Saideman's Semi-Spew

Eggtra-Ordinary!

2012-02-03T16:46:00.001-05:00

How are pieces of research like eggs? Well, I was having a fun conversation with a grad student of mine while we were dining in the aftermath of a workshop on failed states, and I was suggesting a potential research strategy. The point I was trying to make is that you don't want to waste your research. At first, I was using bullets--but given our topics, violence, and given that bullets do not degrade over time, eggs made more sense.

The basic idea is that when you do research, you don't always use everything you learn for a particular piece. Indeed, one of Saideman's rules of dissertations is that just because you learned something does not mean it fits in the dissertation. Focus is important. But if you learn stuff along the way that does not go into article x, you should use it for another publication. Each article or book idea is an egg. You can do different things with any egg--poach, scramble, omelet, quiche, frittata, use for cookies, french toast, etc. So, an idea can be prepared in a variety of ways, and you don't want to waste an idea by just leaving it alone and undeveloped. An egg that just sits around on a shelf is not doing you any good. Same with a research idea. You want to get it out. And, eggs, unlike bullets, will eventually become useless (rotten, smelly, etc.). So, you can let an idea sit around for a while, but it may eventually become unusable.

So, you can do a lot of different things with any hunk of knowledge--write a book, write a policy-oriented article, write an academic piece for a journal, blog about it, use it for teaching, whatever. Just as an egg can be used in a variety of ways. It depends on what appeals to one's audience. Making breakfast for oneself is different than making a breakfast for a family and different from making lunch for some friends, and so on.

As I have mentioned before, I am a big believer in portfolio approaches--publishing in a variety of outlets to get ideas across to a variety of audiences, maximizing visibility, impact, ego and also chances for employment, tenure, raises and the rest. So, it may take some creativity and planning to figure out how to use each idea for optimal impact but it also depends on preferences. I prefer French Toast to pancakes and waffles, but all are perfectly good uses for eggs. Just try not to waste any eggs... or ideas.

Told You So!

2012-02-03T16:25:00.002-05:00

Jeff Simpson is complaining about the challenges of innovation when it comes to pharmaceuticals. If only there were folks out there doing research on behalf of the public rather than just for private interest. Oh, that's right: university professors do more than teach--they do research, often providing heaps of knowledge that might actually be called, dare I say it, innovation.

I cannot help but notice when a columnist condemns profs for being too much into their research then gripes about innovation and why the private actors, just as drug companies, fall short. It is almost as if he does not read his own stuff and think through the contradictions. Profs should just teach, not research. Oh damn, private companies do research but not for the public good. Who could possibly do that? Oh, that's right, professors. Ooops.

So, I am enjoying a small victory lap in my office, as Simpson may or may not realize what a fool he can be about innovation. Yep, a fool. I don't think he is a hypocrite. I just don't think he has done any ..... RESEARCH on the topic.

Of course, I also find it easier to write rather than research. That is what blogs are for, right?

Worrying About Post-2014 Afghanistan

2012-02-03T16:17:00.001-05:00

Lots of folks are worried about who will pay for the Afghan security forces after NATO transitions and largely (although probably not entirely) departs in 2014 and also who will pay for the rest of the Afghan government, given the limited income it will be receiving. Well, the government, that is. Individuals working for the govt may have heaps of income from extra-legal sources.

But I am not really worried about who will pay for the Afghan government and its military after the transition is "complete" in 2014. Or 2013 as SecDef Panetta suggested this week, causing heaps of panic. The answer is: the US will. While there are huge deficit challenges ahead, dramatically reducing the forces in Afghanistan will provide ample savings so that a few billion dollars spent every year on the Afghan military will not be a problem in the short term.

No, there are much more important post-2014 concerns:

How about a coup? The traditional excuse of a coup is an ineffective, corrupt government that is failing to support the military, especially if it is combating an internal threat. So, one could imagine the ANA launching a coup. What does NATO/US do about this, especially since there will be significant residual international forces still wandering around Afghanistan. Yes, that is right, no quick and easy exit like Iraq (as if that was quick and easy), as Afghanistan will negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that will allow the US and perhaps NATO to continue to station troops to assist the Afghans with logistics, intel, air support, transport, and just perhaps some special operations types.
Oh yeah, what will these international forces be doing and how will they act when they are around ANA folks who either fight too weakly (running away from Taliban) or fight too hard (abusing people's rights)?
Will the ANA hold itself together or fall apart, split and fight amongst themselves?
Who will be the President of Afghanistan and what will they be trying to accomplish?

The future of Afghanistan has not yet been written (thanks, Doc Brown), and there is plenty to worry about. Who will pick up the bill is hardly the biggest mystery.

Spew Travel Rules

2012-02-02T10:20:00.001-05:00

Stuff relevant to my research almost always happens when I am out of town. NATO changing date for transition in Afghanistan essentially to 2013 while I am traveling far across Canada (yes, it is a big country) and then while I am in a workshop all day. Cuts down on the media whore-dom. Shucks.

By the way, this is messing with my publication schedules--wanted to get next books out in 2013/14 while Afghanistan is still quite relevant rather than distant memory (and yes, once troops are out of harm's way, folks in West [media] will forget about Afghanistan).
Oh, and my quick take--2014 was a fairly arbitrary date so 2013 is not so radical.

Always get the slowest cabbie. Oh, not a rule, just tendency when one is already behind.
Always check in online, even if Air Canada kicks you off the second plane because your first is delayed even though the second is delayed.
Workshops always start late but too late, so this post will be short.

Hate the Game, not the Player

2012-02-01T12:05:00.003-05:00

So, a school was caught gaming the rankings. Should we be shocked? Nay. I have often spewed about rankings of all kinds. Law schools regularly game the rankings by employing alums for key time periods.

Congrats to Claremont McKenna:

according to Robert Morse, the director of data research at U.S. News, is “the highest-ranking school to have to go through this publicly and have to admit to misreporting.”

I guess they must have been really good at gaming the system to be so highly ranked so that their gaming can be so very visible.

Why does this happen?

But repeated revelations of manipulation show the importance of the rankings in the minds of prospective students, their guidance counselors, parents, the alumni considering donations, the professors weighing job offers — and, of course, the colleges themselves.

We have only ourselves to blame. It is about self-esteem for folks at the schools, and it is for getting status for those who are applying. The big questions are the real admit rates for medical schools, law schools, grad schools and .... jobs. I would love to see a regression or three on the factors driving admission with school rank being one factor but GPA, test scores, etc being factored in as well.

I am fundamentally of the belief that for undergrad, it almost does not matter where you go with one caveat in a second---that one should go to a place that has programs in the fields you desire with enough competence in other areas in case you change your mind. But one should not flip out about going to school number 27 rather than school number 17 or 7. The next generation of Saidemans are approaching college (with one already in) and my key bit of advice is to largely ignore the adults and the rankings. Go to whichever school feels right for you. I would recommend a smaller school than a bigger one, having taught at the bigs and gone to a small, but even that is not hard and fast.

What is the one caveat I have? That the quality of one's peers matters as much or more than the pedigrees and productivity of the profs. So, go to places where one's fellow students are interesting and engaged--which is why McGill is a great place for students (not just a cheap place to be outsourced). And if happens to be a place that is sunny or has great skiing, well, more power to ya.

The game will always be the game, but you don't have to play. That is what I learned at Oberlin and by watching The Wire and the Game of Thrones.

Canadian Tourism Question

2012-02-01T10:32:00.002-05:00

Due to the vagaries of conference and research schedules, my tour of Canadian cities over the past ten years has hit the following hotspots:

Edmonton. Inspiration for this post, as tonight will be my second trip.
Vancouver. Once for the Canadian Political Science Association. And, yes, I only went to the CPSA that year because it was in Vancouver.
Toronto. Multiple times for ISA's, one APSA (Americans got all fussy about going abroad for the American Political Science Assn meeting), a smaller conference, and that's it.
Ottawa. Many times for research, job talk, moving prep, etc.
Kingston. Multiple conferences.
Halifax. Once for my first CPSA. Enjoyed the city so much, had so little to do at the conference.
Chicoutimi. Airshow last summer.
Quebec City. One presentation.
Hamilton/London. Presentations.

So, the question is: which should be my next Canadian destination? If I could convince someone to invite me to speak or participate in a workshop, which city should I target? As I am traveling this evening, I thought I would ponder future travel possibilities. What say you, oh Canadian readers?

And, yes, what I would really, really like to do is go to Banff or Whistler NOW as I have not yet skied this winter at all. Crappy conditions in the otherwise fun ski areas near Montreal.

Life Imitates Viral Video

2012-02-01T10:18:00.000-05:00

As I am currently enjoying the longest possible transition from accepting a job to starting it, I will have many occasions to ponder the move.

So, yesterday, I drove to and from Ottawa to hand off some stuff at a school that will be considering my daughter for admission. I then got to get a key to my new office. And I had this kind of experience:

I love my new office. The chair is super-comfortable. I get to control the room's temperature, the window opens, the view is interesting, the furniture is designed for the 21st century. The staff are super-friendly and helpful. I enjoyed lunch with a couple of colleagues to be. I enjoyed driving in Ottawa with the ability to turn right on red and smooth roads and no netting under the overpasses. I experimented by driving south to see how quickly one can get out of town and into the hinterlands. Even in slow roads due to snow, the answer: not very long. So, that will shape our house-shopping.

So, the move does not take place until summer (depending on house selling/buying), but weeee!

Random Election Post

2012-01-31T22:39:00.003-05:00

The votes are coming in for the Florida primary and there are so many ways to spin a Romney 46%, Gingrich 32%, Santorum 13% (the numbers at CNN at the moment, 95% reporting).

Landslide for Romney.
Divided GOP, as two opponents essentially match Romney. In other words, not Romney ~ Romney.
One third of the GOP prefers serial adulterer/Clinton-electing*/moon-fantasizing/flip-flopping lobbyist. So much for the party of family values and the defense of marriage. Just an awful excuse for a human being yet a large hunk of the Republicans who turned out prefer him to Romney, Santorum and Paul. Exactly what does Gingrich have to offer as he is the most unelectable candidate (well, except for Santorum ... and maybe Paul)? He can fake being smart, but only if smart means coming up with strange ideas and then bullying other people. Would it be unfair to suggest that the core family value of this group of voters is hate? Or if hate is not a value, then how about intolerance?

Ok, there are probably other ways to spin the results but I am not going to watch cable TV to hear them. So, any suggestions from the Spew gallery?

* Of course, I don't mind that Gingrich helped to get Clinton re-elected in 1996 with the government shutdown, but I would think that Republicans might remember and mind it.

Tired Blogger Relies on College Humor

2012-01-31T20:49:00.005-05:00

Don't click if you don't want to be spoiled about Breaking Bad:

See more at CollegeHumor

I do love the BB RPG. Some folks have way too much time on their hands.

Let's Blame the French

2012-01-31T19:08:00.000-05:00

I have had heaps of fun over the years making jokes about France and its defense policy (why do the streets in Paris have trees on the sides of the roads? so the Germans can march in the shade), but we have to take a huge grain of salt with any criticism of the French decision to mosey out of Afghanistan in 2013. I already blogged about this over the weekend, but I spotted some tweets about the French causing the Afghans to question NATO with the quick departure. My simple response: 2014-2013= one year. Simply put, how much does one year matter?

Am I happy that France is getting out faster than expected? No. I was not pleased that Canada raced out the door last year. Not great for alliance relations, but we need to put things into perspective. I am pretty sure that leaving one year early is not as bad as hanging around for a few years and not doing that much (Italy, Spain) or anything (Greece) or yanking key troops out of significant billets this past summer during the Libyan operation (Germany). Perhaps France did more damage by pushing the alliance too hard and too fast last winter. But now? Not a huge deal. Sarkozy is desperate for votes.

