London Regains The Lead: Fave Capital Again

 I have spent the last week in London, the first time in 14 years and only the second time since my seven week experience after my junior year in college.  I was here for the very first Civil-Military Relations Network workshop (or any other endeavor of our new network/grant), as Phil Lagassé is leading our Command research agenda.  The workshop featured historians and political scientists, so we can check our inter-disciplinary convo item on our goals/aspirations immediately.  The first day featured the historians, and so I learned much about the Romans and medieval military stuff. The second day mostly featured the political scientists. It was a great start for our seven year tour exploring strange old worlds and boldly going where we have sometimes gone before.

And, yes, it was also an excuse for me to enjoy London.  Much has changed since I last was here and much has not.  I had previously ranked London behind DC for my fave capital since everything on and near the Mall is quite spectacular, including the Smithsonian, the various war memorials, and such. But London's Whitehall area is pretty spectacular and hasn't been ruined by the awful pols who have led this place since Brexit.  

One key element was the timing--not so much the fourth of July of it--always interesting to be outside of the US on that date, including #250--but that the big huge Pride day was Saturday.  So, the city had pride flags all over the place, and, yes, many of them included stripes and such for Trans People despite the increased (since 2012) of Harry Potter merch and such.  JK Rowling may have greatly influenced the horrific transphobia of the UK, but she didn't make a dent on Saturday or in the week leading up to it.  I was staying near Trafalgar Square, which was the focal point of the celebration although there were parks all over the place with events.  It was maybe harder to find a shop or pub without a pride decoration than with one... but maybe that is my confirmation bias speaking.

The city was packed before the event and then more so on the day.  Luckily, I was here in between heat waves. I visited some places I had been before and some that were new to me.  I mostly walked since I was so close to many things, and I had an old Oyster card that I could use for a few tube rides.  I also took a boat ride for my very first time (I had a very strict budget way back in 1987).  

So, some highlights and then some observations:

• I spent a lot of time near Covent Garden.  I had some excellent tapas in the garden itself and shopped some of the markets. I didn't stay long to watch the buskers, but they were busy and entertaining.
• I walked through Westminster Abbey, which I hadn't done since 1987 (long lines, I think in my two previous 2000s visits).  Always impressive, so much history there, including some recent--markers if not graves?  for Sir Laurence Olivier and  John Gielguld, for example.
• On Saturday, I escaped the crowds by going to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, my first time that far east of London.  Some amazing history and science of which I knew not previously.  The National Maritime Museum is next door, and that, too, was fascinating.  
• I then took a boat to go back, stopping off at the Globe Theatre stop.  I walked from there to the Borough Yards/Market to check that out.  The going was challenging as the walk to and the area itself were crowded.  I passed by at least four groups of folks wearing silly stuff and dancing and singing (see below).  I then checked out the Tate Modern, as I prefer modern art. Some installations were simply breathtaking.
• On Sunday, I went to the Imperial War Museum, which I must have done before but don't remember so clearly.  The WWI stuff was fantastic--very informative and very engaging.  There was an entire floor dedicated to the Holocaust, with an emphasis on the micro and the macro.  They did an excellent job of connecting individuals to the horror but also depicting the scale of the horror.  Going through that at a time of rising anti-semitism around the world (thanks, Bibi) and Nazis marching on the fourth of July, everything here resonated even more than usual.   
• I then grabbed lunch and went to The Truth, a comedy about ... infidelity.  It was hilarious as the writing was terrific and so were the performances.  In my first trip to London, long ago, I went to farces as the Brits do them so well.  Last time, I saw Avenue Q, which was wonderfully profane and uproarious.  They didn't have the usual farces, and there were no Hamilton tickets available around the 4th, but I am more than happy with what I chose.  Simply an incredibly funny show, with four actors doing amazing work.  I highly recommend.

Now onto some observations:

• I don't think I have seen more student groups on weekends going to museums.  And these students came from near and far.  
• The food scene is amazing. I ate Indonesian, Malaysian, India, Burmese, and pub.  One of my iron rules of travel is if there is decently rated Indonesian food, I get it since I can't get it at home.  Indeed, the "can't get it at home" explains my restaurant choices and my choices of which dishes most of the time.  The pub food was pretty terrific, so even English food was quite good.  I specialized in meat pies, and that worked out well for me.
• The ice cream scene is even more amazing.  I simply don't remember there being so much excellent ice cream here.  Maybe it was the heat or maybe an invasion of gelato stores?
• I really don't remember the pub scene being this well attended in previous visits. Each evening, the streets were packed with people outside of pubs. My previous visits were roughly the same time of year, so I can't explain it via weather.
•  Speaking of booze, the garden pub/bar scene rivaled Berlin's.  The walk along the southern side of the Thames had heaps of both permanent and temporary booze gardens, with numerous screens set up so folks could watch Wilmbedon and the World Cup.  
• I had a chance to have a cup of coffee with a friend from summer camp.  My camp imported British and Israeli folks to be counselors, so I have a few folks I know in the UK.  It was great to Joe and learn what he was upto over the past, gulp, 40 years.  This reminds me that this summer is the 40th anniversary of my last summer at camp and, yes, the 50th anniversary of my first as I went from 1976 (shortly after the bicentennial celebrations) to 1986.  As longtime readings of this blog may remember, that place left a huge dent on me.  I tried to go back this summer, but that didn't work out. Anyhow, great to see Joe and hear about the other British folks and how they experienced that place.

