Participant-Observer Methodology Strikes Again: Appearing before Canada's Defence Committee

 Today, I got stretched pretty good, as I was asked to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.  The focus was supposed to be the Baltics/Ukraine security situation, but I ended up helping to, um, expand the conversation.  I was on with two sharp people who are far more knowledgeable about Ukraine and Baltic security stuff, so I made that clear at the top of my initial statement.

Because dropbox no longer lets one share files easily, I will just summarize my opening statement: lots of uncertainty, much hinging on the US election (which had the effect of derailing the conversation a bit, I think), that Canada is contributing to NATO via the mission in Latvia, that it is no longer doing the air patrolling stuff, that my civ-mil hat is causing me to ponder how is Zelensky managing his military and how likely is it for the Russian military to mutiny.

The committee was smart to keep the regional questions aimed at my colleagues.  Marta Kepe of RAND spoke about hybrid warfare and other unconventional threats facing the Baltics.  Arel was quite critical of the lack of political will on the part of the west in general in not supporting Ukraine earlier and letting its fear of escalation inhibit support now.  I found myself agreeing with them on pretty much everything they said except for that political will stuff.  The Q&A ran for nearly 2 hours with each MP getting somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes to ask questions (the MPs from the NPQ and Block got 1 minute each--smaller parties get less time).  

The first question to me was by Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant asked about very specific drone capabilities and why don't we have more systems to combat higher level air threats.  My response focused on the fact that our allies have anti-aircraft capabilities to help us, and that the drone procurement thing is happening.  I forget when I mentioned that there had been opposition to weaponized drones a while back because of concerns about their being used to assassinate individuals, but that the Ukraine war has shown us of the importance on a conventional battlefield.

The second question to be was by Christine Normandin of the Bloc, who is one of the Vice Chairs of the committee--wouldn't Poland paying more than 2% of its GDP on defense insure that Trump would still respond to an attack on Poland?  Nope, that Trump couldn't be counted on for anything like that given his hostility to NATO and his positive attitude towards Russia/Putin.

The next question to me was from the NDP's Lindsay Mathyssen about the links between the far right and Russia, and I, well, really went to town on that one--mentioning their joint interest in eroding trust in democratic institutions, their weaponization of all kinds of hate (transphobia, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia) to divide democracies, and their joint fondness for autocracy.  I didn't mention DeSantis by name, but I did link Orban to all of this.  This got picked up by some far right media folks so here's the video of that sequence.

Conservative Don Stewart pushed again on drones--whether it would be right to train our troops on them before shipping them out to our troops in Latvia and why we don't have so many.  I mentioned the procurement challenges, here or later, including the fact that with everybody wanting to buy drones, there is a supply problem.

Liberal Emmanuella Lambropoulous asked a question of Arel that she then directed to me--why support Ukraine?  In addition to the stuff Arel mentioned, I pointed out that our inflation was partly caused by the commodity shock of Russia invading Ukraine's grain growing area.  I also mentioned our commitment to NATO, and this is a war that directly implicates NATO.

Normandin asked again about Trump, and I forgot if I said much different from the first time.

Liberal Marcus Powlowski asked about a reference I mad to Russian soldiers mutinying.  I said that what we know from civ-mil is not that we can pinpoint when one might happen, but the reckless disregard for the welfare of Russian troops might lead to units munitying.  He asked for evidence, and I had none except stories of individual soldiers attacking superior officers.  That time was not necessarily on Russia's side.

Conservative Vice Chair James Bezan asked about whether we should have sent some of the LAVs to Ukraine earlier, and I basically said yes.  

Liberal Chad Collins asked a long question about disinformation, which followed up from my previous answer about democratic institutions and the far right.  Either here or before, I pointed out that across the democracies, a key for preventing the rise of the far right is for right-wing parties to oppose them. 

My notes deteriorate from there.  We were asked about Ukraine and membership in NATO--I pointed out that won't happen until the war is over, as admitting a member mid-war is essentially NATO declaring war.  I was then asked if Ukraine could become a member if Trump was President, and I reminded folks that NATO operates by consensus, and Trump, having been impeached the first time for trying to extort Ukraine, would probably not support membership for Ukraine.