Oh, and in terms of Afghanistan, I am pretty sure that Karzai has done far more damage to NATO's image than France has.

Inadvertantly Insightful Answers

2012-01-30T22:54:00.002-05:00

A friend on facebook (H/T to PT) put on his status the following, apparently for a basic IR essay or exam:

"Without security the state would seize to exist."

Now, this can be read two ways: that the student completely mistook seize with cease; or the student was very sharp and was deliberately or intuitively channeling a strident form of realism that asserts that states are compelled by insecurity to increase their power--seize territory in order to exist.

I have no similar examples, but we thought the Spew readers might have some. Or not.

Miss Piggie Calls Them Like She Sees Them

2012-01-30T16:18:00.002-05:00

Due to late night ultimate and a heap of deadlines (plus heaps of posts yesterday), I did not have much to say today, but Miss Piggie did:

Twitter Tactics: When Do You Block?

2012-01-29T11:37:00.003-05:00

To the folks out there twittering, do you block followers? Which ones? My rate of new followers is slow enough that I can and do hit each follower's profile to discern whether the person is real or not.

Bots get blocked. Some are easier to figure out so I don't even need to look at their profile, but some do. The latest trend seems to be bots with pics that are not as suggestive and with the short profiles that are no so suggestive, but doing to their longer profile reveals a weblink with a key word or two that gives it away.
I also block people who are real but whose profile is a sales pitch. While one can argue that everyone on twitter is selling themselves, when the profile is an ad for stuff, I block them.

Does my blocking become less rigorous when I am about to reach a new threshold of followers? Um, sure. But now that I have reached a particular level, I am less concerned about the ego-gratification of having heaps of followers. So, this was a morning of blocking and reporting of spam folks.

Do you bother? Are there categories of folks you block that I have not included here? And yes, blocking a follower is easier than de-friending in facebook or in person. I have yet to block an overly enthusiastic retweeter/commenter, but the temptation does exist.

Tenure Anxiety Over-rated

2012-01-29T11:25:00.002-05:00

Sure, it is easy for me as someone with tenure to think that anxiety about tenure is over-rated. But let me put it into context a bit. Over the past few days, there has been a thread on whether single or married people are advantaged or disadvantaged at that reservoir of erudition--Political Science Job Rumors. While nearly everything said there can be and is discounted, the questions and concerns raised there perhaps (trolls aside) indicate the general level of anxiety about tenure.

To be clear, the process is fraught with enough uncertainty that when my first job offer from McGill suggested that I start without tenure and then go up for it when I arrive, I politely said no thanks. I had received from Texas Tech, and folks tend not to give up tenure when they move. I was no exception even if I felt confident that my record exceeded McGill's standards at the time--you never know what might happen. When you have a contract that essentially says you cannot be fired (tenure means both more and less than that), you tend not to give it up. Also, I am not so far beyond tenure to forget that "anything can happen" when a small group of folks with little accountability get into a room to decide one's fate. Especially when that fate can then be randomly revised by folks up the chain (the Dean, the Provost, the President, the Board).*

* My previous employer, TTU, had a record of doing exactly that--intervention from on high, even at the board of regents level. Definitely an outlier in academia.

Having said that, the focus of that thread on expectations of single vs married people over-thinks things. There are basically three kinds of departments in academia:

Those where tenure is almost always granted. Many, if not most, fit into this category. This can occur if standards are very low or non-existent, or if the standards are very clear and the department hires well.
Those where tenure is rarely granted. Harvard, Princeton, and a few other places are known as having a low tenure rate and where being denied tenure is almost a badge of honor. Certainly, folks denied at these places can get good jobs with tenure either in hand or promised much of the time.
The troublesome places in between--where tenure is often uncertain. This can be because the standards are unclear, where the political dynamics within the department lead to unpredictable outcomes. The department could be divided along methodologies, along generations, along personalities, or some combination.

In the first two places, it almost does not matter what you do or do not do no matter how much you publish. In the third kind of place, things might be entirely within your control or entirely beyond it. In such cases, it often matters far less what one has done (and one's marital status will be entirely irrelevant), but how one fits into the various department cleavages and in the hearts of the key folks on the tenure committee. People can read your file however they want, using slippery standards that contradict their last vote. There is no accountability for the tenured folks doing the voting (which is why one wants to get into that club and then not leave).

How do you know which kind of department you are in? Good question. Glad you asked. Mostly by the track record--who has gotten tenure, who has been denied, what their records were. If the department has not made clear what the expectations for tenure are, and there have been folks denied tenure that have what you consider to be tenurable records, then make sure you apply for other jobs the year you go up for tenure (never a bad idea).

If you are uncertain about what kind of department you are in, then either you are genuinely in the unpredictable place or you are more anxious than you need to be. Ask the other junior faculty what they think. Take whatever the senior faculty say with a grain of salt as they may be confident in your tenure case but they may not know what lays in the hearts and minds of their colleagues. Again, the track record of the recent past is the best indicator.

But you can always be surprised. You can be in a department where almost everyone gets tenure, where your record exceeds the standards, but a small coalition among the tenured folks may be enough to block you. It happens. Not all the time, but it happens. But it will almost certainly have nothing to do with one's marital status (the thread at PSJR that inspired this post) and more to do with small group decision-making. So, the best advice I can give to any assistant professor is to try to write enough stuff in enough good places (yes, there are differences about what counts where) to meet not the department's standards (which can change and which can be ignored) but the discipline's standards. If your record is respected in the profession, that helps in two ways: the outside letters written to evaluate your work will probably be positive, which can affect how the decision goes in the department; and it means that if something goes wrong within the department, you have a competitive record for getting a new job.

Again, there is good reason to have anxiety as the stakes are big--life-time employment--but focus on the things that one can control, ignore the stuff that one cannot control, and don't speculate too much about how the minds of senior faculty operate. Talk about doing down the rabbit hole...

Putting France and 2013 Into Perspective

2012-01-29T09:26:00.001-05:00

In Together, Out Together. That was the mantra in most talking points, documents and the rest for when the US was in Bosnia with its NATO allies in 2001-2002. A couple of years later, the mission was transitioned to a European Union one (from SFOR to EUFOR), with the US and Canada leaving Bosnia before their European allies, and re-labeling covering the broken promise of in together, out together.

Now, President Sarkozy is making heaps of news by promising to get French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2013. What does this mean? Well, it means many things, but it is probably not quite as a big of a deal as folks suggest. Why?

In Together, Out Together is dead and has been for two years. The Dutch left Uruzgan in 2010 after their government collapsed over the extension of the mission. Yes, the Netherlands did deploy a much smaller set of folks to do police training, but only in relatively safe areas (not Southern Afghanistan). Canada left Kandahar last summer as the effort to extend the mission in 2008 had built in the seeds of a commitment to leave in 2011. And, yes, Prime Minister Harper pulled out of nowhere a commitment to return to Afghanistan to train folks, again in safe places--Kabul-centric and behind the wire. [I am presenting a paper in April at the International Studies Association meeting comparing these two cases.] These two countries were leaving a couple of the most important provinces in the country. The big difference is that the US is getting smaller as well, as backfilling with US troops will be harder this time.
As part of this process, Kapisa, where the French have led and faced significant combat, will be turned over to Afghan authorities, even if it is not ready. Does this somehow alter the transition process? Not as much as portrayed, as Helmand, which has been the most dangerous province, is being already turned over and as Mazeer el-Sharif was transitioned even though it was the site of anti-international community riots in the aftermath of the Koran burning in Florida.
An important thing to keep in mind is that during this transition process, the NATO forces are not leaving entirely but are trying to give the Afghans leadership responsibilities in various places across the country. Transitioning Kapisa in the next few months does not mean that French combat forces will be gone, but that there will be a greater effort to have the Afghans out in front, ready or not. Given that other folks have been pushing for the same accelerated calendar, Sarkozy is not that far out of step, even if the announcement was fairly unilateral.
France is only moving up the schedule one year--out by end of 2013 rather than 2014. Given that the choice of 2014 had little to do with a realistic schedule of progress on the ground but much more to do with political calendars in Kabul (Karzai's second term ends) and in Washington, DC (a promise that could be made before 2012 election), 2013 is just as arbitrary and just as political. Will it make the difference in Sarkozy getting re-elected? Um, maybe.
The piece cited above also addresses the "who is going to pay for the Afghan security forces" as if this is going to be that hard. Really? I am pretty sure that for the medium-term the big savings that countries will have from not deploying troops to the very distant Afghanistan (or just having far fewer) will more than cover the costs of funding the ANA/ANSF. Explaining to the public that underwriting the Afghans is the price to be paid for leaving without abandoning (unlike the 1990s) will not be that hard, compared to the costs of sticking around. If you asked the average Brit, German, Italian, American or Spainaird, how many troops and how much money were still being dedicated to Kosovo, I doubt that they would have an answer approaching reality. Non-events are non-events. Training would only make news when casualties occur, and $$ spent on the Afghan military will not be a hot political issue.

Does it matter that Sarkozy made this big announcement with only President Karzai in the loop? Certainly. Is it time to panic? No, we should have been panicking (at least, acting like things were uncertain and needed much more attention) in 2002. Sarkozy is just trying to get a comfy spot on the train out of Afghanistan in one of the leading cars. He is certainly not off the tracks at all.

How About Some Reality-Based Thinking on Iran and Nukes?

2012-01-29T08:51:00.000-05:00

James Fearon presents a short and clear analysis (plus some cites) of what has happened when countries develop nuclear weapons. Besides the US, the Soviet Union and South Africa, history shows that countries get involved in less militarize disputes, even when controlling for other factors.

His conclusion:

We’ve heard these same concerns before, regarding Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Kim Jong-il’s North Korea, and about the mortal mutual enemies of India and Pakistan. All these cases have been very scary, and it’s understandable that the prospect of a nuclear Iran is incredibly scary for Israelis. But so far, in none these prior cases do the more extreme fears looked historically justified.

People tend to think that Iran, due to its theocracy, will be more likely to be willing to commit suicide. Thus far, little of its behavior suggests that this is the case. Iran seems to have a solid record of being incredibly obnoxious (supporting terrorism, supporting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan) but not risking large-scale war. Already, Iran has backed down from its Strait of Hormuz threats when its bluff was called.

Bombing Iran might sound like a good Beach Boys song, but it is lousy public policy. The good news is that this current administration seems unlikely to try to disarm Iran. The bad news is that the Republicans are competing to be the most enthused about getting the US into yet another war.

Feeling Like Indiana Jones

2012-01-28T13:48:00.001-05:00

Getting ready for a move is like being in an Indiana Jones movie. Excavating the layers of accumulated stuff occasionally reveals something valuable, but often forces one to figure out traps (is all that stuff going to fall on my head). Moving the stuff we currently do not need into storage in the crawlspace under the house with spider webs, low ceiling, carrying heavy stuff feels like the opening scene to Raiders.

The operational philosophy: I am making it up as I go along.

Rather than being inspired by a drought-stricken village, by the fear that bad guys might get a weapon that would lay waste one's enemies, or by the quest for eternal life, I have this image to motivate me:

Oh, and, yes, they have already found my new lair!?

Nationalists Are Like Snowflakes?

2012-01-27T16:01:00.002-05:00

My post earlier today got a rapid response from some Scots/allies who seem to think I don't know much about Scottish nationalism. And they are right. I have not studied the Scottish independence movement as it has not been violent (at least for the past few hundred years). All I know about Scotland comes from my wife's stories about her year in Aberdeen when she was in college and from the Highlander movies and TV shows.