I kept marveling at how lucky I am.  My career has given me so many opportunities to travel, to learn so much about the history and food of all these places, to meet great people, and just see stuff.  As I head into the final stretch of my career--six years left--I will make sure I appreciate it all.  There were plenty of bumps along the way, and except for the first post-grad school stop, none of the places I worked were in my imagination long ago.  Each step did lead to the next, but not in any way I could have predicted.  I started out with an interest in international conflict, which led me away and then to civil-military relations.  And that move has been so very fruitful for me--leading to yet more travel.  The current project may produce one or two more bursts of fieldwork, but is nearly complete.  So, I am spending the summer writing a grant for the next project while trying to complete the current one. Yes, the next one involves much travel again.  As I always say, better to be lucky than good :)   That the divvying up of the fieldwork with an expert on Westminster countries has meant fewer trips to London than I would like is, well, the right thing to do. Glad I could sneak in this trip as part of a different project---again, I am very lucky.

Aforementioned dancer

=2=

I got the hat as United 
didn't get my my bag until
middle of my second day
and I needed to protect my head

Battle of Britain monument

Covent Garden

Standing astride the Prime Meridian

The Royal Astronomer used to live in 
the Observatory, including the guy 
whose name got attached to Halley's comet.
Apparently, he was not as precise as the
others so much of his work was tossed out. 

    

250 Years and 24: The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

I am in London, having finished a two day Civil-Military Relations Network workshop, our very first, on Command.  Run by Phil Lagassé, it considered from many angles and all over history what it means to command a military and who has the authority and such.  The moment resonated quite a bit for many reasons:

• that Phil couldn't get any Americans who specialize in this kind of stuff because they wanted to be home during the big annivesary
• that No Kings conflicts with the reality of the US being more monararchic than most constitutional monarchies (Phil's argument)
• my first time being in the place the US rebelled from in quite sometime, with the first visit to London was 39 years ago around this time.
• the utter incompetence of the Great American Fair creating much schadenfreude from a greater distance.

Dan Drezner has a great post about how things are awful now, but have been at every 50 year marker in US history. It is most instructive, especially given how much of a betrayal of the civil war was 1877.  I do remember 1976--the celebration, not so much the post-Watergate/Vietnam moment.  It was a big summer for me, as I went to summer camp for the first time two weeks after the bicentennial.  It was a strange summer for the US--an election year where one candidate was an unelected President who pardoned Nixon, who, in turn, committed what might be considered a typical day of Trump work.  

Drezner's piece has a note of optimism--that the US made some big leaps in progress in between 50 year markers.  I can't help but be more pessimistic in this moment.  As a friend put it, how can the US recover when the Republicans do not believe in democracy?  I worry that the GOP will do damage either in 2026 or in 2028 to subvert elections.  Given that they tried in 2020, that Trump pardoned those who sought to help him, that the court has given Trump immunity, why wouldn't they try to prevent the Dems from taking power.

I also worry that the Dems, if they get back into power, might not do what it takes--packing the court, admitting DC as a state, taxing the crap out of billionaires, breaking up the big tech companies, prosecuting the criminals of Trump 2.0.  The bright spot right now is that the Dem primaries are producing fighters who will push hard.  I do  hope that the rest of the Dems get the message.  I do believe that the 2028 primary election will involve dems outbidding each other to undo Trump's destruction, but I am not sure that enough fighters will be elected to support the changes that must be made.

I did hear from some folks who say that the Dems can't fight fire with fire, but giving into the GOP and being bipartisan helped get us here.  There will be no reforms without unpacking the court, and the Dems need to improve representation so that, yes, the GOP can't get back into power without expanding its appeal to beyond white folks and those betraying their groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc).  Who radicalized me?  Mitch McConnell.  

Anyhow, on the anniversary of 250 years of the US Declaration of Independence, I am most worried.

On the other hand, I was busy traveling so I missed posting about my 24th Canada Day in Canada.  Canada has been very, very good to me.  It rescued me from West Texas, where I would probably have been fired by now given attitudes there about academic freedom.  I have had much success here--fun books, heaps of grant-funded travel, several big grants to fund a series of terrific networks, two cool jobs, amazing access to folks in and near government, great colleagues, twenty years of awesome ultimate, much improvement on the slopes, and more.  

Canadian politics is not as broken as American politics, but, yes, we can see it from here.  Federalism is broken as the feds get blamed when the provincial leaders do their best to break pretty much everything.  The current government is pretty right wing for a center-left party--central bankers are not hippies, as it turns out.  But we have dodged having a Trump wannabe serve as Prime Minister--our own bad faith actor.   

ultimately, I place my hope on the fact that the US has always managed to recover from its lowest lows.  The majority of Americans support the right things (except for trans rights, as the demonizing of a fragile minority has gotten so much support from folks who shouldn't --NYT!), and the elections since Nov 2024 have been a rejection of Trump.  But I am not sure the institutions and the votes will matter... I hope so, but I am just not sure.

Sorry for this American birthday post being so depressing..... 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles 2: Electric Bugaloo

 It does not take an IR scholar or an historian to note the significance of Donald Trump signing onto a "deal" with Iran while he's at Versailles, site of the treaty that temporarily ended WW1 and set up WW2.  I have a few thoughts to add to this perfect illustration of how dumb and tragic this war has been:

The costs here are understated:

• Trump alienated allies by starting this war without giving notice.  So, it not only led to physical destruction in the neighborhood, but also harmed US relations with them.  Even Canadians were harmed since Iran hit a Canadian base in the region.
• Probably putting off any chance for the Iranian people to either put pressure on their government to reform or to get it to collapse.  The US killed potential replacements to the regime and ultimately produced a government that is probably more radical than the last.
• How many Iranians paid with their lives for Trump to get this inferior deal? 
• The US engaged in war crimes, including the recent attacks on water plants, which is significant stain that will have consequences. 
• Speaking of war crimes, this war deepened the crisis in US civil-military relations because Trump and Hegseth got the military to do some pretty awful things here.
• The cost to countries around the world of higher oil prices is not just in "global financial costs" but starving in some countries and energy crises that may have increased their vulnerability in others (the Philippines had much reduced capacity to patrol at sea and in the air to push back at China).
• Trump made the Chinese alternative more attractive--who is the reasonable country and who is the out of control aggressor now?
• Higher oil prices also help Russia.
•  The US not only depleted its stocks of missiles and smart bombs but also lost a number of expensive and relatively scarce planes--AWACS planes and tankers.
• Note that this chart does not include the costs in Lebanon.  This war gave Israel permission and space to engage in yet further unwarranted and unproductive brutality towards people who have had nothing to do with the crimes committed against Israel on October 7th, 2023.
• US gave up its role in maintaining freedom of the seas and taught every country that owns one half of a strait that they could use that geographic advantage to charge tolls for passage.  The post WW2 prosperity depended on this ability for trade to flow freely.  On the bright side, maybe China will replace the US to maintain the flow?  Oh, wait, that's not good news. 
• The big criticism of the original Iran deal, the JCPOA, was that it didn't affect Iran's missile capabilities.  No deal to limit that.  Now we have Republicans saying that the Iranians can just keep their missiles for their own defense.  So, the Party of Bad Faith betrays one of their major talking points about how bad the Obama deal was.   
• The other claim the anti-JCPOA folks kept making is that it did nothing to stop Iranian support for terrorism.  Um, and this deal did?  Nope. 

I could go on--there is no upside for this war.  Trump gave away the store and a lot more for a deal that is far inferior to one that Obama got via diplomacy.  This is all so tragic and stupid.  Remember one of the claims folks made was that they voted in 2024 for the candidate promising no more wars....  

 

NATO Is Not Dead, It is Just Pining For the Fjords

 I have been arguing that the heart of NATO, Article V, has been dead for since January 2025.  It took a while for the Europeans to believe it:

Anton Hofreiter, a German lawmaker, said: “NATO’s main problem is that, as long as Trump is president, there is no longer any faith that the U.S. would come to the Europeans’ aid in the event of an emergency.”  NYT

 This quote comes from an article discussing how much US military capability is being withdrawn from Europe:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

The most important piece here are the tankers--a scarce capability.  I am waiting for the big shoe to drop--how much army stuff will be moved out, because that stuff is harder to bring back quickly.  The rest could be returned to Europe in a crisis. 

First, we have to remember that the US deployment to Europe is not altruism.  The US has long benefited from stability in Europe AND using Europe as a platform for operations elsewhere (the Mideast).  

Second, deterring Russia is still an important thing--that pivoting from Europe seemed cool in 2013 but not since.  

Third, sure, the US should pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but Trump does not seem that concerned.  He has been willing to waste not just years of missiles and other ammunition but risk and lose a bunch of planes for the Iran war, which, last I checked, is not in the Indo-Pacific.  Plus Trump's statements on Taiwan raise questions about how sincere any move to the Indo-Pacific might be. 

Sure, the Europeans are investing in their militaries now--less because of Trump's hectoring and more because of the Russian threat and American unreliability.  But the Americans have always been the glue.  Can Europe count on the UK?  The UK Defence Minister just quit, so maybe not.  Can Europe count on Germany?  Not yet.  Still unproven and still lacking readiness. Can Europe count on France?  Putting elections down the road aside, it sure seems like that is the best port in this storm--many countries are now developing nuclear sharing agreements with France, something unimaginable only a few years ago.  France has finally deployed some troops to the Baltics (Canada leads in Latvia because France was too busy elsewhere to put troops there), so there is a bit of a French tripwire now.  

A European replacement for NATO is now imaginable but would be much weaker--the US simply has too many unique capabilities, has the most effective military (although politicization of it is reducing that), and has quantity as well as quality.  So, now, the best deterrent of Russian aggression in Europe is ... Ukraine, which is keeping the Russians pinned down.  

Trump is tossing away American influence and limiting future American choices while alienating allies.  And for what?  Not much.  The dealmaker continues to throw away bargaining chips.

and for the title reference, kids, check out this sketch

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bad Faith Actor Dictating Faith

 Perhaps it is unfair to call Pete Hegseth a bad faith actor since he seems to be a real believer in Christian nationalism.  But many of his arguments have been of bad faith--that the standards he applies to others he does not apply to himself. That part makes him fit in really well in the Trump Administration.  Much of the Christian Nationalism does as well, as Christian nationalism is far more about power and domination than it is about, you know, that whole Christ thing.

The latest move has been to reduce the list of faiths the Department of Defense recognizes.  This may seem strange since state is supposed to be separated from religion, but given that soldiers, sailors, aviators, and marines spend their entire daily/weekly/monthly lives in, on, near bases, their spiritual condition has long been something the US government has addressed with chaplains, chapels (the one at the US Air Force Academy would not be out of place at a Christian nationalist university.... oh wait, um, never mind), grave markers, and so on.  

But then you have to ask what counts? What fits into the bureaucracy so that each troop's spiritual needs are met?  Military chaplains are supposed to address the needs of all of the women and men in uniform, not just the Christians.  The good news is that Hegseth's reductions from 220 or so to 31 allows for some diversity: Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Judiasm, Islam, Sikhism, non-religion, "Other," 22 flavors of Christianity, and Latter Day Saints--Mormon. That last one was not listed under "Christian." Ooops. [This reminds me that just as Black Americans and Latino Americans voting for white supremacists surprise and appall me, Mormons voting for Christian nationalists should fit into the same category of voting for those who want to see you dead or gone].