One can find the video online to get the whole hearing--the other two folks were super sharp and I learned much for them.

Did I tell the parliamentarians that my next book, with Phil and Dave, compares defence committees around world and found that the Canadian version was deliberately irrelevant?  No.  I will save that for the book launch.  I was very conscious that all parties were trying to play me and the others into giving them the soundbites that they wanted.  Perhaps I am biased, but the Conservatives seemed the most consistent, focusing on a particular message--that the Liberals are responsible for the CAF being under-equipped--which is not wrong, but I didn't want to get pinned down to say this was a uniquely Liberal problem--the Conservatives helped to get us here as well.  I probably gave the Liberals and the NDP the soundbites they wanted, but I did sense that there was a bit more genuine interest in the stuff and a bit less ruthless focus on point scoring.  As I said, I might be more aware of the stuff on the right than on the left.

I was asked by someone later whether this was stressful or whether I was frustrated.   Nope, this was fun--talking about this stuff is what I like to do, and talking to a committee that is, um, sort of responsible for this stuff is still cool even if I am a critic of how it does its business.

 

The State of Canadian Politics

 The drama down south has captivated not just Americans but Canadians.  But the good news is that the shitshow up north is going to grab some of that attention back.  The latest is that the left-wing party, the New Democrats, led by Jagmeet Singh, has ended its deal with the Liberals for no apparent reason and is now, yes, opposing basic climate change policy.  I really don't know how Singh got to lead a party with such poor political instincts.  

The Liberals are just freaking tired.  Nine years of Trudeau--he had ample opportunity to step down gracefully so that someone else could provide new energy to the party.  He is much younger than Joe Biden and far less decisive.  I think he suffers from a similar syndrome.  Just as Biden thought he was the only and best Trump-slayer, Trudeau thinks that he is the best one to defeat Pierre Poilievre.  The current polls suggest otherwise, Justin.  And the big news within the party is for Mark Carney, former bank governor both in Canada and UK (wtf?), is vying to be the next leader?  Yuck.  Not sure who I would favor, but not someone who hasn't really practiced competitive electoral politics.

What is a voter to do?  Damned if I know.  I had a fun conversation last night as the Conservative candidate in my riding seeking to unseat the Liberal incumbent was doing door-to-door campaigning.  She asked if I might vote for her.  Not if Pierre P is her leader.  Why?  I could have gone in many directions and kind of did so, but I focused in part on the incitement of trans hatred, I talked a bit about the Conservatives undermining NSICOP--the effort to provide some oversight over intel services ... about which she knew not, and I talked about Pierre's hugging of the people who blocked downtown Ottawa for weeks abusing the folks in or passing through the neighborhood.  I didn't even get into his platforming far right, resentful retired generals who complain about a woke military.

I really wish the left and the right would provide decent alternatives to the Liberals.  But they don't.  Democracy requires alternation and the threat of alternation so that even long-lasting incumbent parties act as if they are accountable to the public.  

All I know is that we are likely to get a majority Conservative government at this rate, which will test how sincere Poilievre is.  Given that I think he is the Ted Cruz of Canada, I don't think he cares about much except power. But what he does to get there and stay there is probably not going to be good.  In short, we be fucked.

APSA-ing as a Senior Scholar

Philly convention center

 If I had any doubts about my status as a "senior scholar," they were dispelled this week.  I was at the American Political Science Association meeting, and a grad student came up to me and said he was "professor x's last student."  The professor x in this case is not a telepathic leader of a school for mutants, but just a sharp woman whose stuff I read long ago, who I viewed as one of the group of hotshots that were one generation ahead of me.   Yep, she's retiring.  So, it is not just the folks who were senior scholars long ago, but everybody between me and them (well, except those folks who never retire).  

So, yeah, more conversations this time about when my friends plan to retire, when I plan, and all that.  Our jobs are pretty sweet compared to those elsewhere, so many folks do like to hang on for a while.  I will not be one of those, as I have already determined to step down after 20 years at Carleton, which means eight more years.  I might attend conferences to see friends and to keep learning, to keep engaging my curiosity, which is why I got in this business in the first place.  But I won't be teaching (mainly, I won't be grading), I won't be reviewing manuscripts for journals and presses, and I won't be submitting myself to the whims of reviewers.

