretty good about the German case study
• The Swedish case study was very interesting and will prove to be a good contrast to Finland (I have an APSA paper I am committed to writing this summer doing exactly this).
• Proofed the Dave/Phil/Steve book several times.



Stockholm

• Got a crash course in German politics since their
  election happened my first month here.
• Got heaps of interesting takes on the moment--that I arrived before Vance's awful speech at the Munich Security Conference (which is organized in part by folks at the Hertie School) so the post-MSC eventat Hertie was most interesting.  I
• I tried my best to convince the Europeans that the Canadian break with the US was quite serious and that the 51st state stuff was quite serious.  
• Recorded more podcasts for BattleRhythm and did a heap of media stuff as defence became a significant issue in the Canadian election (I return just in time for the election itself--Mark Carney is competing in my riding [district]).   
• Had a lot of pretzels and gelato.  

  

  Some White Lotus tourism

 

• Sicily, which was better than last year's Venice and Milan because my daughter joined us.  She, like googly eyes, makes everything better.

  

  Old theaters turned out to be a theme on our
  Sicily trip

I am very grateful--my hosts were terrific, the weather was great, my apartment worked out nicely, and I had a blast.  I am eager to get home to my house, my car, my kitchen, my neighborhood, and my friends.  And then wait to hear about various grant applications (please don't ask me where they stand).  The second half of my career has been wonderful.  The path here was filled with painful job searches, failed interviews, lots of rejections, and a bit of misery.  But I also had a lot of help and terrific friends along the way.  Given the turmoil in academia in the US, Canada, Britain, and elsewhere, I know that am very, very lucky.  

2025 Defence Platforms: Promises, Costs, and What?

It has been a tradition here to look at the defence platforms in the run-up to Canadian elections and see what they say (for the intel stuff, see Stephanie Carvin's sharp analyses).  I am late partly because I was on the road last week eating way too much pasta and gelato (not together but one and then the other, lather, rinse, repeat). 

So, what do the parties say about their plan for Canadian defence in these uncertain times, where the very foundation of the US alliance is shaking apart?

First, the Liberals since they are the front-runners, the incumbents, and actually said the most stuff about this.   Carney's team (who will be is Defence Minister?  No idea, but I hope he moves on from Blair) proposes pay raises, better health care, child care, and housing.  This all makes sense both because it helps recruiting and retention, which are central given the personnel shortage, but also the easiest way to spend more money to look good re the 2% expectation.  No cumbersome procurement processes for much of this.

Modernize recruiting.  Yep, was happening under JT but was slow and late, so good to continue that work.   Continue the work recommended by Arbour/Deschamps/Fish/etc.  That is, keep working to make the military inclusive.  A very sharp counter-point to the Conservatives even though it should just be basic stuff--we need more people, we need them to stay, let's make them welcome.  There is not a tradeoff between doing right by the people and effectiveness.

Much discussion of rearming.   Specifically mentioning NATO commitments (as if there will be a NATO in the future).  This reflects a commitment to spend at least the equivalent of 2% of Canada's gross domestic product on defence spending, which gets easier as Trump tanks the Canadian economy (basic math--if the denominator gets smaller, the resulting % gets bigger).  

• Keep the submarine commitment, of course, as it is a key to spending a lot of money AND we can't rely on the US to share its underwater info for much longer.  

• 

  Cover of 2015 Liberal defence
  platform. Notice defence is not
  really the priority here.

  Keeping the commitment to the National Shipbuilding program... even though it is the most expensive, slowest project.  Why?  Jobs in Halifax and Vancouver and now Quebec.  My first
  defence platform review blasted the Liberals for defining shipbuilding as a jobs program, but, well, that is what it is, so points retrospectively for honesty.
• Drones!  Remember when it was controversial to be pro-drone because of how the Americans used them in the Mideast/Pakistan?  Ukraine has changed all of that in a big, big way (also in Germany).
• Buy Canadian-made AWACS planes--this was JT's plan to buy off Bombardier so that the P-8 plan would not face controversy, and Carney is keeping that plan.  Quebec is a votes rich environment...
• Stuff for the army as revealed by Ukraine war--more advanced artillery, more ground-based air defence.  Absolutely.  But this may take time since everyone is watching the same war and learning the same lessons.
• Expand mission for the Coast Guard.  I am not a CG expert so I guess so.
• More money for the Rangers (most parties promise this).  Sure, there is a lot of value added and puts money into northern communities.  
•  A new bureau to do advanced science stuff.  This makes sense at this moment since we can't rely on the US to share its tech or to use its tech on our behalf.
• A New Defence Procurement Agency. This has been promised many times by multiple parties.  Given how many ministries are involved now, I am guessing it won't happen anytime soon.  Is it a good idea?  Maybe, maybe not.  It might increase accountability as only one minister/ministry would be blamed for things not working out.  But again, easier said then done.  
• The next line focuses on being more risk acceptant in making procurement decisions.  Easy to say now, hard to do when one is fearful of question period.