One could wonder if this simplification of the coding is just a normal realignment to go along with reforms of the chaplaincy stuff in the military, but the guy at the top, Hegseth (not Jesus or God), is a Christian nationalist, complete with Christian nationalist tattoos on his body.*  These folks hate all non-Christians and have a very narrow definition of what counts as Christian.  The list is a bit generous since lots of Christian faiths are included that a Christian nationalist would abhor.  I guess this is a start?  Or Hegseth is too much of a coward to go all the way and crop Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and most of the other Christians who don't count?  

It is notable that Indigenous people's religions are dropped, as well as Unitarians and Wiccans.  Would it be a stretch say that Hegseth is trying to make military service less comfortable to non-Christians by reshaping the chaplain corps, reducing recognition of those who don't fit Hegseth's approval list?  Maybe that is too subtle for the guy who keeps firing women at the GOFO ranks (generals/admirals) and keeping people of color and women off of promotion lists.

Managing the list could be apolitical, aimed at efficiencies... in ordinary times.  Now, it is clearly an effort to define who can and should serve in a way that promotes the opposite of diversity.  Being anti-woke means being hostile to all kinds of diversity, so now more people are told they don't belong.  Not a great move if you want to maximize recruitment and retention, but if you want to build a military consisting of just white dudes who fit a narrow definition of Christian, this is a first step.

 

 

*  The Pentagon does have restrictions on tattoos, keeping out or kicking out those with Christian nationalist tattoos or Nazi tattoos because they want to keep out far right extremists.  If you think this is a subtweet of Platner, the candidate for the Maine Senate seat, you would be wrong--there is nothing sub here about it. 

The State of US-Canadian Relations, June 2026

 Lots of stuff happening the past week or two:

• Canada decides to buy a Swedish plane (no, not that one), rather than the American one. Rumors have abounded of Canada cutting its F35 buy and getting 60 Gripens instead.
• Canada finishes the contract on the HIMARS launchers
• I attended a conference on Canada diversifying its defence procurement, with former military folks mostly wanting to get "the best capability" which is code for American stuff. 
• Trump repeats the 51st state crap which gets reposted by his ambassador to Canada, the wildly unpopular Pete Hoekstra.  
• Much noise about the opening of negotiations over revising NAFTA 2.0 aka CUSMA aka USMCA (why does Mexico never go first?).
• Efforts to organize a panel for the next International Studies Association meeting fail as I can't get Canadian scholars to commit to a conference in the US.
• ISA-Canada, which is a subunit of the ISA, had its business meeting at the Canadian Political Science Association meeting, and much of the conversation was on whether to have any activites at the next meeting in the US.  A reminder--these folks like to travel and engage other scholars and yet they won't go to the US.  Kind of like not playing Sun City. 

  I am sure more has happened, but this gives you an idea of where things are at.  Best summarized thusly:

 Re defence, it would seem to be contradictory to buy American stuff at this time given the threats from the US.  The Carney folks are in a difficult spot.  Someone in the audience of the diversify conference that Elbridge Colby cited Carney's Davos speech and asked whether Canadian resistance is causing American coercion.  And I wanted task about time travel since Davos is after all the 51st state stuff.  As I keep saying, if someone is going to punch you in the face whether you accede to their demands or not, you might as well do what you want, not what they want.  Which is what the AWACS/HIMARS decisions illsutrate--when Canada can get good but perhaps not the best stuff elsewhere, it will--the Swedish/Canadian AWACS plane.  When it can't build it at home or partner with a non-American actor, then, yes, it will buy it--HIMARS.  A colleague pointed out the very instructive language in the announcement that had never appeared before, I believe:

This is Carney playing to the Canadian audience explaining why we are buying American in this case.  Pretty sure previous Canadian governments didn't have to do this.  And it won't be the last time, as much in the contracting pipeline is American.

Re the F35/Gripen conversation, damned if I know what is going to happen.  I firmly believe the F35 is the best choice as a mixed fleet of planes (or subs) would be incredibly expensive.  While it might be cool now to hop to 3.5 or 4% of GDP spent on defense, in the long run, future governments will not be as enthused, and the public will not be as supportive (the nationalism will fade some after Trump leaves the scene).  So, the military will have to pay quite a bit to keep one set of planes or subs in the air and at sea, and won't be able to afford the costs of two sets of spare parts, two sets of training systems, and two sets of everything.  So, perhaps don't mess this up now?  Sure, it won't go over well with the Canadian public.

Re the Ambassador: declaring any ambassador persona non grata is a huge deal, almost akin to starting a war.  Doing that to an American ambassador would shake everything up in a big, big way.  Carney has been a mixture of caution and risk-taking in his handling of the US relationship.  He won't do this.  But he could summon the ambassador and demarche him for getting too involved in Canadian domestic politics--the Alberta separatist stuff and the like. It wouldn't change American behavior, but it would play well in Canada and draw a line or two.

The conference stuff is a signifier, as less engaged, less knowledgeable Canadians will have stronger opinions and a greater willingness to thumb their noses at the US.  We have already seen how much it has affected tourism and trade, and that will leave a mark for quite a while.

Which gets us to the trade agreement.  Trump, Hoekstra, Colby, and the rest want to impose their will on everyone including Canada.  Carney won't submit but he will bend, but the fundamental problem in all of this is that Trump won't take yes for an answer.  He got a revision of NAFTA last time.  Yet he asks for more.  What will satisfy him?  What compromise, what concession will end the coercion, the torment?  The answer is: nothing. There is no satisfying him.  You can distract, you defer, you can buy time.  But he will come back again and again demanding more and more.  

So, the answer again is: do what is in Canada's best interest, which sometimes means cooperation but not always.  I will disagree with Carney on much stuff (gutting environmental regulation, firing lots of govt people, etc), but he has been mostly right on the mix of cooperation and resistance.  No need to punch Trump in the face with PNG-ing Hoekstra, but definitely a need to buy defence stuff from elsewhere.  I do trust Carney not to sell us out.  And that might seem minimal, but given how so many relatively powerful actors (Harvard, rich law firms, etc) have given in, holding the line on some things but not everything would be better than most.