Anyhow, over the past fifteen years (yes, the Semi-Spew is that old), I have gotten in the habit of posting my reactions to various conferences (including the APSA in Philly eight years ago).  This APSA as the first normal once since Covid.  Last year's post-covid (as if covid is gone, nope) APSA conference was a shell of itself as a hotel strike deterred many folks from attending.  

However, it was not so normal for me as it was my first real trip to Philly since my mother passed away last May.  I am so familiar with this part of the city as my mother lived near by, and we almost always stayed at this hotel next to the convention center and the Reading Terminal Market.  So, I knew where to go for great bagels, excellent french toast, cheesesteaks, and all the rest.  And I did spend some time at my mom's place, as I went through stuff with my eldest sibling--what jewelry made sense for my wife and such.  Oh, I hosted the regular APSA poker game at my mom's apartment since it had an excellent table and we were unlikely to attract hotel security.

The conference itself was the usual mix of panels and meetings.  Bluesky has replaced twitter as my way of meeting new people--an excellent ice breaker.  So, I had many coffees and a few beers with both old friends and new acquaintances and learned what they were up to.  I had a few meetings that were part of the CDSN 2.0 grant application preparation.  JC Boucher and I presented a paper (co-written with Charlotte Duval-Lantoine and Lynne Gouliquer) on whether discrimination against historically excluded groups affects public attitudes towards the Canadian military.  Yes, it does and people care more about discrimination against some groups than others.  We got some good feedback and learned much from the other panelists and their cool projects.  I went to a couple of other panels to learn what folks are doing in civ-mil these days and to learn more about the Ukraine war as I have an appointment in two weeks to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Carrie and Max at the civ-mil table

I organized a civ-mil hangout at a bar near the convention center, and it went very well.  The civ-mil community is full of sharp, fun, sweet people, so it is always great to get together. As the old guy at the table and as the old guy on the panels, I appreciate so much how great it is to hang out with younger, livelier, more creative folks.  As I indicated above, I might crash post-retirement APSA's and ISA's as I get energized every time I go.  

Dani and Alexandra at the civ-mil hangout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A big highlight was a reception at a local Irish bar celebrating three UCSD profs getting lifetime achievement awards.  I got to see some friends from long ago as well as meet some of the folks who went through the place after me.  I am so grateful for lucking into that place--it was and is a terrific community of sharp, sweet, generous, silly people.

Fun sign at the last place I had dinner

City hall is pretty at night

Interesting mural on the way to a steak place

A very good steak sandwich, just wished
they had pizza sauce.

Great way to finish up APSA is dining with JC and Sara

Fried oreos were amazing!

Priced In Means What?

 Trump's debacle at Arlington National Cemetery.  Wow.  So, the question is whether it moves the needle or not.  I argued on bluesky:

The basic idea is that we all know that Trump is a thoroughly awful human being, and what I mean by priced in is that either one hates him and will vote against him (if one turns out) or one doesn't care/doesn't believe/loves him and vote for him (if one turns out).  We have plenty of evidence that accumulates on a daily basis.  How much more can folks with some sense of decency be repulsed by this guy?  Those who want him in power because they resent (insert group here) don't care or don't believe the crap that he does.  Or maybe they don't see it because of Fox blindness or whatever bubble they live in. 

The best counter-point I got (thanks, Marcy) is that the newer voters don't know about this stuff--they were 10 years old in 2016.  Fair point.  And the media keeps treating Trump like a new candidate rather than focusing on what he did as President--risking wars, appointing perjurious SCOTUS justices who ditched Roe v Wade, engaged in all kinds of corruption and abuse of power (remember that first impeachment trial), Muslim ban, etc. So, yes, new news about Trump's current depraved behavior may resonate some among younger voters.  

But then again, usually, there aren't that many younger voters, and they aren't the ones talking to us on social media.  So, my comments about priced in largely target most voters--that their preferences will not be altered.  Either you want democracy and personal freedom or you want power and graft.  Or one has so thoroughly been radicalized that no proof will shake their faith in Trump.  I also recognize that much of the media is invested in keeping Trump alive in this race. 