But I am just a bit familiar with secessionist movements. I do dare to compare because even though nationalists think that their movement is unique* (hence the snowflake title), the dynamics of nationalism and the problems that separatists encounter are often comparable (not identical but compare-able) to such folks elsewhere.

* Unless it is politically expedient to think otherwise.

Let me focus on just a few points need further elaboration:

The folks commenting on my blog seem to find 55% as a threshold for a successful referendum vote (that is, 55% of those voting have to say yes, rather than 50%) to be a bridge too far. Due to past decisions or whatever, it seems as if barely scraping by to get a very slim majority is sufficient for massive political changes. But there are heaps of problems with 50% plus one:

It increases the temptations to cheat. A two vote swing is sufficient for either rejection or acceptance of independence. So, hide some ballot boxes from less separatist areas. Or stuff some ballot boxes. Yes, folks could cheat to get from 54.9% to 55%, but there is much more certainty that the decision has a majority of public support at 55% however it is rounded then at 50.00001%.
What I call the drunk frat-boy factor: that with a razor's edge margin, you can get some people voting one way just for entertainment value. This is probably what gave Jesse "The Body" Ventura the Governorship of Minnesota in a three-way race. Again, if there is sufficient interest to get close to 55%, then a few folks who think it would be fun to vote against their sober preferences are not as consequential.
In the history of separatist referendums, nearly all clear 50% easily, 55% easily, 65% easily, 75% easily and so on. The only referenda that didn't manage widespread support were the ones lost by the Quebec separatists and Montenegro which just cleared 55%.
Whether the 55% precedent that the EU set with Montenegro applies to Scotland is a good question. Perhaps the EU will not get involved as there is little risk of violence, but I have also made it a habit in my career poking fun at the inconsistency of the EU in how it sets conditions. If 55% is good enough for Montenegro, then the EU should expect the Scots to do the same.
Basically, the point is that if you want to make a significant political change, I think you need to do more than crawl barely over the most minimal threshold possible. I think you need to make an argument that gets significant support that will not change a day later due to buyer's remorse. I am a stronger believer in protection from tyranny of the majority. If the majority is only of one, it needs to be more restrained than if it has an overwhelming mandate for change.

While Scottish nationalists would like to vote and then become independent, they will have to think about what the Brits want. Why? Because the reality of the situation is that there would have to be much bargaining over how to divide assets and debts, manage the border and customs, and deal with other complications that come with turning the line between Scotland and England into a real international border.

Canada has had to contemplate this, and both the courts and the parliament have essentially said that a key requirement for such negotiations would be a clear mandate for independence--the Clarity Act. Parliament, which would have to pass various legislation to manage the division of stuff, has a reasonable expectation to engage in such bargaining if there is a clear mandate for independence. The 1995 referendum in Quebec fell far short of providing such a mandate, not just in terms of votes but also because of the question.
If Scotland's referendum asks: do you want Scotland to be independent from Great Britain/United Kingdom or whatever the relevant other is, that would be a fine question. If there is a question that asks if Scots would prefer some change to its current status that might mean independence but also could mean autonomy, well, that would not be clear.
The danger, of course, is that a clear question reduces support for independence as the Quebeckers have found out. Still, I do expect the SNP to put forth a clear question.

I am not saying that Scotland should not be independent. I am simply saying that there are lessons to learn from the experiences of other places and that the Quebec experience is particularly salient as UK/Canada is about as apples and apples as you can get in the world. Why bother? Because history cannot be re-run. Whatever Scotland does cannot be undone completely--decisions alter the context so that new decisions are constrained by the new context--path dependence. So why not learn from the experience of others so that one gets it right the first time? Otherwise, one might have to have a referendum every 15-20 years or so, which damages the economy by creating heaps of uncertainty. Oh, and then all elections focus on this rather than providing good governance.

Deja Vu Pentagon Style

2012-01-27T09:35:00.003-05:00

Heaps of deja vu lately. This time, it was a piece in Wired about the shopping opportunities at the Pentagon. It is a nicely snarky piece. To be clear, there are good reasons to have some shopping opportunities in the building. Why? Because it is a damned big building, making it had to duck out and run errands, and because the folks there work long, long hours. They try to sneak in some errands or some exercise sometime during the day after arriving perhaps around 6am and leaving around 6 pm (we worked half-days--a lame joke).

So, let me run through Ackerman's tour of the building with some of my own experiences in mind:

Candy shop. Hmm, not that I can remember, but given the tradition of folks bringing back chocolate from wherever they went in Europe for their co-workers, this might have been handy for the forgetful.
Art of War. Military folks like military art. But more importantly, one of the traditions in my office and probably around the building was to give someone a framed picture signed by all of their co-workers, and I think this was the shop form which these sprung. I am most proud of my picture, although not so proud of the picture of the picture which depicts the effects of the food court and the birthday cakes (for every promotion or departure or birthday).
Food court. Oh, yes. Where else to go for lunch since leaving the building for a quick lunch is hard to do (especially my year since they had closed the escalator from the metro into the building after 9/11. Just getting to the metro required a walk through and around the building). The real problem here is that the food is mostly of the not so healthy kind (even before Taco Bell arrived) for a bunch of folks staffing desks. Perhaps that accounts for the traffic into the POAC (the gym) and the running lanes outside.
Military Bling. Not for me, but given the long hours, how else do you buy stuff for the spouse frustrated at the long hours.
Pedicures. Again, not easy to just run out for such stuff. Never did get one.
Florist. Again, heaps of spouses needing some pick me ups.
Hair care. Absolutely. Need to keep hair short and neat. I was less than thrilled that the barber here had no remorse, no bedside manner when saying that my hair was in retreat.
Bags. Yep, they have to care stuff.
Electronics. I don't remember flatscreens, but headphones, stuff like that, sure.
Tchotchkes. Not just for tourists but also for folks working in the building needing to buy stuff for relatives and friends. I did buy a jacket there with Joint Staff on it as a souvenir for my year.
Sushi? Really?

The photo essay missed the travel agency, the bank, and a few other shops that I am trying to remember.

Most Similar Secessionists

2012-01-27T08:40:00.001-05:00

Watching the news about the Scottish referendum on independence, and it is almost stunning how much the stuff parallels Quebec. Let me count the ways:

Neither Quebeckers nor Scots have a majority that want complete independence.
The Scottish National Party today and the Parti Quebecois in 1995 don't want a single clear question, and certainly don't want the national parliament having a say over the question.
The SNP and PQ are both musing about changing the election laws to allow 16 and 17-year olds to vote. A wonderfully clear admission that they are desperate for votes. One only adds new voters to the pool if one cannot get over a threshold without them.
Speaking of which, what would be enough votes? Fifty percent plus one is the Quebec "standard." But Scotland is in a country that is in the EU (while the EU is still around), and the EU applied 55% as the standard for Montenegro. Hmmm.

However, I need to be clear that these cases may be less than fruitful for social science--there needs to be some variation between two cases to have a useful comparison. Either two very similar cases have a dissimilar outcome, or two different cases have a similar outcome. And I would like to place a bet on an independence referendum failing, just as Quebec fell short in 1995 and is nowhere close today.*

* Indeed, this morning's paper was chock full of stories about the PQ trying to figure out how to get folks enthused about the party and about independence. That they must find ways to get the separatist mojo going provides significant evidence that the PQ and Quebec have won the big battles, making independence or even a confusing referendum that mixes and matches autonomy, confederation, and iendependence unnecessary. Well, unnecessary for being the PQ's raison d'etre. Well, other than running against Montreal. This weekend's meetings has heaps of proposals for shifting yet more resources and power away from Montreal.

Deja BRAC Vu

2012-01-26T18:10:00.000-05:00

I am having a bit of deja vu today. One of the proposals to cut the US defense budget is to close some bases in the U.S. BRAC refers to the Base Closure and Reassignment Commission. This was a process designed to reduce the interference of Congresspeople and Senators, since the closing of a base seems catastrophic to the community nearby that has grown dependent on the base for jobs.

It is deja vu, as I spent the summer between college and grad school interning for Business Executives for National Security's NY branch.* This organization was aiming to make the defense department more efficient (ok, so it looks like they failed), and one of the focal points was facilitating the closure of obsolete bases. It had been years and years since a base was closed because politicians in Congress had learned many tactics to prevent bases from being closed. A wonderful irony was that in the 1990's the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was a guy who had made his career keeping open an obsolete air force base in Maine.

* This is where I first learned of (and maybe met) Larry Korb who had been a top-ranked official in DoD and was then (and now) writing about defense waste. Catch his twitter at @larrykorb.

Anyhow, BENS and others organized to lobby to develop a process where a non-partisan commission would evaluate which bases ought to be closed based on efficiency and also economic considerations. The list of recommended closures would go to the SecDef who could only say yay or nay to the entire list, and then the President would have the same decision. The list would then go to Congress where each house could not amend--just yay or nay. This would provide those politicians losing a base in their district with some cover. The first rounds were relatively easy, if I remember correctly, because some had been designed to stop the Indians from attacking Chicago, the British from attacking Maryland (or something like that), and so on.

My job at the time was to research and see what happens when bases were closed. We found enough info to argue that communities that resisted lost big time when the base closed, but communities that adapted, planned and cooperated usually were better off.

Anyhow, it looks like with a somewhat smaller army, we will see another round of closures. The irony here is that Congress folks who are forcing these cuts with the refusal to consider increased taxes are going to fight these cuts that their positions have essentially required. Good times.

Strange Rumors: Receiving Flak?

2012-01-26T16:01:00.001-05:00

A student who was one of the folks involved in trying to investigate the events at McGill in November stopped by yesterday. He wanted to know about the pressure or criticism I received from McGill for my various blog posts and statements. It was a short conversation because I had not received any words from on high about what I had said. I was one of many profs frustrated by McGill's response, so it was unlikely that I would be targeted. Plus (a) I have tenure so retaliation would be kind of hard; and (b) I am leaving McGill this summer, a decision that preceded the events in November, so I am pretty immune anyway.

So, anyhow, there are rumors out there, so consider this blog post an effort to squelch the rumors as they have no truth to them.

Canada and Its Interests: Max or Min?

2012-01-26T13:50:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I responded to a Roland Paris question about Canada losing or gaining influence under Harper by first pondering what Canada's interests are. Why? Because influence is about getting what you want/need, and if you don't know what you want/need, then it is pretty hard to say that influence went up or down. To summarize, I basically said that Canada has a few key interests: security, free trade, multilateralism and promoting Canadian values.

Before Canadians start to swagger, Roland's question should be answered--is Canada improving its position in these areas? It would easy to say yes or no, but the academic in me has to say: well, it depends. It depends on whether the question is about Harper's entire term as Prime Minister or just the time since he had a majority government. It depends on which area.

On security, is Canada better off now than it was a year ago? Five years ago? Probably. There are still few direct threats to Canada, although the Russian noises about the Arctic can be worrying. Canada is perhaps a more visible target of international terrorism due to its role in Afghanistan, but international terrorist movements (Al Qaeda) have taken significant losses over the past few years. Canadian contributions to NATO in Afghanistan and Libya have certainly improved Canada's standing with the allies that are committed to Canada's defense.

In terms of influence, Canada certainly has had more influence over how it operates in various expeditions. It used to be the case that Canada had forty of its flags on UN maps, with small contingents around the world. By focusing its effort on one spot, Kandahar, Canada got leadership posts in Kandahar and in Kabul, so that Canadians could decide how the Canadians would operate (and also command Americans and others). So, this effort did increase Canadian influence. Ah, but this was started by Paul Martin (despite his regrets), so Harper can only take limited credit.