Finally, one last note on civil-military relations: the RCAF probably wanted the American plane, so that is a loss for them and evidence of some civilian control of the armed forces.  But the CAF is getting a lot of money and equipment very fast, so I hope they get neither cocky nor whiny, and instead plan on getting
enough stuff now that can be sustained during leaner times.  Because there will be leaner times. And, no, this does not change my basic stance about Canadian civil-military relations--there is oversight and control over procurement, perhaps too much, but it ain't the same in most other realms of civ-mil stuff.   More on that down the road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowdsourcing Civ-Mil Violations

I am looking for help: with the help of a fantastic RA, Alireza Mamdouhi, I have created a googlesheet to crowdsource a list of violations of American Civil-Military Relations norms by the Trump Administration.  My inspiration was hearing about a panel on US civ-mil during the Trump era that concluded that it ain't so bad.  Um, yeah, it is.  Because so much has happened over the past 16 months, it is easy to lose track.  So, here's the list. And here's our start at a codebook.  Please comment to add crises, to raise questions about our coding, to help us come up with category coding.   

 This is my first effort at this kind of thing, so any help would be most appreciated. Peter Lucier of the Chamberlain Network has already jumped in so expect revisions to the columns (more columns with more specific coding)

For specialists in civ-mil, if you want editing privileges, let me know.  

Again, the idea here is to document the many ways in which the Trump Administration is undermining the norms that buttress civilian control of the US military and keep it out of politics.

 

When Modesty Is Not a Virtue: Learned Defence Expertise is Real

 I read a terrific piece by my partner in crime (I am sure some members of some legislatures will consider our latest book* criminal due to our discussion of their, um, lack of relevance),  Phil Lagassé, but took a heap of umbrage at his footnote:

 I dislike the term ‘expert’ when it comes to academics who study topics such as mine (defence policy or machinery of government), where practitioners are usually more knowledgeable.

 The funny thing is that Phil contradicts himself in the piece as he considers himself a defence politics specialist and not a generalist (see below for his invocation of Seva Gutinsky's piece and my reaction to that).  Apart from this, why was my chain yanked?

Because one of the fundamental problems in civil-military relations around the world is that most armed forces consider themselves to have a monopoly of expertise on military stuff and that Sam Huntington's flawed book then encourages them to consider all civilians amateurs.  Amateur is the antonym for professional, right?  Scholars, such as Risa Brooks and Sharan Grewal , have shown not only that this attitude exists but that it likely causes contempt for civilians and for civilian oversight. Not great.

To be clear, in Phil's piece, his expertise discussion is referring as much to those civilians working in the Department of National Defence as much as he is referring to the uniformed.  Still, any admission that academics are not experts on this stuff is problematic.  The military and adjacent folks already tend to denigrate the work we do: have you served? is political science really a science?  

Why? Partly it is about identity and ego, but much of it has to do with different notions of expertise. Military folks tend to think that one mostly gains expertise through exercising and experience, not through study and analysis.  Academics tend to think that expertise comes through rigorous analysis.  Both sides are right and wrong.  There are many ways to learn things and develop sharper understandings of something, relying on one source leaves one less well-informed.  As always, portfolio approaches make the most sense.

To be fair to the military types, when H's book came out nearly 70 years ago, there was not that much civilian expertise on military matters.   But since then, thanks to the Cold War, arms races, various wars, academics have gotten serious about military matters and so have other experts.   Defense agencies have grown in size and scope and relevance (well, not everywhere as Phil, Ora, and I are finding out for our next book--see my Chile and Brazil posts of late), for awhile defense was an important beat for journalists in some places (the US has a military journalist association!), think tanks in a few countries developed squads of experts, and so on.

There are now plenty of civilians who have knowledge and understanding of defense.  The coverage of the Ukraine war provides ample illustration (see Seva's piece for several of exemplars). And we need civilian expertise because experience is not always the best teacher.  There are often multiple lessons to learn from an experience, say Vietnam, which lessons are the right ones?  One of the ironies of Phil's post is that distinction between generalists and specialists also applies to military folks--some officers have wide-ranging careers with much joint service and much exposure to the civilian side, and  others hardly ever leave their specific niche.  

A quick word on Seva's piece since this post is already long enough: he is talking about who makes the best predictions (no one?)--that expertise, as Phil discusses, can limit the imagination.  For me, prediction is always fraught (I was in the Russia will invade and win decisively box of Seva's piece), as I have gotten much wrong.  

But prediction and diagnosis are two different beasts.  Those who have done much rigorous analysis are good at doing .... rigorous analysis and can dissect what has happened quite well.  Academics, at least in the areas near mine, do a great job of explaining, even if they are not great at prediction.  Why?  Well, the future is always in motion, it has not been written yet, and we will emphasize important factors but some smaller contingent stuff, for the want of a nail yada yada, may affect outcomes.

It was harder to predict that Trump would attack Iran, given his TACO-ing in the past, but it was easier to predict that the war would go poorly both because of the target and the attackers.

Anyhow, the point here is that there are lots of ways to get smart about something, and the smartest way to get smart about something is to rely not on just one pathway but as many as one can.

And, yes, I am pretty proud of not referring to the military folks as solitary trees trying to understand their forest.

*  Our book is now a finalist for Best Comparative Politics Book by the Canadian Political Science Association.  And this is pretty funny for this post since most comparativists would not consider Phil or me to be comparativists.  Especially me.  But that is a post for another day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Public Commentary at a Dangerous Time

 Yesterday was a pretty special day.  Carleton's Faculty (equivalent to College of) of Public and Global Affairs held its annual award ceremony.  My school, NPSIA, had two profs recognized: Lama Mourad for teaching excellence and myself for Public Commentary.  I joked that hers was a quality award and mine was a quantity award--she did great and I did a lot.  