Of course, the margins may matter in this election (I am starting to think this election may not be so close--a post for another day). So additional offensive behavior, such as shitting on veterans and those who lost their lives fighting America's wars, may move the needle just a smidge and that might make all the difference. 

Will new outbursts of Trump's racism and misogyny and homophobia (he is increasing his trans bullshit) and Vance's history of abhorrent statements dripping out each day matter?  I really do hope so.  I am just so tired of all of this, and I recognize that the polarization of our times means that most people have already decided who they are going to vote for now that, well, Biden is out of the way. I hope the sharpness of the Dem campaign matters, and I hope the incompetence of the Trump campaign matters.  

Can anything happen now to shake up the race?  A bad debate performance by Harris?  Probably not as much as Biden's because it won't confirm people's fears about her being unqualified for office.  Would a Trump disaster at a debate matter?  Maybe as it could cause a cascade of people losing faith?  One of the key things Trump has got going for him is his continued menace--that people are afraid to stand up to him because his supporters engage in political violence.  Maybe if Trump displays his dementia at the debate, it might cause the rats to leave the sinking ship.  But I doubt it because cognitive closure remains pretty powerful.  People hate admitting they are wrong (except me, I admit I am wrong all the time).  So, again, I am not sure anything can happen that will shake things up unless the FBI announces they are investigating Harris a week before the election.  Of course, they would never do that....

And, yet, despite how much I think all of this is already set, I follow the Harris/Walz campaign, I think their social media game is good (I thought the same of Hillary's... oy), and I applaud friends and relatives who are knocking on doors, sending postcards, making calls.  This is inconsistent, but then why shouldn't I embrace the moment, just as "Christians" keep supporting a twice-divorced, philandering, grifting gambler.

To sum up, it comes down to this, ultimately.  Either you believe another Trump term will be catastrophic or you want him to use the power of the state to oppress large swaths of the American people.  So, how much will assaulting staff at Arlington move the needle?

Why Trump is Bad For Civil-Military Relations

I wrote a lot during the Trump Administration about how his speeches and policies and such were a frequent challenge to good civil-military relations (here, here, here) and not just me (see this and this).  He delegated too much to the military, he didn't take responsibility when things went awry, he tried to make the military an ally in his partisan activities, and on and on.

Well, deja vu.  Trump went to Arlington Cemetery, presumably to do some cleanup work after once again trashing those wounded or killed in service of their country when he talked about the Presidential Medal of Freedom being equal to or superior to the Congressional Medal of Honor.  As it turns out, there are laws prohibiting the use of Arlington Cemetery for political ads.  The staff there confronted Trump's team, saying that they could not pose for pictures.  They pushed the staffer aside, took the pics (thumbs up at a cemetery?), and now the Army, which administers the cemetery is in a difficult spot.

The Army could have remained silent, which would have been a way to duck the controversy but would have made the Army look as if it were complicit.  Instead, the Army issued a "rebuke" as the journalists put it.  The Army stood behind the staffer who would not press charges for fear of being subject to Trumpist political violence.  So, instead of being viewed as complicit, the army will be viewed as being too woke and siding with the Democrats.

This is the politicization that folks (me, among others) have been yammering about.  Michael Robinson, in his book, argues that even if an actor stands still, it can be seen as moving towards or away from other political actors as those others move and take positions that change the perspectives on where the first actor stands.  The Army was damned either way, as the reality around it shifted, putting it either closer to Trump or closer to his adversaries, even if the Army did not move at all.

This cemetery-gate is just the latest example of this.  And, yes, if Trump becomes President, he would likely sack the Army Chief of Staff for letting the Army issue this statement and try to put into that position and the other key military spots supplicants who would be more inclined to support Trump even if he breaks laws and traditions and norms.

To be absolutely clear, the US military has no role in deciding who wins the election.  It is our job to vote against Trump to prevent further challenges to the norms of civil-military relations that largely keep the military out of partisan battles. While there are many reasons to vote against Trump and for Kamala Harris, including the fact that Trump has no sense of decency as this episode reminds us, taking civil-military relations off of the front page is a good one, even if that were not as helpful for us civ-mil scholars who seek grant money.