In 2011, when the air operations were turned over to NATO, the organization needed a senior officer who was neither British nor French since the two countries had antagonized much of the alliance with their enthusiasm for the mission. The natural move was to turn to the Canadians since the CF had performed well in Afghanistan, and were respected by both the more and less enthused. So, LtG Bouchard got to be the commander of the effort, again giving a Canadian significant influence over how NATO would operate, including the planes Canada committed to the effort.

Of course, this all supports that other Canadian interest--multilateralism. Supporting NATO is in Canada's national interest. However, if one surveys the rest of Canadian moves of late, multilateralism has taken some big hits. Canada has not been supporting recent efforts to deal with climate change.* Efforts to negotiate a trade deal across the Pacific were stymied by Canadian protection of its agriculture: the policy of supply management. As a result, Canada is being the Rudolph of various multilateral games--not playing at all. This would be a decrease in Canadian influence.

* I still think of it as global warming, but I am getting old.

I am not an IPE expert, so I can only guess at Canada's trade standing. Its dollar is stronger than before, thanks partly to the collapse of the US dollar and partly due to demand for Canadian resources. And that really is something giving Canada heaps of potential influence--having resources to export. The question here, of course, is whether that means Canada is getting influence, reaching other goals, in addition to the $$ it is being paid. Oh, unless the potential influence turns into real influence, this has little to do the government of the day.

So, my quick tally suggests that the Harper government has had a mixed record on extending Canadian influence. Libya? Yes. Environment/non-military multilateralism? No.

What say you?

APSA Boycott: Yes or No.

2012-01-25T21:03:00.001-05:00

I received a direct appeal from a political scientist asking me to boycott the next meeting of the American Political Science Association meeting. Why? Because it will be held in Louisiana, a state that passed a law "defending marriage." That is, the state passed a law to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, not just prohibiting marriage but denying heaps of legal rights. There are a pile of stories that document the harm that such laws cause. I am and have long been against discrimination against gays and lesbians, that these laws are abhorrent--once I got over my high school-induced homophobia. These kinds of laws seem designed to cause pain and suffering, which should never be the purpose of public policy. They are mostly the product of politicians using hate to divide and conquer.

Having said that, will I boycott the APSA? I was not sure when I started writing this blog. I do support boycotts of businesses that discriminate, but am a bit more uncertain about boycotts of cities when policy is made at the stake level. Having said that, the list of people who are boycotting are an impressive bunch, including a number of people whose judgment I respect. I started this post leaning one way, but in trying to write this post, I could not really come up with good arguments to go to APSA in Louisiana especially after reading the arguments by the boycotters.

To be clear, this is not really a huge sacrifice on my part. The idea of New Orleans in late August/early September, hot, humid and in the middle of hurricane season, was not very attractive. I will not have any of my own students on the market this fall to promote at APSA so it is not as if I am sacrificing my interests or those of my students. But I do like the big conferences to see old friends, to meet my virtual friends in person, to meet up with co-authors, and see what the latest research looks like.

I hope that things change by 2015 or else I may end up missing the International Studies Association two years in a row (New Orleans and then Atlanta). Oh, by the way, have I ever mentioned that bigotry is damned inconvenient as well as being antithetical to the core beliefs espoused by, well, Jesus if one believes in him?

Canada Has Interests?

2012-01-25T17:59:00.001-05:00

Roland Paris asked folks today via twitter whether Canada has gained any influence under the current government. I responded that it depends on whether one is thinking about the Harper government in general or just since it has become a majority government. If the former, then having the head of the Libyan campaign be a Canadian officer, Lt.Gen Bouchard, would be at least one indicator of influence. Roland replied that this was not really a sign of achieving goals, so the real question that needs to be asked first is: what are Canada's goals? What would we consider to be Canada's national interests?*

* I am not sure Canadians think that they do have national interests. When I suggested in an op-ed that Canada's effort in Afghanistan might give it influence to pursue its interests, well, folks didn't like that--either interests or the pursuit of influence. But there is much selection bias in who responds to op-eds.

This was the second time I started thinking about this today since I was talking with an Aussie PhD student about the CA and AUS missions in Afghanistan. So, let me repeat: what are Canada's national interests? I have lived here ten years, and I have some guesses, but I don't think I really have heard Canadians articulate their view of the national interest much. Perhaps it sounds too selfish. Anyhow, here is my set of guesses and the readers can add/subtract/object:

Security from external threats. Basic for everyone. Canada is a huge country with heaps of resources but with only one land neighbor (with a long border) and other countries are very far away by air/sea.

So, managing the US relationship is a huge priority--the US is the biggest threat to Canada. But the US has no real hostile intent. Differences arise but nothing that is very hostile. The big arctic sovereignty dispute is over the US principal to drive through any and all straits, with Canada seeking to control parts of the Northwest Passage.
Arctic sovereignty is also focuses on other poachers in the arctic--namely Russia (the disputes with the Danes are negotiable). Russia has made heaps of noises about expansive definitions of its territory. Best way to deal with the Russian threat--working closely with the US.
Terrorism is a moderate threat--Canadians and Canada has been targeted but not as enthusiastically as US, UK, etc.

Free flow of trade. Canada has resources to sell, and is deeply embedded in the international economy. 9/11 disrupted Canadian trade by closing the border with the biggest trading partner. Actually, the reaction to 9/11 had that impact. So, Canada has a strong interest in limiting the terrorist threat to the US since future overreactions will do heaps of damage to the Canadian economy.
Multilateralism. As a "middle power," Canada cannot exert much influence on its own, especially in bilateral relationships. Multilateralism is both a means and an end. To get what it wants (which I still haven't figured out, other than security and trade), Canada needs to work through international institutions like NATO, the UN, IMF, etc.

Indeed, I would think that multilateralism is a key way to manage the US relationship--better to have the elephant tied down a bit so it does not accidentally step on the beavers or moose nearby. On the other hand, if Canada thinks it can influence the US, then working through multilateral institutions can dilute that. Some Canadian military officers expressed to me a preference of working bilateraly with the US rather than through NATO since Canada is just one of 27 or so voices.

Promoting Canadian values. This is part self-esteem, part living in a more compatible world, and part a sense of righteous. What the hell do I mean? Good question.

People generally want folks elsewhere to think/behave like them. Why? It makes them feel good about themselves. If more people around the world buy into Canadian values, then Canadians will feel better about themselves (except for those folks who always hate being in the mainstream: "I liked Nirvana before everyone else did, now I hate them."
It is an easier world to live in if others more or less buy into the same values. Fewer conflicts of interest, easier to negotiate when there are disputes.
Righteousness: Canadians believe in certain values because they are the right way to live/believe. Others should follow suit. Example: Afghan women should be educated.
What are Canadian values? Besides bags for milk? Democracy, multiculturalism, tolerance, maple syrup, equity, fairness? If I paid more attention to my daughter's CA history textbooks, I might have a better grasp.

To answer Roland's question about whether the Harper government has moved forward or not, I think these are the major things to keep in mind. You can tell me whether Harper has done stuff that have advanced or hurt Canadian national interests. And I can ponder that topic for a post down the road.

The Downside to Narcissism

2012-01-25T14:09:00.002-05:00

Apparently, being a narcissist is stressful. What does that mean for me? I guess I am stressed.

Appropriate Rescue Du Jour

2012-01-25T09:05:00.001-05:00

There is a lot to like about the rescue of the two individuals from the Somali pirates, but I find it especially cool that the SEALs rescued a Dane along with an American. The Danes have been one of the most supportive allies of the US in Afghanistan and then in Libya. In Afghanistan, the Danes have been willing to fight in the very hardest parts of the country--the green zone of Helmand (where the poppies grow best)--taking more casualties per troop deployed than any other country. In Libya, the Danes dedicated a huge hunk of their air force to the bombing campaign.

Of course, the fact that Denmark's former Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is the Secretary-General of NATO might have something to do with it.* Anyway, anything the US can do to help out the Danes is a good thing--rescuing one of their citizens is even better than rescuing a boat full of Iranian sailors.

* The fact that I got heaps of help from the Danish government and scholars during my research on NATO and Afghanistan has almost nothing to do with my positive attitude towards the Danes. Ok, maybe it does. Then again, I got heaps of help and great access in every country I visited [I didn't visit Italy since the help was not forthcoming].

I Am Not An Americanist But Have Played One ...

2012-01-24T18:33:00.003-05:00

I am not a scholar of American politics but have been interviewed occasionally in Montreal on American politics since our department does not have anyone who publishes in this area. So, I have gotten into the habit of speculating wildly about American politics.

Anyhow, I raise this now because I have a big question and I am only going to guess at the answer. The question is: why do the GOP candidates suck so very much? Romney has an off-putting personality and is absolutely the wrong candidate for a Tea Party pandering party--he made $20 million dollars on his investments and his utterly out of touch on $$. Joking about $10,000 bets and saying he was only paid $357000 for something, as if that some is beneath being noticed? Gingrich is a philander who helped get Clinton re-elected and then lost his job due to an ethics scandal. Santorum is a hateful, narrow-minded guy who could not get re-elected, something 98% of incumbents manage to do, so what is wrong with him? Ron Paul is obsessed with the gold standard, has a history of racist newsletters, and often appears to be smarter than he is and crazier than, well, hmm, more than he should be.

I am not the only person pondering where the good Republican candidates are. This is not always a puzzle. When a potential candidate thinks that he or she has little chance of winning, he or she waits for a better time.* Notice no Democrats running for President--this is not just about respecting the party's leader and the President but about an estimate of the probability of winning. Ted Kennedy versus Jimmy Carter is the exception that proves the rule. McCain was the best of another mediocre lot perhaps because most Republicans realized that Bush had done so badly that any Republican would lose in 2008. Maybe. But 2012 is about as good as it gets for any Republican--Obama has not been that successful in getting heaps of policies past,** the economy is still mighty weak with high unemployment and uncertain growth, and the war in Afghanistan is not going so well.***

* I have a good friend study candidate emergence, which informs my pondering here (thus, this is a shout-out to Cherie Maestas--the best colleague I ever had [yes, shocking that it is someone who studies American politics]).
** Of course, a big reason for this is that the Republican Party has preferred that Obama fail than see the US do well. I have been tempted to call the GOP treasonous for putting party so far above the country's interests. It is one thing to want your party to do well. It is another thing entirely to try to deny the President any success at all when there are opportunities to improve the condition of the country.
*** On the other hand, this is really a lousy time for the Republicans to complete on foreign policy as Obama did pull out of Iraq as Bush had promised (and the Republicans pushing for the US to stick around? Talk about a position that is destined to lose votes!), made the decision to kill Bin Laden, cheaply facilitated the end of Qaddafi, and so on.

So, where are the good Republican candidates? The only thing I can think of is that such folks may not have wanted to go through the process of pandering to the far right to get through the primary process. Otherwise, I am flummoxed. Is this really the best the GOP has to offer: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul? I am having deja vu to the days of Dukakis and Kerry.

Anybody got a better idea?

Review This!

2012-01-24T18:11:00.001-05:00

One of the hidden parts of the academic business is that of referee. Academics tend only to value publications that make it through a review process, but who are the reviewers? We are.* That is, academics review the work of other academics. The process varies, but the standard one for most respected journals in Political Science is double-blind refereeing.** The reviewer does not know who the author is or authors are, and the author(s) does not know who the reviewers are. I have had several people guess that I was their reviewer for much of their work, but they were wrong. Guess the reviewer game is fun but tends not to be very successful. Usually, there are two or three reviewers who provide their assessments to the editors of the journal, and the editors weight the various reviews and make a decision (sometimes they take forever to decide): accept, accept with minor revisions, revise and resubmit, or reject. Revise and resubmit (R&R) is often the best one can hope for, as reviewers and editors are often very picky, especially for the most visible and selective journals.