 The Arctic sovereignty section begins with a focus on Arctic and Indigenous leadership--the line here is nothing without you at the table.  [Foreshadowing: not all parties think this way].  A network of deep water ports sounds super expensive and unlikely, but would count towards 2%, so there's that.  Buying over-the-horizon radar with Australia is a good way to avoid dependence on the US, but is already something underway.  More northern infrastructure, with much dual use stuff, again makes sense but is wildly expensive.  

In sum, a pretty reasonable defence platform that is mostly a continuation of what Trudeau was doing, but perhaps maybe spending more money.  But can they do it more quickly?  Some of the stuff is faster than other stuff--can raise salaries a lot faster than buying subs. 

What is most obviously missing?  No mention of whether to re-think the F-35 decision?  The good news about Trump alienating Canada is that it takes the whole participation in ballistic missile defence off of the agenda.

What about the Conservatives?  At this time, they still don't have a costed platform despite promising to have one by now.  Breaking promises before the election is a bad look.  Their original promise to spend money from expanded trade with the US on defence has, um, blown up in their faces given the trade war.   The only statement I could find was this.  Very Arctic focused.  Upgrading the Inuvik facitlity into a full base sounds expensive and impractical and no mention of consultation.  Same promise about AWACS planes as everyone has to pander to Bomdardier.  New Arctic baser in Churchill, a security corridor--all season road, more icebreakers.  Nothing on personnel, although Poilievre has talked about the military being too woke, which means the end of culture change and the end of programs that fund ... me and the CDSN. So, yeah, I might have a bit of a conflict of interest here.  

I guess we will have to wait for the real platform that is supposed to come out tomorrow, several days into early voting.  A very interesting choice since everyone knew this election was coming.  Maybe PP needs a deliverology summit too?

How about the NDP? They really lean into the nationalism, so no more F35.  A promise of 2% by 2032, but on what is not clear.

So, yes, I wrote much about the Liberals, but they actually said a lot.  

I will update if the Conservative say more.

 

 

Last Eurotrip For Awhile: Sweet, Sweet Sicily

 I am so very lucky.  This Humboldt Award gave me two spells in Europe--last winter/spring and then this one, three months each.  Last year at this time, Mrs. Spew visited and we drove around East/Central Germany and then flew to Venice and Milan for a great trip.  Last week, my penultimate week in Berlin, she visited again with our daughter joining us.  After a couple of days in Berlin with another visit to the East Side Gallery (I notice something different teach time even as the wall remains the same), we flew to Sicily.  The idea was to explore Palermo, get a car and see the stuff to the west, then take our time driving to Catania where we would use that as a base to see stuff on the southeast and then dump the car and explore the city.  Oh, and have a lot of great food and much gelato and many cannoli.  

It was my first non-North American trip with my daughter, so it was great to have that experience.  She's not a kid, not by a longshot anymore, but she's still my kid and we had a great time hanging together.  I had forgotten how quickly she falls asleep in a moving vehicle--truly impressive.  Since she doesn't do this quite as much as I do, I gave her the conn as much as I could--which beach to hit, which restaurants to try, where to succeed in our quest for Arancini.  My wife, with her balky knees, kept up with us quite well. 

Mission
Accomplished

A few basics about Sicily and our trip: like before, I tried to get hotels near the old towns, the old towns can be quite stressful for drivers as the streets tend to be super narrow and the parking lots even more narrow; Italian food is amazing so we didn't dare try anything else (unlike, say, in Germany, where we had great Georgian food and finally ate at a very good Vietnamese place attached to my building); we had way too much desserts along the way; we got a car to see more of the island but didn't want to spend the entire trip in the car; we mostly crashed after dinner each night--my daughter had more of a social life in Berlin than in Sicily.  We had some recommendations from friends about places to see and restaurants, and those paid off nicely.