And, yes, this whole episode makes Kamala Harris's convention speech all the more on target:

Summer Institute Days Drifting Away But Ah Oh Those Summer Institute Nights

I asked for a silly pose.  This was the last day
(yes, they are wearing CDSN SI t-shirts)
during the lunch break--they all went
together across the new bridge to the park
for a picnic rather than heading off in
different directions.

 Once again, I am energized by an amazing week of Summer Instituting.  This year is our third in-person SI, and it coincides with the start of efforts to re-apply for another seven years of CDSN.  Why do we put so much effort into this application?  In part because realizing this part of the grant, the Summer Institute, hits all the sweet spots--it helps engage our (my) curiosity as we learn all kinds of stuff, we meet people--participants and speakers--from all across the Canadian defence and security community, it is simply fun, and it feels good to foster the professional development of others and to break down the barriers between the different pieces of the community.

I write each year about the SI (see here for last year's post), and yes, each year is more effusive than the last.  Why? Simply because it keeps getting better.  We learn what panels work, and we learn how to tweak the simulation to make it work better.  Last year's participants finally hit what we had imagined this thing to be--one third emerging academics, one third policy folks from govt, one third military officers and senior enlisted types. This year, we had that and also one or two folks from the private sector who added an additional perspective.  The only thing missing in terms of participants is we would love to get some journalists involved.

Once again, our speakers nicely matched the participants as we had folks from academia (Canadian and American), from key partner organizations like Bridging the Gap and Out in National Security, from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, and the like.  We had a new panel on Whole of Government that brought in sharp folks from Privvy Council Office (nothing like it in the US) and Global Affairs Canada (State).  That panel worked great, even before I tossed in a grenade--why are the political advisors to missions these days mostly coming from inside DND rather than GAC?  Good times.  Our day at DND HQ was even better than last year's (with one caveat) as we extended from just three speakers in one morning to five over the course of the day.  We heard from Army, Navy, Cyber, military intel, and the Associate Deputy Minister.  The one caveat is that the prior two years, the Deputy Minister had a wide ranging Q&A with us, and that was pretty terrific.  We didn't have that this year, alas.

Above, I mentioned the we--it is very much a team sport.  Melissa, Sherry, and Racheal did most of the work, Morad kicked in some help as well.  All I did was smile and wave. Ok, I did more than that--I served as MC and I got to present some of my stuff in a couple of panels--one on civ-mil and one on public attitudes about the military (which is also civ-mil).  I am so very grateful to Team CDSN for pulling this off.  The SI is the hardest thing we do, and it is most important thing we do.  It helps foster generations of sharp defence folks who are better connected and better informed.  We once again had a very diverse crew along lots of dimensions--gender, region, occupation, ethnicity, etc, so this is very much a key part of one of the CDSN's key objectives--to foster a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable next generation of defence and security scholars, scientists, policy officers, and military officers.  

If you are interested in the Summer Institute, we will be putting out ads and accepting applications in early 2024, and you can check out more info at our website: https://www.cdsn-rcds.com/summerinstitute 

Below are a variety of pictures from the week that I took.  Racheal took better ones that will be on the CDSN website eventually.

I love a good meta picture as I caught them taking
pics after their picnic.

Last bits of simulation scheming

Phil had a wonderful procurement rant or two

Our reception brings together co-directors, participants, 

n

Stef vH and Anna repped WIIS-C which
co-organizes our midweek reception

We probably need a better backdrop for our
annual NDHQ picture.  But we had a great day

a theme across the week--the CAF is really challenged

Murray Brewster and Col Paul Doucette talk
defence and the media.

Al Okros, who is not very good at retiring, and 
Kristine Ennis-Heise of DND talk policy process

Thomas, Erik, and Luke talk bridging the gap

More simulation scheming

the view from the speakers' end of the table

We met at the hotel bar the night before the
event to break the ice. Bridgers Erik and Luke at
the kids' table (we had more folks show up than
could fit at the main table) hang with participant Husnain

The cool kids table at the closing reception

The folks who arrived early sat at this table. 
Hence not the cool kids

I was quoted in the simulation post-brief. I had no
idea... but then again, this happens in two years.

The sim took place in the future, so it has a
guess at who is in office down the road. 
I am guessing they will be half right.