* This is one of the many big differences between normal academic journals and law reviews. For law reviews, the law students do the reviewing.
** Increasingly (apparently), editors are "desk-rejecting" which means that they reject the piece before sending it out for review as the piece does not fit the journal or is obviously unworthy for the journal. Reviewing books is usually blind in only one direction--that the book author does not know who is doing the reviewing, but it is relatively impossible to hide the identity of the author of a book length work.

So, for every one article submitted, there are a few academics who must agree to review it. What do reviewers get paid? Nada. Why do they do it? Because it is a professional obligation and because people think that editors will ultimately treat nicely the folks who are reliable reviewers and not treat nicely those who are not. Whether the second motivation has any basis in reality, I don't know. I have been on editorial boards but not an editor, so I cannot say how these folks respond to the unreliable. I do know that the reliable folks do get a certain kind of treatment--more reviews.

I have thought of myself as a reliable reviewer--meeting most deadlines and usually saying yes when asked. I used to only say no if the piece was outside of my expertise or if it would be inappropriate for me to do the review. What would make me an inappropriate reviewer? Mostly if I had already reviewed that piece or similar work by the same author (I don't want to be the sole reviewer blocking a person's career). How can I tell that if the process is blind? Well, blind but not stupid. Over the course of time, one gets asked often to review work that is close to one's own, but then one is familiar with the work in that area, so, ta da! not so blind. Google also can make things less blind, although I never google to find the authors of a piece until after I have written the review and sent it off, and mostly not even then.

I am writing about reviews because today seems to be post about refereeing day. See here for a good piece discussing rules of refereeing by Marc Bellemare. Some very good suggestions that I will try to follow in the future. I have been violating one of the rules lately--saying no. Why? Because I have said yes a lot recently,*** and am backed up. As a result, I cannot credibly commit to doing the review in a timely fashion. So, I say no. I am also less willing these days to review stuff that is outside of my comfort zone, as I have realized that I cannot provide good reviews. Given the ample opportunities to review stuff (especially after summers and winter holidays when folks finish stuff and send it off to journals)

*** I have said yes to a variety of writing commitments, journal reviews, and tenure reviews. For the last, it requires one to read not just one article or book but many articles and perhaps more than one book. Takes a lot of time with heaps of stakes involved--a person's career.

Phil Arena has a post on how not to be a good reviewer. Such as rejecting stuff because it does not cite you or asking the person to not simplify. For the former, it is a dick move. I have recommended to folks to cite my work if it really is central to their work and only if my piece is published some place visible and even then only rarely and never as a reason to reject a piece. For the latter, articles have word limits, so you cannot ask someone to add two more cases or explicate something that is not central to their argument. A big difference between a book and an article is the latter is always going to be a snapshot and not a completed research agenda.

Young scholars cannot wait to get in the reviewer game. Kind of like being eager to start shaving. Sure, it makes you feel like an adult, but once you get started, you are going to be doing it again and again and again for the rest of your career/life. So, don't be so eager. It will happen if you publish.

Monday Evening Silliness

2012-01-23T17:48:00.000-05:00

Fun song and video, starring Matthew McConaughey as the guy from Dazed and Confused.

Montreal Bucket List

2012-01-23T13:48:00.001-05:00

You will have to excuse this post's silliness, as I am a bit punch due to the combination of head cold and the joys of getting my daughter's passport renewed (not everything went awry but enough). Anyway, as we were walking to the car, I suddenly realized that I have pretty much completed the Montreal bucket list (also known as the le hunt Scavenger Montrealais). What is this? The set of acts/activities/events that one must accumulate in order to be a real Montrealer. Glad I could complete most of the list before I leave town.

Be embarrassed walking along St. Catherine Street with one's child, due to the many adult entertainment venues.
Have your car or person damaged by a public vehicle of some sort (a school bus went through the corner of my car. At least I have not been hit by a snow plow).
Stop responding to "Bonjour/Hi" with "Bonjour." I realized that the various salesfolks preferred their good English to my bad French, nationalism be damned.
Get heckled at the "Nasty Show" at the Just For Laughs festival (actually, this happened when we lived in Vermont and visited the fest long before we moved here).
Miss your stop on the train because you were sleeping.
Have a police officer insist that he does not have to speak to you in English and then does so.
Forget everything you learned about driving/walking in snow for the first big snowfall each winter. Then remember and do quite well the rest of the winter.
Lose track of which festival you missed in a summer, given how many are crammed in a short period of time.
At least once take a different route into the country since your vacation coincides with the end of the construction holiday.
Be stunned by the ability of folks to speak in both official langauges not just from paragraph to paragraph but sentence to sentence and beyond.
Understand that the big curse words come from various Catholic church concepts.
Get used to the whole kissing on both cheeks thing (still not there yet on this one).
You start guessing people's last names: Tremblay, right?
Understand that the main purpose of the Parti Quebecois is to entertain folks with its in-fighting.

What am I missing? Again, I have a head cold so forgive me if I omitted some of the better "must experience" things about Montreal (and no, my omissions of Montreal bagels and smoked meat are not head-cold-induced).

A Heavy Dose of Perspective Sauce

2012-01-22T14:55:00.000-05:00

Gabby Giffords:

Puts everything else into perspective. Just wow.

Better To Reign in Hell

2012-01-22T09:55:00.001-05:00

Another sad post about Hungary's politics by Kim Lane Scheppele via Paul Krugman. There is no doubt that Fidesz, whatever it claims, is solely focused on perpetuating its rule at the expensive of democracy and the rule of law. Playing games with the EU, by providing English translations that underplay the nastiness of each new law, didn't work too well, as there are folks who can read Hungarian.

During the one month that the constitution was open for public debate, the Hungarian government sent an English translation to the European Commission, as EU law requires it to do. But the English translation left out the controversial and inflammatory preamble. The preamble asserts that sovereignty rests in the Hungarian “nation” (that is, ethnic Hungarians and not Hungarian citizens of all ethnicities). It also includes potentially destabilizing references to Hungary’s “historic constitution” that implicitly laid claim to territories now belonging to neighboring states.

To be sure, these irredentist claims will not go anywhere. Hungary does not have the capability to revise the boundaries, but it is clear that the leaders of Fidesz are playing to a vary narrow hunk of its base on these kinds of issues. And it is abundantly clear that the pursuit of political power within Hungary is bad for the country. Sounds familiar to me.

Big Day for Schadenfreude

2012-01-21T19:41:00.000-05:00

The day began and will end with heaps of schadenfreude. I opened up the Montreal Gazette this morning to see several stories discussing the intra-Parti Quebecois divisions, with Pauline Marois once again having to face a rebellion, vowing to stay on until the bitter end (which is probably just around the corner and perhaps should not be the ambition of a politician). Gilles Duceppe, who led the separatist party at the national level, the Bloc Quebecois, to a tremendous disaster (and now controversy), is once again looking to take Marois's position. Hard to tell which would be worse for the PQ: continued Marois or a Duceppe-led party that hopes not to finish third in the next election.

So, that was the morning. The evening has Newt Gingrich winning the South Carolina primary. The tweets have been marvelous--that the Republicans have chosen as the family values candidate the one candidate who has the most thorough history of having no values--cheating on at least two wives, being the first leader of his party's contingent in the House to be punished for ethics violations, etc.

Newt is just so easy to hate. He makes it a tough race between himself and Santorum for being the most detestable Not-Romney. It is hard to imagine a more smug, arrogant, and, yes, vile politician.

Yes, I understand that a bad economy might give the GOP the edge in the fall, but Gingrich would be the easiest candidate for Obama to beat--a symbol of all that is wrong with the Republican party. But Gingrich probably will just prolong the race, rather than win, making Romney that much more battle-scarred and compelled to take right-wing stances. Instead of a coronation, this winter promises to be a competition.

Good times, I think. Of course, I could end up eating my words next fall. Good thing electronic posts are low in calories.

Saturday is For Star Wars

2012-01-21T08:31:00.000-05:00

Some folks solicited 15 second clips that people made of Star Wars scenes to crowd-source a remake. Just amazing:

HT to Ain't It Cool News.

With Allies Like These

2012-01-20T09:19:00.003-05:00

Lots of tweets this morning about two events and a story (WSJ had similar story last summer): the two events are yet another shooting of NATO troops by Afghan National Army [ANA] personnel and the mass poisoning of ANA by someone in the ANA, and the story is in the NYT that talks about the first and puts it into context of something like 58 NATO folks killed by ANA over four years from 2007 to May 2011. The end date here is significant because we know of more attacks since then.

People are disturbed and have every right to be so, especially since NATO has recently started trying to restrict the information about ANA attacks on NATO forces. There are at least three major issues here:

There is tremendous distrust between the NATO forces and the people they are trying to mentor. This makes the entire transition process very difficult since getting out depends critically on developing the Afghan forces.
This may cause allies to flee faster, as 58+ does not sound like a lot, but losing four French soldiers in one attack increases the KIA for France by five percent and is one of the worst days the French have had in Afghanistan. President Sarkozy has suspended operations.
This raises huge questions about the credibility of NATO, as the happy face that the alliance has been putting on the training of the Afghans is clearly, well, a lie. Yes, there are more folks trained, and there are more capable units, but the report cited in the NYT piece makes it abundantly clear that there is far more friction and far less progress than advertised. Indeed, the "need" to restrict information on these kinds of attacks is telling--that there is not enough substantive progress to offset the bad news.

NATO should be freaking out about this story and about the events of the past day--they raise big questions about the timeline, about the trends, and about trust not only between the outsiders and the Afghans but between the alliance and the publics back home. But restricting information is probably not the way to go--information does get out, and the cover up usually does as much or more damage than the crime.

The really bad news is that it is not clear what can be done in the short time left. Other than immediately pulling out (which has its own problems), the only other choice is not to partner with the ANA. But that raises dangers as well. I have no recommendations: do you?

Colbert is a Genius

2012-01-19T15:01:00.001-05:00

How about running an attack ad against oneself? Voiced by Sam Jackson?

More education by one mock candidate than by the entire combined forces of all of the politicians, media, and other outlets combined.

VW Wins Again

2012-01-19T09:17:00.004-05:00

Just delightful:

Oh, and you need to watch it twice as the various dogs, well, you will see.

Fearing War with Iran

2012-01-19T08:51:00.000-05:00

The blogosphere and twitterverse are returning back to normal after a day of protests about internet regulation: the focus returns to concerns about a US preemptive war against Iran. Yes, there are folks out there beating the drums for war, making arguments today that seem very similar to those made in 2002, except the threat now ends in an "N" and not a "Q".

Should we be that worried about a deliberate, pre-emptive strike to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities? I have long argued with a friend about exactly this topic. She had some basis to go on while the Bush crowd was still in office (although I kept winning the bet since even the Bushies were not stupid enough to launch yet another war in the Mideast). But now? Given how deliberate Obama was about increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan a couple of years ago--even though that did fulfill a campaign promise, I doubt that he has any enthusiasm for a war against Iran.

Yes, sending a few carriers to the Strait of Hormuz is a significant move and threatens Iran some, the goal there is to maintain a traditional American position: to sail through any and all straits as international law allows (which is why the US and Canada see the Northwest Passage differently).