 

This place looked interesting,
but we didn't make it back, alas

Our first stop was Palermo, and we stayed right off the main pedestrian street, surrounded by great restaurants, many gelato places, an awesome cannoli spot, and short distances to key sites--the big cathedral and palace.   We could see some prep for Easter as the pic below suggests:

 

The next morning, I took a super easy to find and use train to the airport to pick up the rental car. I had to get a bigger one since our bags are, well, huge.  Overpacking is a Saideman trait.  Which provided some challenges later on.  I drove back, picked up my family, and then navigated the very narrow streets around the parking garage (flashbacks to Toledo and fear of getting jammed), with all the proximity alarms going off, and one turn causing me to hit something, which turned out to be a curb and not a parked car (phew!).  We then drove to San Vito Lo Capo, which allowed us to see the countryside and the coastline and the heaps of topgraphy--lots of mountains jutting out of the ground.  We were in search of their sweet beach, and we found it.  The scenery was great, we had more pasta with seafood (very much a running theme on this trip), and we went into the water.  It was cool, but it was a fun beach.  It had a dip and then a long sandbar so one could just hang and chat and admire the mountain next to the beach.  I didn't take many pics on this stop.

We then drove to Trapani, which was a disappointment.  It might be a great place, but we got pushed by the traffic to park in a distant neighborhood and didn't really see that much as we searched for a place that was open.  It was funny how some towns had most restaurants closed on Mondays, other towns had their closed restaurant day as Tuesday.

Cliff/mountain with cave and fort
next to Cufelo.

The third day of the trip was moving day--getting out was easier as the guy at the garage told us left left right right and we wished we had that knowledge the previous day.  We drove first to Cefalu, a beachside town with a really neat old town. Alas, it rained, which limited our exploration, as we weren't that well prepared.  

 

 

 

 

 

Inspired by White Lotus season 2 and by recommendations from friends, we then drove to Taormina, which is on the east coast.  We passed by Messina along the way and could see the toe of the boot of Italy quite clearly--a very narrow strait--so I mentioned some WWII stuff that bored my family.  The other notable thing along this drive was the number of tunnels, short and long, on the way.  I think I drove through more tunnels on this one day than in my entire life excepting the tunnels in Montreal and places like that.  Taormina has a gondola that takes one from the street next to the beach up to the town perched on a hill.  It was all pretty spectacular. 

We then got to Catania where we found the most unusual beds in our rooms: 

It was, um, ok.  Fine for one person, but for two, we had a problem having our feet on the bed at the same time.  Still, a very nice hotel in another excellent location--near the big cathedral and two major pedestrian streets.  And again great restaurants and perhaps the best gelato of the trip.  

We spent the next day going to Siracuse or Syracuse and walked around the old island and then an old theater, which became a running theme on the latter part of the trip. I think this was one of my favorite days as the scenery was great and the drive was easy once I got the car out of the narrow entrance to the parking garage in Catania (you can tell I am still scared and scarred).  

Ancient Greco-Roman theater in Syracuse

 

Temple of Apollo

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our last day was spent car-less, exploring Catania. 

Opera house around the corner from our hotel

Some great views of Etna.  It spewed some lava
one night, but the best pics were on my family's phones

Smaller theater--Odeon--attached to larger one

Big, in great shape, not uncomfy.

More left-wing, anarchist graffiti here than anywhere else

Interesting exhibit we happened across

Last castle of a very castle-filled Eurotrip

Ranking the places, I'd have to put Taormina at the top--just a spectacular combination of old buildings, hills, beaches, mountain view, then Palermo with a lot of stuff to see and such great food, then San Vito for the amazing views from the beach, then Syracuse for great history, then Catania which was excellent but not quite as excellent as the aforementioned, then Cufelo because the rain limited what we could see and do, and finally Trapani.  

In terms of the food, the cannoli were awesome, the gelato was fine but varied and wasn't so special.  The pasta with clams was better than the pasta with seafood, but both were terrific. Lots of pizza, and lots of overeating. 

It was a great way to finish off my two winters in Europe.  I need to come back to see other parts of the continent, and to ask more pesky questions about civil-military relations.  

 

As always, better to be lucky than good.