Lama is a terrific
teacher

It was great to see Lama get recognized, as she teaches some very tough stuff, especially at this time--refugees, migration, and Mideast stuff--when her own family is very much in harm's way.  Plus it doesn't hurt her slam dunk tenure case as well.  I also assured another winner, someone from the Public Policy program, that her tenure case is bulletproof as well as it is a mighty bad look to give someone an outstanding research excellence award and then deny tenure.   

James simply rocks

A fun bit is that my award followed that of James Milner, who received one for Community Outreach.  I keep following James, as he applied successfully for a partnership grant about eight years ago, so he gave me much help in applying for the grant that created the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  Last year, his second stage project was successful, so I again leaned on him and then followed him in the application process.  So, one again, I follow in his footsteps. 

My application for the award focused on my, um, extensive portfolio of stuff--doing podcasts, heaps of tv/radio/newspaper interviews, blogging here, blueskying (I didn't mention threads as my stuff there is mostly not about politics/IR), and my new reels of Guns and Butter. 

We each had a minute or so to speak.  I first noted that the Associate Dean mispronounced my name, which I noted as being most apt given how often my name or title is messed up by tv/radio folks.  I then thanked the committee.  Most of my minute or two was focused on the moment: that universities are under attack because we generate and disseminate knowledge when actors want to spread mis and disinformation.  I asserted without any evidence that most universities provide awards for staff excellence, research excellence, and teaching excellence but not so much for public engagement.  Indeed, I said that if I had stayed put in west Texas, I would have been fired by now for my public engagement.  

Dean Mary Francoli giving 
me the award

I urged the folks in the room to do what our title suggests--to profess.  To share what we have learned and to fill the information space with our knowledge.  Because there are bad faith actors who are quite willing to fill that space with lies and disinformation.  It was pretty well received, I think.

With so little time and thrown off by the name thing, I didn't think Melissa Jennings, our podcast producer and director of operations, or the rest of the CDSN team which help so much in my efforts to engage the public about what the CDSN has been doing.  So, thanks!

It was an honor and a small, temporary bump in my paycheck that will pay for a post-divorce couch or chesterfield (a word I have never used until now, but a Canadian term for such furniture).  It was my second time,* as I received a similar honor ten years ago.  One of the reasons I have been so happy in this fourth and final job of my career is that they recognize and reward this stuff and also facilitate it.  The other thing that happened yesterday was a meeting staffers from all over campus who were there to help me figure out how I can best rely on them for the new big grant that creates a global and comparative Civil-Military Relations Network.  

Happy to share the spotlight 
with NPSIA hotshot Lama Mourad

I did start with a joke about my being an attention hound, which, of course, is true.  But the urgency of this moment has given me greater focus and purpose for doing stuff that suits me well--talking and writing about this international relations, civil-military relations stuff to any audience that will listen to me, see me, and/or read me.

And, yes, I am incredibly thankful to Carleton for supporting me in all of this, and to Canada for providing an environment where I don't worry much about getting fired.  The move twenty four years ago may have led to a temporary cut in salary, but it has been the best investment of my life and keeps paying dividends.

*  Only now as I write this post and look back at the award I received ten years ago (I do prefer the plastic monolith to the framed certificate) that I wore the same jacket, the same one I wore when I graduated Oberlin nearly forty years ago.  Tis a bit tighter, of course, but I guess it will always be my happy day blazer. 

Chile 2: Deja Dos

The llamas were greedy
but sweet.

 On my way home from a week plus of research and tourism in Chile.  One of the things I forgot from last time is how far away Santiago is: six hours from Panama City, which is about the same from Newark.  So, a long last flight here and a long first flight home on an airline that is only loosely associated with the one with which I have status.  So, some minor hiccups but no real challenges.  The research was confusing and the food was awesome.  

First, the work stuff: I was in Santiago and Valparisio to interview former military and ministry of defense folks to assess the dynamics of the relationship between MoD and military.  This is part of a larger project that took me to South Korea, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and Brazil and Phil to lots of places.  My plan to study autocratic cases in the Mideast met with the reality of the region--one's research plans are often derailed by the occasional war.  I was in Chile eight years ago for the book on legislatures and armed forces, so I knew a bit about what I was getting into--a country with a mostly autonomous military, a constitution written in the waning days of autocracy, and weak legislative oversight.  

My fixer was better connected this time so I had plenty of interviews with people who had retired from the highest positions in the military and MOD.   I got about sixteen interviews in six days--which is not too shabby.  As in my other cases, there was not a single clear outcome that will be easy to write about, but a complex mix of views and realities that will make case study writing challenging. Since my last visit in 2018, there were a couple of failed attempts to revise the constitution, deployments of the army to deal with the border in the north and a conflict with a first nation group in the south, and massive unrest in 2019.  So, heaps of interesting context.  Chile will be on the weaker end of the spectrum when it comes to MoD oversight, but will have heaps of company (cough, cough, Canada). 

really sweet boutique vineyard 

Second, on the tourism side, I stayed near where I did last time, but was more squarely in the middle of the Lastarria district--heaps of restaurants, gelato shops, booths of folks selling various crafts.  I don't remember it being this lively last time, and I certainly don't remember this much security.  The empanadas seem to have gotten bigger as well.  The weather, except for one day, was spectacular.

 

 

 

Inca lake at Portillo ski resort
had an amazing reflection
of the mountains

 A big difference that last time I was alone and was here during their ski season.  This time was different as  I traveled with my girlfriend, so we signed up for some weekend tours. The first was to the coast--Vina Del Mar and Valparisio and a vineyard--and the second was to the Andes.  The former featured many, many, many murals and a terrific tour guide (a history prof!).  The latter featured llamas, switchbacks, and the most beautiful mountain lake.  