That is different from starting a process (air strikes) that would have limited utility and plenty of 2nd and 3rd order effects (consequences). It is pretty clear that air strikes would not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities (they learned to dig deep and to diversify). So, the strikes would make some folks feel good, but not achieve any real objectives besides pushing us further down the slope into war.

And the thing people who fear a US attack seem to be forgetting: IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR! Another war in the Mideast would certainly cause oil prices to spike, setting back whatever progress has been made in the US recovery and probably tip the ever-instable Euro situation into a total disaster. What does Obama know about American politics? "It is about the economy, stupid!" as the Clintonites emphasized.

Could the concern about the political consequences of the economic side-effects be overwhelmed by other domestic political pressures? Sure, if there were folks who might vote for Obama who cared about Iran over everything else. But is there such a constituency? Such a huge group of voters that would be matter more than those who would either vote for the Republicans or stay home if we have a re-appearance of staglation thanks to an Iranian-related oil crisis? Obama is not Jimmy Carter. More importantly, he is after Jimmy Carter in this timeline, so he can learn from what happened before.

I have had no conversations with the folks around Obama, but I just cannot see any domestic political reason to attack Iran. I can see heaps of reasons not to. If the Republicans want to attack Obama on foreign policy, I think that would be their mistake. Obama has kept the promise to get out of Iraq (thanks to the Iraqi domestic political dynamics--not wanting to appear to be in bed with the occupiers), he ramped up and then down in Afghanistan, he gave the orders to take the risky step of killing Bin Laden, he supported at relatively low cost the NATO effort to abet regime change in Libya, and so on. If the Republicans want to consider him weak on foreign policy, good luck with that.

So, while I can imagine a shooting war breaking out over ships and boats bumping into each other in the Strait of Hormuz (unless all Iranian ships and boats need rescue rather than just many), I do not think it is at all likely that the US will launch air strikes or more than that anytime in the near to medium term.

I Have Got a Secret

2012-01-18T07:07:00.000-05:00

The secret is that a country that never catches any spies probably has more of a problem than a country that catches a few. The only countries that never catch spies are those that never look for them and those that are so meaningless that no one would bother. On the latter score, Canada, as a member of NATO and as a member of the inner circle of very reliable allies (the four or five I's club--US, UK, CA, Australia--I forget the exact number), is likely seen as an important target for spying by Russia, China, and various other potential adversaries of NATO and the Anglo powers.

Oh, and if Canadians are worried that this one suspected spy, Sub-Lt. Jeffrey Paul Delisle, will undermine how the allies see Canada, don't forget that the US has had far more spies caught in pretty high places over the years (Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, etc.).*

* Props to Spew friend, Phillipe Lagassé of U of Ottawa, for being a source for the NYT.

Indeed, this points out an interesting irony in US-Canadian relations. There is a smug anti-Americanism that binds many Canadians, that being called "Americanized" is an insult, but Canadians also fear losing American respect and approval. This case raises the salience of the latter strand within Canadian national identity as folks become concerned about whether Canada is seen as reliable enough.

MacKay told reporters on Tuesday that while the alleged breach is serious, he is confident that Canada retains the confidence of its allies who regularly exchange intelligence. But that bravado may obscure just how serious the American military and intelligence agencies view such matters, said one academic source, who did not want to be named.
“American agencies act unilaterally, so even if the (senior U.S. officials) said, ‘Don’t make a big deal on this,’ you’re going to have agencies saying that it’s a big deal,” the source said. “There’ll be some rough edges for quite some time in the way people share information.” (The Star)

Maybe a bit, but not really. Again, this ain't wikileaks, and this is not having spies for Russia near the top of the CIA (Ames) or the FBI (Hanssen). So, if any American intel person raises concerns about Canadian reliability, they should be reminded that the US has a history of being penetrated repeatedly and at the highest levels (and lowest with wikileaks).

A fun note in this: one of the arguments that Phil and I have had over the years is whether the Canadian mission in Afghanistan bought it any influence. Here, I think we may not see but probably feel some of that influence, as the Canadians were very reliable in a tough spot for years. It is not like they spilled secrets to our adversaries during a NATO mission (unlike, say, France and the Serbs). So, being in the esteem of the US over Afghanistan should mitigate some of the criticism from this case.

So, let's put some perspective sauce on this case, shall we?

The Ramblings of the Irrelevant

2012-01-17T08:40:00.002-05:00

I keep on wondering why Rick Perry is still in the race for the Republican nomination. After all, he has lagged far behind everyone else who is left. Did he have a "last longer" bet with Gingrich or Santorum?* His polling has been low for months, his results in Iowa and New Hampshire were disastrous and he has not been playing well in South Carolina.

* Poker players in a tournament will often bet with each other on who will last longer/who will be eliminated first. Palin lost her last longer bet with Bachmann, who lost her bet with Cain and Huntsman.

Last night, at yet another Republican debate, Perry was still allowed to be on stage. Perhaps because of the expected entertainment value, given how badly he has performed at nearly every debate. So, Perry says that Turkey is run by terrorists since a moderate Islamic party has been in power and has distanced itself from Israel. Yes, this is part of the strange pandering the GOP has been doing lately, as the evangelical vote seems to be focused on supporting Israel blindly, enthusiastically, and without regard for any other interest that might be in play (such as supporting protest movements against dictators in the Middle East since our dictator friends are more supportive of Israel than democratically elected politicians might be).**

** This deserves an entirely separate post. Remind me if I forget.

Anyhow, so Perry is so desperate to get attention that he says something incredibly stupid and offensive to a significant ally and an important bridge to the Arab world. The last Texas governor of national relevance, George W. Bush, was incredibly dysfunctional on a number of levels but at least he got the whole "we really ought not inflame the entire Islamic world too much as we ought to try to separate the extremists from the rest" idea--well, at least in his statements. Perry was either gambling for resurrection--that is, taking an extreme stance to get back in the conversation--OR he was continuing his usual debate behavior of being pretty dim. Indeed, the reason why his status of the leading not-Romney fell was due to his first major debate failures. The GOP didn't reject him because he is a nutcase (Santorum has done fine), but that he was deemed unelectable as he would be seen as a Bush dumber than Bush.

The sad thing is that the fifth candidate for the GOP nomination is making national and world news for saying stupid stuff about Turkey and Islam. Not that different from a random pastor burning a Koran, antagonizing Muslims around the world and sparking riots in Afghanistan that led to the deaths of members of the international community who had been doing some good. I am not suggesting that Perry is that irresponsible. Ok, I am suggesting that Perry is that irresponsible, unless being an idiot somehow makes him less responsible for his behavior.

I do think the problem is structural--with so many television hours to fill on competing news networks (plus competition from the internet), losers and those responsible for extreme policy failures (John Yoo, Dick Cheney, etc.) manage to get more media time than in the past (at least as far as I can remember). In such a competitive environment, asking the media to act responsibly and ignore the ramblings of the irrelevant is asking far too much.

When Realists Are Right

2012-01-16T21:49:00.002-05:00

Given my earlier post about realism, I should give those folks their due. When I learned of the Security Dilemma, one of the key foundations of realism, the world became more more comphrensible.

The SD essentially states that in the pursuit of security, any one country's effort to improve its security will threaten others, causing the others to ramp up their efforts to improve their security, threatening the first country. So, the dilemma is that any unilateral effort to improve one's security ultimately fails, often leaving one and all worse off. Suddenly, arms races made complete sense to me, without needing to invoke military-industrial complexes.

Why raise this now? Because Iran has objected to the activation of NATO missile defense systems in Turkey. Sure, NATO can say this is a purely defensive measure, which it really is, but being better able to thwart Iranian missiles means that the costs of attacking Iran decline. This is also why the Soviet Union was so upset about the Strategic Defense Initiative--if one has a shield, one can more easier use one's sword especially if the other guy does not have a shield.

So, score one for Realism, as we see the Security Dilemma play out quite clearly.

I Want to Vote in South Carolina

2012-01-16T21:09:00.002-05:00

Stephen Colbert slays about eight different targets with this one ad:

video platform
video management
video solutions
video player

Let's count them, shall we?

Obviously, Colbert makes Romney look foolish with the corporations are people line.
Colbert makes the whole idea of corporations as having the same legal rights as people look pretty silly.
Colbert makes the whole super-pac thing even more ridiculous--Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow.
Colbert makes the whole super-PAC thing even more ridiculous: "I had nothing to do with that ad."
Colbert makes the media silly as he is appearing on ABC to defend this ad.
Colbert makes the American political process silly by producing a wonderfully slick (voiced by John Lithgow) negative ad, epitomizing the attack politics of the 21st century.

The only weakness here is that this ad has a heap more substance than most attack ads: a real quote by Romney, a real past of destroying jobs via corporate takeovers, etc.

"I don't know if Mitt Romney is a serial killer. That is a question he is going to have to answer." More mocking of the media, which takes the lies that are spewed and then repeat them by forcing the politicians to address them, rather than ignoring them and letting them fade away.
Colbert concludes by noting that John Lithgow, the voice of the ad, appeared on Dexter as a serial killer: "Two points make a line."

Canada and The Republicans

2012-01-16T12:17:00.001-05:00

The Canadian International Council twitter account (I am tempted to call it Bob or Fred) asked me which Republican candidate Canadians should prefer. This is after my snarky response to the CIC's post that raised this question in general and provided a link to their panel of rapid responders.

Of course, the answer is Romney. The three responders (at least three thus far, as they may add some as the slower rapid responders respond less rapidly) all go with the least extreme, most opportunist candidate who governed as a centrist in Massachusetts. The other Republican candidates range from batsh$t crazy to hateful to evil to incredibly incompetent, so the choice is obvious.

The more important point is that whoever the Republicans select, Canadians in general should want Obama to get re-elected. Why? Because it is likely that the Republicans will retain control of one house (o Representatives) and be obnoxious enough in the other (the Senate) that having a Republican in the White House would likely mean too much bad stuff would get through (yes, Obama has allowed for a variety of noxious stuff to pass), including more ill-timed/targeted tax cuts. My guess is that the Republicans would do heaps of harm to the American economy---and that is important for Canada.

I was asked about the perimeter deal, but I have no real idea about its current or future content. For me, the economic issues are the most important, and I just have big doubts about whether the Republicans can govern responsibly. At this time in US history, divided government is looking pretty good.

Pity the Realists

2012-01-16T10:37:00.001-05:00

I have avoided reading Robert Kaplan's take on John Mearsheimer's work mostly because I really cannot stand Kaplan's previous stuff, especially Balkan Ghosts. I actually don't think it did as much damage to the Balkans as one might guess because Clinton, famously having the book on his bedside table, had lots of other reasons to delay intervening in Bosnia. My biggest contribution during my year on the Joint Staff was revising the reading list for the Balkans branch, dropping Balkan Ghosts.

Anyhow, Dan Drezner does a nice job of destroying the canard that realists have not been influential in American foreign policy without even mentioning Kennan (Dan provided a couple of realists a chance to respond).* Drezner even mentions how oppressed realists have often felt. As Steve Martin would say, well, excuuuuuuuse meeeee! Why? Because the realists have, as good secret Marxists, held some of the commanding heights and means of production in the academic economy: a journal (International Security), post-doc suppliers (less so of late with the decline of Olin), and jobs at a variety of desirable academic outposts. They are not alone in that--Peter Katzenstein complained on one panel how oppressed constructivists were, at a time where they seemed to be getting heaps of post-docs, the best jobs, and publications in the best journals and presses.

* Yes, the realists can take credit for being right on Iraq in 2003, but, then again, so can nearly every other IR scholar.