The Purge Continues: Cold, Multilateral Edition

 In the aftermath of JD Vance's visit to the US base in Greenland, we learn that it is a multilateral base.  How so?  The commander of that unit, Colonel Susan Myers, sent an email to everyone under her to indicate that things at the base are going well and that the Canadians and Danes within the unit should feel part of the team. 

"I commit that, for as long as I am lucky enough to lead this base, all of our flags will fly proudly -- together,"

And then she got fired.  The hacks and around the Trump Administration will say she is too woke and that she was insubordinate.  The challenge is: what was she supposed to do?  This is a dilemma facing any officer who has a multinational command--how to keep your non-Americans included when the US turns in a unilateral direction?  Dave and I started our NATO in Afghanistan book seeking to understand how commanders balance having responsibilities to two chains of command--the national one and the multilateral one.  While they often point in the same direction, that is not always the case.  We quickly realized the national one almost always matters more since the homeland shapes promotion of the officer, most of the assets they have, and so on.

As it turns out, sometimes the commander acts more on the basis of the multilateral mission.  Myers cared more about her troops and unit cohesion (see below) than she did about her career.  Not all colonels become generals--most do not--but now she will find herself seeking a new job, I guess.  It is bad for her and bad for the force, as it teaches everyone in the military that subservience to the partisan stances of the administration are more important for one's career than doing the assigned mission well.  

Michael Robinson wrote a great book about how politicization of the military can put the officers into damned if you, damned if you don't situations.  This ain't the first one of this administration, and it ain't the last.  Standing still and not doing anything, as Rush reminds us, is still a choice.  Myers could have said nothing and would have appeared complicit with Vance's statement.  Just like if the Army had said nothing when Trump's campaign team violated the rules at Arlington National Cemetery or if the generals and admirals were silent after Charlottesville (condemning racism is only controversial for the racists, but alas, that is now who governs).  With the political system shifting, the military, even if it stands still, appears to be moving, according to Robinson.  It is up to the civilians not to put the military into these situations--but the Trump administration wouldn't recognized responsibility if it walked up to them and said hi.

One of the ironies here is that unit cohesion is usually cited by the intolerant.  It refers to the aim of keeping a unit together so that it can be more effective.  It is often cited by those who don't want Black people integrated in the military or women in the military or LGBTQ+ people in the military--that their presence will disrupt the cohesion of the unit, which will make it harder for that platoon or ship or squadron to cooperate in the face of the enemy.  But, of course, the real threat to unit cohesion was always the intolerant.  

Here, the threat to unit cohesion is the Trump Administration.  That Vance's presence and speech and the entire discourse aimed against the allies threatens to disrupt multilateral efforts around the world.  In Greenland, there are Canadians and Danes in what was Myers's command, and she had to take seriously how to make them feel part of the common mission in the aftermath of Vance's divisive appearance.  The same goes for American commanders in Europe who have NATO countries contributing to their units.  The same goes for the American commander in South Korea who in an emergency would not just command all the Americans in and near South Korea but all South Korean troops.  And on and on.  It may not have been Vance's intent, but, again, the irresponsible rarely recognize when they are doing damage to relationships.

This may not be a problem for a unilateralist administration who has been discussing the possibility of no longer having an American officer serve as the top military official in NATO (SACEUR).  Trump and his team don't play well with others and don't want to play with others.  So, we are going to see more of this at the expense of American influence, power, and security.  Congress often resisted having Americans serve under foreigners because they didn't trust them--so nearly every NATO mission with the exception of KFOR (the Kosovo mission) had an American at the top.  That will end soon, alas.  

Myers had two strikes against her--she's a woman and she believed in her mission.  The longer this goes on (and it will go on), the more officers in the US military leave, are pushed out, or conform to the administration's various dictates.  I am not saying civilian control of the military is at risk, but that the effectiveness of the military is. That is what happens when one politicizes the force, when promotion is not based on merit but on fealty to the autocrat. We know this from the comparative study of autocratic militaries (Talmadge/Roessler/etc).  Another irony---those who complain that DEI gets in the way of merit promote those who are not meritorious but are loyal (Hegseth) and fire those who are doing their jobs well because they are not sufficiently loyal--Myers today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti, Commander of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and so on.

Those in the military will look at those who are promoted and wonder what partisan machinations they engaged in to get promoted, rather than think about their military records.  This will breed disrespect and distrust.  And it will be very, very hard to undo if there is ever a chance to do so.  Norms take generations to build, days to destroy.  Respect takes much time to be earned, but distrust can happen in a heartbeat.