Nearly home.  I will just add a few notes for the pics below.  No more transcontinental travel until the end of June.  It has been a wild few months.

Valparisio had many, many amazing murals

Much easier to get closer to one of
these in Valparisio than go to Easter Island

Great sunset from top of tallest building in S. America

No skiing but still did a gondola over the big park

The Independent Republic of Pisco lives
on. Viva la Revolucion!!!
We enjoyed their pisco sour variants.

Anti-Trans Claims Are Utter Crap

 The truly amazing thing of the time in which we live is that we have so much information, yet people buy the bullshit mis and disinformation.  People are making incredible (as in unbelievable) claims, and people are buying them, doing so much harm.

Of all of this, the most angering, the most infuriating for me has to be the anti-trans bullshit promoted by the Republican Party, JK Rowling, the New York Times, and others.  First, trans people are a tiny group, hardly a threat to the culture or to anyone.  But their size makes them a handy target--they seem alien because most people do not know a trans person.  Traditional homophobia does not play as well as it used to because more and more people know gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, so those seeking to amplify hate have to find targets elsewhere.  Second, they were a group already facing marginalization and violence before these organizations and individuals began broadcasting trans hate.  Trans kids have long had a high suicide rate.  So, this is the epitome of punching down, which is appalling.  

Before getting to the three most popular and wrongest claims/fears, I should note that the trans panic has an impact--it has shaped attitudes, making the public more supportive of anti-trans laws.  It has helped abet efforts to silence research into all kinds of gender research, not just trans-related stuff.  And, yes, it has given Republicans (and so-called reactionary centrists*) a chance to make Democrats seem strange for protecting a tiny alien group.  Has it tilted elections?  No idea, but of all of the policy issues, this is the one where the public is closer to the GOP.  On pretty much every other issue, the Dems are squarely in the center of the American electorate.  No wonder the Republicans like to create fear against trans people.  A most rancid but pretty damned obvious form of distraction sauce.

First, kids are not being mutilated.  Kids getting any trans-related treatments are doing so after much effort by their parents/guardians, and the treatments for kids are reversible, such as puberty blockers.  The total of adults getting surgery is something like 200 a year, which is hardly justification for a panic, and kids are not getting such surgeries.  All this concern about kids being fooled into being trans is fake, the psychological harm that trans kids face from parents, churches, and others who try to deny them their true identity is quite real.  Oh, and the parties that do the most to "protect" kids from transitioning are the same ones that deny all kinds of benefits and care, such as medicaid, school lunches, and the like.  So, let's just admit they are a Bad Faith crowd.

Second, men are not transitioning to get a leg up in women's sports.  It simply is not a reality.  The number of trans women in women's sports is microscopic, hardly worth the trouble of regulating.  And guess what? There is little evidence to suggest trans women have physical advantages over people who were identified as female at birth.  The whole idea is rather preposterous--that men will sacrifice their sexuality in order to compete in women's sports.  Given the hate and ostracism facing trans people, who is going to do this?  There are significant consequences to becoming trans--most negative given the state of things--so who is signing up for just a competitive advantage?  No one.  If you can find one person or even a dozen, I would be surprised, but that would still not justify the policies aimed at "protecting women's sports."  The party of pedophilia wants to inspect the genitals of girl athletes?  That seems to be far more problematic and damaging to girls and women than the one in a million trans girl winning a trophy.  

Third, all this fear of trans women in bathrooms.  What is the rate of sexual assault committed by trans women?  Yep, it is not really happening.   On the flipside, trans kids are facing greater violence in bathrooms. Sure, fear men in women's bathrooms, but trans women are women.  Once you understand that, the fear should dissipate.  Unless, of course, the fear is politically motivated.

That some feminists--TERFS--are anti-trans is horrific since they are finding common cause with misogynists, racists, anti-semites, Islamaphobes, and other haters.  These hates usually ride together, so joining awful folks because they support your own prejudice is doing great harm to all kinds of causes, including your own.  Yes, JK Rowling is a shitty feminist.  While folks can identify heaps of racism and misogyny in her books,** her amplification of hate the past ten years is an utter betrayal of the central message of the books--that love defeats hate, that tolerance is superior to prejudice.  I can't help but ask JK: "Think, and try for some remorse."

We live in difficult times.  I hate that we have powerful actors making them more difficult than they need to be, and that these folks are either useful idiots or conscious allies of the truly awful actors who are doing so much damage to democracy and to human dignity.  

If you happen to have some beliefs that line up with one of these three myths, do some work, read a bit up on it, and realize you have been played.  We have nothing to fear of trans people but fear itself.  

 

* I will save my reactionary centrist post for another day.  

** I overlooked that stuff for many reasons including the central message.  Alas, I can't anymore.  I have given away my HP books and will buy no more swag.  I will keep my Gryffindor bathrobe because it is a really terrific bathrobe because I am cheap. 

Manila Briefings: Thinking Through Some Of the Big Implications

 After three days of briefings in Manila with all kinds of sharp people, I found myself thinking about some of the bigger implications.  To be clear, I am not an Indo-Pacific expert, so some of this might be common knowledge, widely accepted wisdom, or incredibly dim, uninformed stuff.  But that is why this is a Semi-Spew--no lit reviews, all half-baked thinking.  You let me know which ideas have merit, please.