The reason why Realists often feel that they are victims is due to their success--that they have been able to define their approach as the baseline to which any and all competitors must compare. If states do not maximize their interests (defined as security or power, depending on the realist), then why do they behave as they do? Thus, anyone who either wants to explain deviations from this baseline or argue that the baseline is wrong has to take on Realism. So, even if only 15% of IR folks or pubs are avowedly realist, probably 75-90% of the work in the field presents a realist argument even if it is presented as a strawman [Updated: Mike points out that the real data, as opposed to my imaginary data, indicates that 20-50% of non-realist stuff presents a realist argument of some kind--see comments below].

This in sharp contrast to liberal or constructivist arguments--they are not seen as the baseline and are not required to be invoked somewhere along the way when writing something for an IR journal or press. I say this from much experience. Even with the latest project on NATO and Afghanistan, where there is much variation among the allies in how they behavior, even non-realists push me/us at talks to specify how this is not a tale realists can explain. So, we dedicate space in our intro, juxtaposing various ways to think about threats and security concerns and show how the cross-national and cross-temporal variation do not jibe with realist expectations. Of course, realists can quibble with how we operationalize realism, but since there are many flavors of realism, this will always be the case.

Let me conclude with what I think are Realism's biggest weakness and biggest contribution:

Realism is indeterminate. That is, there is usually more than one way to maximize one's security. This is why realists can often engage in heaps of arguments with each other, and not just between offensive realists (who focus on maximizing power) and defensive realists (who focus on security). The international system rarely provides a single best way to defend oneself. Folks are still arguing, for instance, whether British appeasement of Germany in 1938 was a good idea or not.
Realism is right to remind us to focus on power--not in terms of interest but in terms of outcomes. Power matters greatly in determining outcomes, although not entirely as the insurgents of the world can beat the stronger countries. I tend to buy into the Moravcsik view of Liberalism telling us much about why conflicts of interest emerge, but Realism via power can usually tell us much about who wins.

Deja Vu Definitions

2012-01-15T11:14:00.001-05:00

A while back I posted that Libya was a civil war as folks were debating whether it was one or not. Just insert Syria in the para below:

First, the war is, indeed, a civil war. Some folks want to call it something else like a rebellion or a revolution (more on that in a second), but a civil war, to most scholars, involves two-sided combat between combatants within a country. Usually, one of the combatants is the government. If only one side is killing the other, as in mass killings and/or genocide, then it is not a civil war. Perhaps the Libyan conflict started out as a mass killing, in an effort to repress the protestors, but the rebels have been fighting back, killing Qaddafy's troops for about six months now. If one wants to get supra-technical, the usual standard is 1,000 battle deaths. No doubt that we are beyond that.

Oh, and insert Assad for Qaddafy. Well, maybe.

The point is that there is significant combat between two sides, and it is not going to end quickly. So, yes, it is a civil war. What to do about it is the real question, and pondering what to call it is a handy distraction.

The keys are:

Russia is not going to allow another UN resolution to pass that would authorize intervention.
Nor China.
The Arab League is having a difficult 2012 after a successful 2011. Monitoring has not worked, but the group will not be able to gain consensus to bless another NATO intervention.
So, can NATO act in the absence of such a resolution? Well, if you can only get 8-12 of the members to participate in a semi-UN sanctioned event, NATO probably will not be able to act in a big way. Several members of NATO need UN-type resolutions to provide cover at home.

Plus the Libyan operation stressed out heaps of air forces (pathetic, isn't it?) even before/as the European folks started serious defense budget cutting.

Yes, there is now some talk of a No Fly Zone (also known as the least we can do to make it look like we are doing something beyond sanctions--official NATO acronym is LWEDMLLWDSBS, abbreviated to just the last two letters).
I don't know what the refugee flow from this conflict is, but I doubt that they are headed to Western Europe, so xenophobia not be that much of a driver of intervention this time.
Yes, the US and a few allies could bomb Syria, but it is not clear that it will work so well this time--the geography is different, the politics are far more complex (some folks in the region do not detest Assad like they hated Qaddafy).[Update: See the far wiser Marc Lynch on the limits of force here]

Another diplomat in Damascus was fatalistic. “There’s not much more that anyone, at the international level, can do,” he said. “There’s not much more the Arab League can, either.” NYT

Yet another American war in yet another Arab country? I doubt that Obama is enthused about the prospects.

To Anger More Folks

2012-01-13T18:46:00.001-05:00

I pulled on a tail or two a little while ago when I posted on the US decision to reduce its forces in Europe. Well, that is probably nothing compared to this post.

Behavior like that I read in an old Washington Post today (because of a tweet related to other article below) makes me feel more strongly than ever that Jonathan Pollard is where he belongs. Israel seems to be quite callous about not only spying in the US but trying to portray themselves as Americans as they spy on other countries.

But a retired senior FBI counterintelligence official told SpyTalk, "They have always been extremely aggressive, and seem to feel they can operate whenever and wherever they want, in spite of being called on the carpet more than any other country by probably a factor of three times as often."

Also, see this piece.: "It'samazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligenceofficer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. Theyapparently didn't give a damn what we thought."

I am a strong believer that when it comes to treason that if you do the crime, you do the time.

Israel can justify all kinds of stuff because they face an existential threat, but that does not make such policies right or smart or legitimate. What they demonstrate is what is best for Israel and what is best for the United States can be entirely separate things. So, if Israel wants to undermine American national security by having agents pose as Americans to try to get Americans to act against American interests, then Israel should expect that such policies have costs. One such cost is having their recruits do serious time in prison.

I wouldn't mind trading Pollard for a serious foreign policy concession, like reversing the settlements in occupied territories (or whatever they are called these days). But, otherwise, Netanyahu can just shut up about Pollard as long as Israel continues the behavior discussed in the article cited above.

Time to Panic About the US and NATO?

2012-01-13T17:34:00.000-05:00

"Can we panic now?" I can see why Europe and fans of NATO might be concerned that the US is reducing the number of army brigades based in Europe. The US has been seen as Europe's "pacifier" (using NATOsource's quote), assuring the Europeans that they don't have to worry about their neighbors but being far enough way not to threaten them much.

However, with most of Europe facing significant pressures to cut military budgets, who is the threat? Which countries will re-arm, worried about the neighbors, especially since the US is not withdrawing entirely from Europe? A couple of brigades, heaps of navy bases (US will be basing ships at Spanish ports to provide anti-missile defense), and air bases will continue to provide enough American forces in the region and enough infrastructure for the US to surge back if needed.

Perhaps the threat is "unresolved nationalism." I am not sure how American military power prevents the rise of nationalism. Not only am I a skeptic of about the impact of the EU on the good behavior of potentially irredentist European countries, but I am also a skeptic about NATO conditionality. NATO mattered in shaping the civil-military relations of the newly democratic countries, but other dynamics limited Hungary, Romanian and even Russian irredentism (like their own xenophobia). Until someone can tell me how two brigades in Europe would make a difference in the rise of nationalist politicians (oh crap, Orban and Fidesz came to power in Hungary before the reductions!), I will hope that that the move will save as many $$ as hoped for.

The funny thing is that NATO has been pretty happy with temporary presence as a means of providing assurance to Iceland and the Baltics. On a regular basis, an ally provides a number of planes to be based briefly in either locale, fly around, exercise, making sure the infrastructure is intact to support them. Given that the Baltics, more so than Iceland, are proximate to the biggest threats (Russia, of course) seem ok with this, why would the US need to keep two brigades in Europe to assure countries further away from the action (Germany, Italy, etc.)?

There would still be plenty of military-to-military interactions, exercises, schools, working groups, and such. So, NATO would still exist and still have the capability to do stuff in the region. The real threat to NATO is not so much moving some US assets further away from the scene but the cuts the allies are making in key areas. Eliminating one's armor entirely means there is no capacity to surge down the road, as all the folks experienced in armored warfare will be gone. Having only one squadron of planes means that one can only bomb Libya for six months. You get the picture.

So, it is kind of funny to see anyone in Europe complain that American economies in defense spending are problematic, given that European defense cuts are much more drastic (ask the Royal Navy). The US will continue to be spending huge amounts of money on defense, will still have a very large army, a very large air force (only threatened by the expensiveness of its latest planes), and the most powerful navy in the world. More of it will be dedicated to the Pacific, but they can come back to Europe when needed.

The problem is that Europe is a success story, and grand strategy requires balancing commitments and capabilities. There is some risk, but smart people face the risks and manage them, understanding the tradeoffs. Less aware folks ignore the risks and try to have everything (can Canada, for instance, really afford a modern air force, modern navy, and modern army? In a word, no).

The Meaning of Control

2012-01-13T14:15:00.000-05:00

I lectured on Wednesday about the concept of control in civil-military relations and then the media blows up about four US Marines urinating on some dead Taliban. Yes, this is upsetting and the Marines in question should be punished, but this is not a question of policy or a military out of control.

No, control means that the civilians determine the policies with the military providing the best advice they can, that the military figures out how to implement the policies with the civilians paying attention to the bigger how questions. If some soldier in a very large organization does something wrong, that is a problem but it is not an evidence of the loss of civilian control. The question of civilian control right now is how do the civilians and military handle it.

Deploying thousands of troops will mean that bad things happen, that some soldiers/marines/sailors/air-folk will stray from the intent of their officers. The question really is: did these Marines have officers who created a permissive environment where this kind of behavior was seen to be ok? We don't know. We do know that Rumsfeld and the folks under him did create a permissive environment where abusing prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib not only could happen but would happen.

The pissing incident was clearly not part of US policy. Torture was. I am not excusing or justifying what the Marines did, but making it clear that this incident, until we know more, tells us very little about civilian control of the military.

What it does remind us is: the strategic corporal or private. That, in today's warfare, the actions of a grunt on the ground can have big ramifications.

Still, this action, as stupid and as offensive as it is, is far less odious than what the Taliban does on a regular basis--blowing up innocent kids with no regard for anyone else. Indeed, treatment of prisoners and such--not a Taliban strength. Again, this does not justify or excuse what the Marines did, but just put things into perspective.

Anyhow, this term looks to be fruitful for all kinds of civ-mil issues.

Two Solitudes Indeed

2012-01-13T07:01:00.001-05:00

Interesting piece at the NYT about how Quebec is already sovereign culturally. It focuses on a Quebec francophone mock news show that focuses nearly entirely on Quebec, and the author suggests that this means that Quebec is culturally independent even as (or perhaps facilitating?) the temporary coma in which the political independence movement is.

As a long-time (ten years) resident of Quebec,* I am both not surprised by this analysis and a bit critical. I am not surprised because Quebeckers do think of themselves as a distinct society and have wanted recognition of that fact. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized that reality when he cared about votes here. He does not any longer given his recent trend of decisions destined to annoy folks here, such as appointing unilingual Anglophones to a bunch of spots. Anyhow, Quebec is distinct. Got it.

I am a bit critical because a one hour program or so is not necessarily representative and Quebeckers do care a great deal about what goes on in Ottawa, at least as far as I can tell. They care, for instance, about Team Canada in hockey, not just how miserable the Canadiens are these days. Of course, I don't watch much TV in French, so perhaps the report is correct.

Still, the point of this post is to point folks who are curious about the Quebec/Canada dynamic to an interesting angle. I do think that one of the reasons why sovereignty is not so popular these days is precisely because the Francophones have won all of the big battles, including having heaps of cultural outlets that remain en francais.

Present This

2012-01-12T11:21:00.001-05:00

OK, this is painfully accurate. I am not guilty of all of these, but a few parts that do stand out:

"Pretending to click on the computer ..." job talks for sure.
I used to have juvenile slide transitions, but never read long paras
forgotten fourth bullet--always!
Out of date pop culture references!
Clearly aware of texting.
Typo.
Questions....