We know that Trump and his ilk disrespect service, given his past blatherings about not respecting those captured in war or those wounded in combat.  So, please do not take seriously any concerns by Trump, Vance, or Hegseth that Myers or others like her are "too partisan" to be in the military.  The military does need to subject to civilian control and strong oversight, but what it does not need are loyalty tests to the individuals at the top. Do they need to be loyal to offices at the top?  Sure.  But not to any one man.

 

 

 

Steve As Fake Economist: Maybe not as Dumb As the Wannabe Oligarchs?

 I am not an economist, but so much of what is going on these days is due to faulty understandings of basic economics, so even my level of understanding may be sufficent.

I just wanted to highlight a few things that bluesky conversations forced me to think about.

First, there is the discussion of the chances of a recession happening in 2025.  In my humble opinion, the probability is not 25% or 50% but 100%.  That is, it is a certainty because IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.  A recession is when the economy shrinks as opposed to growing.  The formal definition is when it happens for two quarters.  

Will there be less economic activity this year?  There already is less and it will continue.  That cutting hundreds of thousands of government jobs AND cutting heaps of money from flowing to various actors (cities, states, universities, etc) will reduce the economic activity.  Plus, yes, multiplier effects--those restaurants and other services that benefit from having fully operating universities, states, cities, think tanks, etc will be doing less, buying less, spending less.  

This is before we get to the tariffs, which have already started to hit the economy--that firms are pausing production because they really don't know what their inputs will cost nor will they know what kinds of prices they can charge if they hope to export into markets that are, yes, raising their prices due to retaliatory tariffs.  

The only way to avoid a recession--the technical definition--is if somehow all of this temporary for one quarter and no more than that.  Guess what?  Trump is not going to reverse all of the Musking and DOGE-ing of the government, and no matter what happens with the tariffs, it will have stirred up too much uncertainty to magically erase within one quarter.  This recession is likely to last a long time precisely because this administration does not believe in standard macroeconomics.  But standard macroeconomics believes in it--spend less money, people will buy less, economic activity will slow.  Tax cuts on the very rich may prop up some investments, but they don't actually generate as much economic activity as argued--it does not trickle down.  

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned what Trump is doing to agriculture by keeping out migrant workers or what he is doing to tourism, a very big industry, due to the fear of being disappeared.  

So, that's the first thing I wanted to get off my chest.

The second is this: before the election, business folks had to consider who would be better for them: the guy who promised tax cuts and deregulation or the woman who wasn't going to raise tariffs or create a tremendous amount of uncertainty.  It seems like most of them chose the former and not the latter.

This was, in a word, dumb.  Why?  American businesses already pay very little tax, and rich people pay historically low taxes still.  And they can evade much of it.  Yes, regulation is annoying, but if they want to export to the EU, then they will face regulations there anyway. Plus they can price in penalties and figure out ways to dodge or cheat on the regs.

What they can't finesse are trade wars or uncertainty.  Uncertainty is an absolute killer except for those who can wager on it.  For most businesses, having predictable political and economic situations is basic for making investment decisions and for good operations.  Maybe the Silicon Valley types who have fallen in love with disruption think they don't need either inputs from abroad (or to sell stuff abroad) or stable environments, but pretty much every other actor in the economy relies on foreign inputs, foreign markets, and stable situations.  

So, now, they are fucked.  Unfortunately, so are we.   

Yes, we have short-term-itis among business people--that the focus is on today's market price and not tomorrow's profits. I get that.  But damn, tomorrow turned out to be today, not five years from now.  

Again, what angers me so much is that it didn't have to be this way--just like the Brits stupidly chose Brexit, which was predictably dumb, much of American business chose Trump focusing on tax cuts and deregulation and wishful thinking away the tariffs, the trade wars, the uncertainty, the cheap labor provided by immigrants.  

Will this lead to Trump's undoing?  Maybe eventually, but as long as the GOP fears Musk's money going to primary candidates and Trump siccing his mob on those who disagree with him, I doubt that the GOP will find their backbone.  Maybe the media will stop providing cover for this as people become increasingly outraged.  So, the pain has come quickly, but I don't think it will go away anytime too soon. 

Sorry to be a doomblogger, but at this point, things just suck mightily.  The protests have already made a difference as Democrats are starting to block stuff, and most elections have gone Dem since November.  But the only way out is through--impeachment won't get rid of Trump, and if it did, we'd have Vance.  