1.  Canada could get sucked into a Philippines-PRC conflict.  People worry about a PRC-Taiwan war having global implications and rightly so, but the Philippines has been involved in a steady escalation of tensions.  It could be that despite their best efforts, things get hot.   The PRC already essentially owns the South China Sea aka West Philippines Sea, and they could push harder or ultimately cause some deaths while enforcing "their sovereignty" over this space.  With Canadian naval vessels visiting 4 times a year, it is not far fetched for Canada to be caught in the middle of something.  Canada is not an ally (only the US is), but it is a partner and a significant one.  I am not saying Canada should flee, but I am saying folks need to be thinking about this.

2.  Who is asymmetric now?  China is now the strongest player in the region with the US distracted and with China far more committed.  Plus the US Navy can't even feed itself right now.  Before Pearl Harbor, everyone in the higher levels of the US armed forces knew that if Japan attacked, it would hit the Philippines early and hard and the US would not be able to save them.  The successful first strike at Pearl made that more obvious, but it was always the case.  Now?   If China attacked the Philippines, it would take time for the US to really respond (which it wouldn't under Trump).  So, just as Ukraine was on its own in February of 2022, the Filipinos need to be creative about how to make the Chinese miserable.  Being the most powerful makes one the most extended and ironically quite vulnerable.  

3. Can they count on Canada?  One slide had a bullet on about working with the Canada in the long term with consistent planning and such, and I had to wonder: can Canada be consistent?  Not just a matter of the Conservatives coming to power and focusing elsewhere, but also the Liberals are focused on cutting spending and, yes, the car deal with China may lead Carney's government to try to avoid offending China at the expense of the interests of the Philippines.  I would not bet a lot on Canada's staying power here.  On the other hand, the same force keeping Canada engaged in Ukraine could work here--diaspora politics.  Lots of Filipino-Canadian voters--about one million Filipinos in Canada.

4.  In one briefing, the Filipinos discussed one of the things Canada brings is expertise on HADR logistiics--humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.  This runs directly counter to the priorities of the Canadian Armed Forces.  The CAF find emergency operations to be a distraction, a drain, and would like to get out the business.  The mantra of being a last responder, not a first responder.  Provincial-federal burden sharing problems will not go away, so the CAF is stuck.  So, they might just consider how their experiences doing this home and abroad is actually an important bit of capital that is handy when Canada wants to be seen as relevant.  The military is an instrumental of national power, as they all know, and it turns out a component of their power is their domestic ops/HADR experience.  Maybe value it rather than try to dodge it.

5.  Canada keeps trying to get the big trade score: China, then India, then China.  There are more than 100 million people in the Philippines, hundreds of millions in Indonesia, and so on.  Rather than putting all of Canada's trade eggs into one big unreliable, coercive basket, how about trying to have a portfolio of trading partners here.  Spend less political capital on the impossible big score and focus more on managing improved trade with a bundle of countries, none that can engage in significant coercion against Canada.  Just a thought. 

Manila Briefings: Targeting, Gender, Ships, and Ships

 The last day of this familiarization tour was perhaps the best.  And not just because I finally got the french toast I had been seeking. 

small sat receiver for the CAF unit

The first session was over at the targeting tent: four of the five eyes countries had units in a tent (ac-ed, thankfully) doing the targeting for the upcoming exercise (later this week, a very big, multilateral military exercise will be taking place--we kept running into CAF members who are here for it).  The UK, Aussies, Kiwis, and Canadians were all in the same place.  Each one had their own targeting process--getting the intel, analyzing it, getting an idea of which weapon would be best, getting the legal advisor to vet it, and so on.  Interesting stuff.  They also showed us their satellite setup--not Starlink (Canada seems to be out of the Starlink biz for secret stuff, and phew!) but webone.  I got to ask questions about caveats and such.  Nice flashbacks to my third book and the origin story of my civ-mil work.

The next session was with the Armed Forces of the Philippines gender and development unit.  The officers were mostly women, discussing where they are at today.  It was an interesting conversation, glad to see Women, Peace, and Security taken seriously out here even if Whiskey Pete is removing it from all US stuff.   The swag started getting most impressive.

We then went to the Philippines Coast Guard HQ where they quite literally rolled out a red carpet for our Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Affairs, and very much kept the rest of us off of it.  They gave her a bunch of swag--it was a most impressive effort.  The conversation mostly focused on what Canada could do to help them with their rapid expansion--4x the personnel over the last ten years or so and basically tripling the number of ships.  Their mantra was chill but prevail--avoid escalating with China but don't roll over either.  Maritime heartland was a phrase that was used several times, and it struck me as both strange and apt.

The last session involved us going over to the HMCS Charlottetown, which is here for the exercise.  We got onboard, got a tour of part of the ship including the ops centre, and then chatted with its executive officer and captain.  I teased them about the crappy name for the line of ships to be replacing this frigate and its kin.  The next ships are currently called "River-Class Destroyers" which sounds odd since they will not be fighting on rivers, but named after rivers.  This would be like calling either the Iowa-class battleships or the Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile subs "state-class."  It is not only an American tradition to name a class of ships after the first one in the class--the Halifax-class frigates for example.  

Anyhow, we got to ask a bunch of questions, and another of my peeves showed up: professional means what?   In reference to encounters with China's ships, so far those meetings have been peaceful and professional.  Because military folks stretch the definition of professional to cover all things that are good and desired.  Anything bad is not professional even if the Chinese fly their planes or sail their ships really really well even as they buzz the Canadian ships or planes.  I think the term professional should describe not what is desired but whether one is being skillful/expert in their vocation.

Overall, I learned a lot this week about the Philippines and the dynamics involving China and the various other players.  I really wish the US was focused here and not on Trump's incredibly dumb wars.  On the other hand, maybe things are going better here because he is not focused on this place?  I have one last post about the bigger implications, and I may write an op-ed based on the things I learned this week.  It was definitely worth the time.  I just hope the Iran crisis-induced fuel shortages don't get in the way of m y going home tomorrow.