The Purge Continues: Cyber Edition

 Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency General Timothy Haugh, who is also double hatted as head of Cyber Command.  I went on a long rant on bluesky, which I will mostly replicate here.  As military folks like to BLUF--bottom line up front--just like every other institution in the US, the military is being broken.  Making fealty to the mad king will undermine effectiveness in a number of ways.  

First, some basics: to be clear, the military is always a political actor and subject to the political dynamics of a country.  It goes back to Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means--and the basic definition of politics which focuses on any kind of decision-making that affects the public, especially the allocation of money and other stuff.  Being partisan is something else entirely.  We used to have American generals refuse to vote because that they wanted to be neutral.  In the past 30 years, some of that has broken down as retired admirals and generals began to endorse candidates, playing upon the perception that they were speaking for the active forces.  But it was not inevitable that we would get here.

During Trump 1.0, many norms (standards of appropriate behavior), were violated repeatedly.

• Trump announced the Muslim ban from the part of the Pentagon paying tribute to various heroes
• Trump kept referring to the senior officers as "my generals"
• Trump blamed the generals and admirals if things went awry rather than owning things--the buck never stopped with him
• Trump used the military to deal with protestors and wanted to do it more violently--"Can't they shoot the protestors in the leg?"
• Trump pardoned war criminals

 It got to the point where scholars of civil-military relations, who usually try to avoid advocating for any military disobedience, were tempted to root for some.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the senior leadership spoke out in favor of a diverse force and for tolerance.  This was seen as being partisan--because it could be viewed as an implicit critique of Trump's take on the event.  But not speaking up would have been seen as complicit. 

This is where Michael Robinson's work fits in--he wrote a great book that argues that even if the military stands still, if the observers are moving, the military will be seen as moving either towards or away--that they will be dragged into partisan politics--politicization--even if they resist it.  

As I discussed a few weeks ago, when Milley retired and spoke out about how the military serves the country and not a wannabe dictator, it was pretty clear that what might otherwise be a banal statement was a criticism of Trump.

The firing of Haugh is yet another dead canary in the coalmine (that coalmine must be packed with dead canaries at this point).  A few things stand out.  He is a white man, so the previous purge was perhaps just racist and misogynist (note I am not approving--I am incredibly angry) as Trump fired one Black general and two women four star officers. One could argue (foolishly) that this was not aimed at creating a submissive class of officers.   By firing Haugh, it is abundantly clear loyalty to Trump is the only criteria that matters.

And who decides?  Laura Loomer, who is a far right agitator.  She was briefly banned by social media for being racist.  It is quite notable that this firing happened basically at the same time as several people were purged from the National Security Council for not being sufficiently Trumpian.   

It will not stop here as Trump's fundamental insecurity produces an unquenchable thirst for loyalists.  He won't ever be confident in the loyalty of whichever people he promotes to admiral or general.  His own disloyalty gets projected in every direction.

And this happens as we have already seen many disturbances in the force--banning books at the Naval Academy, the commandant of the US Air Force Academy pondering firing civilian profs, civ-mil conferences cancelled at the Army War College. 

This will produce a less effective force.  Those who get promoted will be seen as less qualified, less meritorious, as they will be viewed as moving up due to their partisan loyalty.  The civ-mil literature shows quote clearly that when you promote on the basis of loyalty, you get bad results-Talmadge, Roessler, etc.  This will create dissension and friction within as unit cohesion will break.   [Any time a military seeks to include the previously excluded--Black Americans, gays and lesbians, trans people, the intolerant argue that this is bad for unit cohesion, and a coherent unit is necessary for battlefield success.  It turns out that the real problem are the intolerant people, as the diverse armed forces of the world have proven to be most effective.]

An officer corps of yes-men (and yes, I do mean men) may make it easier to issue orders to invade Mexico or shoot at Americans, but with disrupted unit cohesion, it will be more likely that the military will not engage in such efforts in unison--and those divides might become violent.

The only winners in all of this are those countries seen by normal people as America's adversaries--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc. 

Just like the tariffs, this is all so unnecessary, so destructive, so costly to so many individuals as well as to the country and to those who used to be America's allies.  

So that is my angry civ-mil riff du jour as another general is tossed for appearing to be not sufficiently loyal to the mad king.