HT to Dan Drezner.

Speaking of Coups

2012-01-11T19:52:00.000-05:00

This semester of Civil-Military Relations is getting off to a hot start with .... news about a potential crisis in Chinese civil-military relations. I don't know anything about China or China's military except one thing: officers in the military have gotten deeply involved in the economy. That is, the military owns businesses that are major actors in the economy, enriching the officers and giving them increased power and stakes. Does that sound like any place else? Well, Egypt for one.

There have been too many reminders in the Chinese state media that “the Party controls the gun”—that the PLA reports to civilians—to think that this has not become an issue.

I was just saying in lecture today that it is often hard to see if a genuine crisis exists, as disagreements between military officers and civilians are often part of an exchange of ideas. Again, I don't know much about China, but I do think that we live in interesting times, as they say.

Coup Excuse?

2012-01-11T12:14:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking much of the game of Junta lately because I am teaching Civil-Military Relations this term, and the game with much snark (it is an old game, so they probably used some other word than snark to describe it way back when) nicely simulates coup dynamics.

My favorite part of the game is that several cards and other parts of the game serve as excuses for coups--that one can but does not necessarily need to kick off the second level of this two level game--where one plays out a coup. Since that fateful day in college long ago, when I see something that looks like an equivalent of one of the coup excuse cards of Junta, I naturally say: aha! coup excuse! See these posts: here and here.

So, what is the coup excuse du jour? The Pakistan government has fired the defense secretary, and the military is not pleased. Whether this will cause or forestall a coup remains to be seen. That the head of the military has a say in who is the defense secretary is evidence enough that Pakistan has some significant problems in the area of civil-military relations. You know, in addition to the coups that happen every once in a while when the military starts wars that the civilians don't want.

“The army will not react violently, but it will not cooperate with the new secretary defense,” said a military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the situation.

Lovely. Of course, this is not new news--there has been much pondering over how much control the civilians have these days over the Pakistan military and the intelligence services:

General Lodhi, who was only recently appointed defense secretary, became embroiled in a controversy last month after he submitted a statement in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Defense Ministry stating that the civilian government had no operational control over the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s powerful spy agency. Mr. Gilani accused Mr. Lodhi of overstepping and objected to his blunt statement, a public acknowledgment that, while the intelligence services are technically under the control of the prime minister, they are widely perceived to act independently of the civilian government.

And this gets us to Bin Laden, the Taliban, and the US. The interesting thing here is that the military is admitting something that we have long believed--the civilians do not control the ISI, which has been abetting the Taliban, harming the US and potentially assisting Bin Laden (well, before he was killed). And the civilians are upset that the general, the defense secretary, was honest about this state of affairs. I don't know whether he said it with pride or shame, but saying it out loud was probably not just important but the right thing to do. You cannot fix a problem without admitting there is one.

Anyhow, I have to rush off and teach my Civ-Mil class. One optional component during the term--playing Junta because I do indeed have the game.

The New Momentum

2012-01-10T19:36:00.000-05:00

Thanks to multiple 24 hour news networks, twitter, and all the rest, we must hype every twitch along the way, when just perhaps we do not see politics spin on a pivot every week.

Yes, we have had the rise and fall of the not-Romney's, but there seems to be absolutely no perspective that the electorates of each state might be somewhat different. So, yes, Santorum rose at the end because he was seen by Iowa's social conservatives as being the only genuine social conservative--translation--he has been an extremist for a long time. But New Hampshire is different, known as a state chock full of libertarians (live free or die, right), so Santorum does not play well. Romney will because he lives nearby. Huntsman might do well, Paul might do well because both are less odious to libertarians than the potentially authoritarian Santorum even if some folks might believe that Ron Paul's libertarianism is really totalitarianism disguised.

But then the campaign moves to South Carolina, so we should see Santorum perhaps do a bit better, Gingrich might play a bit better, and Huntsman, despite his funny daughters will be toast. Romney will continue to be the choice of the establishment that just wants to win, and he will be reviled by social conservatives because his pandering efforts are not successful and perhaps because he is a Mormon. Ron Paul may or may not play well.

The only thing I can really guarantee is that the media will over-react to every event, making it seem like big changes are afoot. Looking back to the Iowa caucuses, never a representative sample of anything, note that the Republicans demonstrated one thing above all--ambivalence.

Oh, the other thing I can guarantee: I am not watching the TV coverage nor the debates. I will pay semi-attention view twitter and the internet and newspapers, but I have better things to do with my evenings than watch the sports coverage that is modern political television analysis. Tonight, that better thing is Attack the Block with the Spew family.*

* I finally figured out how to game zip.ca. If you list non-current movies and current movies, they will only send the older movies, no matter the priority you assign. So, our zip list is currently just the movies of the past year that we want to see the most. We will add the older movies in later once we catch up some.

Roland Paris is Smart (not news)

2012-01-10T17:15:00.001-05:00

Roland Paris, soon to be a neighbor (I am moving his way), is a sharp guy, and has posted in various places some interesting stuff, including this look back at the NATO effort over Libya. I don't always agree with him, but that is because I tend to be a stubborn and agreement is boring.

Anyhow, a couple things to add to his analysis:

First, regarding his third asterisk: Russia learned from its mistake, just as the USSR learned not to boycott UN Security Council meetings when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950. Russia is not going to let any resolution that authorizes force against any country for R2P kinds of stuff anymore. NATO/UK/France/US got their one shot. Lesson learned. Oh, and China learned the same lesson.

Second, Roland over-estimates the intra-NATO struggling towards the end of the campaign. Yes, countries wobbled, but once the conflict becomes defined as "we need to do this not so much for country x, but for the credibility/survival/future of NATO," there is enough rallying of support to continue and even escalate (US starts making ground campaign noises in June 1999). So, NATO permits much alliance discord but sallys onward anyway.

The funny thing on this second point is that Liberal IR types (especially institutionalists) tend to argue that institutions become not just the means but the ends of policy. NATO is a perfect example of this. So, does that make me a better Liberal than Roland? Certainly not, just a snarkier one.

Be Careful What You Ask For #2

2012-01-10T16:46:00.000-05:00

British Prime Minister challenged the Scots to hold a referendum as the Scottish National Party had promised during the recent campaign. He thought to do this because independence is not actually that popular among the Scots these days. Well, the SNP decided to call the bluff.

Cameron's logic made sense--that the possibility of secession is a distraction, that a failed referendum would put the topic to bed for awhile (well, Quebec would teach him that it means secession/referendum talk goes away for about ten years and then starts to build again).*

* People ask: why am I leaving McGill and Montreal. Lots of reasons, particularly the attractiveness of the gig at Carleton, but one reason is that the timing is good. My house was bought after the last referendum, so it has gained in value. No new referendum in sight to mess up the value now. Plus I have not yet been on a bridge or in a tunnel when they have collapsed, but I am not sure how long my luck will hold.

However, the problem is that, as Cameron may find out, preferences are not fixed. When the federal government (Canadian or British) start messing around with the rules of the system, it tends to cause those who might be ambivalent about secession to become less ambivalent. Cameron's move here might piss off enough Scots that they get 50% plus one or whatever threshold they need to really create uncertainty and disturb investors.

Oh, and good news (insert sarcasm symbol here), the SNP is already talking of multiple options on the ballot and no vetting by British authorities, so we may get a very opaque, contradictory, confusing (name another antonym to Clarity) outcome.

Jolly good show! Oh, no, not so much. Yes, this is Cameron's gamble--to push for a referendum when it is not popular hoping that the current polls are correct. You would think that the man never participated in an election where the initial polls and the final outcomes were significantly different. Too bad he did not consult Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or (insert random GOP candidate).

The irony in all of this is that Cameron shows he has ignored the lessons that Canada and Quebec could teach about the perils of constitutional debates and the desire to avoid a referendum. Good times.

The good news is that we scholars of secession will soon have another case. A case of what? We don't know yet, but we will certainly have more material. And for that, we can only give thanks to David Cameron. I am sure the folks in Great Britain feel the same right, right?

Testing the EU

2012-01-10T12:36:00.000-05:00

I am a published Euro-skeptic and have been skeptical about the EU here and at Current Intelligence many times. But here's me hoping that the EU finally passes a key test that it might actually have some standards.

Hungary is asking for a line of credit from the EU, which is really kind of funny: credit involves credibility, but using one's super-majority to up-end existing institutions indicates one is not particularly constrained. So, will the EU follow its supposed standards and deny Hungary credit at a time where the Hungarian economy is weak but its politicians are in a very strong position?

I would not bet on the EU spine holding up, but I certainly hope it does. How are the Spew readers betting?

Good Timing for the Last Course

2012-01-09T17:57:00.002-05:00

Today, I started the last course I will teach at McGill: Civil-Military Relations.* The course addresses the issues surrounding a basic problem for all political systems: how do you manage the guys with the guns? In advanced democracies, civilian control is assumed (no one asked the US military in 2000 how Gore v. Bush should be resolved), but poorly understood. The GOP candidates have been competing to be the best at following whatever the generals would recommend, which means military control of the military. Oops.

* It will probably be the first course I teach at Carleton.

To be clear, I am relatively late to this game. Civ-Mil is one of the topics that got me interested in Poli Sci and grad school, but I ended up choosing a topic that would lead me away (ethnic conflict) and forever dominate my destiny. But a year in the Pentagon and then a research project on NATO and Afghanistan have lead to renewed interest in this topic. The joy of being a professor is that one can ask to teach classes to compel one to read the literature in an area one is relatively weak. So, I started teaching Civ-Mil a few years ago to help the writing of the Dave and Steve book, to fill a gap in the curriculum, and because it is mighty interesting.

And holy good timing! 2011 was very much a year of civil-military dynamics around the world (it always is, but much more obviously so). Arab Spring was all about whether the military would follow the commands of their bosses or side with their protestors or split. The variance in outcomes: Tunisia good, Egypt with its coup that might end up being a revolution, Libya with its civil war, Syria with its oppression are largely stories of armies making different choices. Pakistan is feeling coup-ish these days. Plus we have some good old civ-mil in the advanced democracies as admirals in the UK criticize defence cuts, folks in Canada blame the military for the Kandahar decision, and we have all kinds of interesting civ-mil dynamics in the US, with the big budget cuts likely to lead to heaps of efforts by elements of the military to play Congress off against the President.

Of course, most of the stuff I teach is always in play--which is why I teach it. Still, this is a nice way to go out--with a semester of incredibly relevant stuff to make the class most interesting.

The Grass Is Always Greener

2012-01-09T17:35:00.000-05:00

I have long whined about Quebec and its underfunding of Higher education, so it is only fair that I should point out, as I learn more about my new home, that Ontario is trying to compete with Quebec in undermining its future.

First, there is the tuition rebate--students who bought into Ontario universities expecting a certain level of fees are getting a significant chunk back. Which would be ok if the government knew how to pay for it. But they didn't. They really did write a check without thinking about how to pay for it.

Which leads to second, they are cutting research funding to pay for the tuition cuts. Lovely. Because, as we all know, there is no connection between research and teaching. Sure, some would argue otherwise. Oh, I wrote that. Damn. What was I thinking? Oh, that's right, I was thinking that knowledge creation/dissemination might actually be a better multiplier than pretty much any other investment by governments. Silly me. Darn those inconvenient facts.

The guy responsible for this, Premier Dalton McGuinty, is a Liberal. Funny, I used to think that Liberalism went along with Enlightenment, knowledge, education, and such. But if this is the future of the Liberal Party, then I might actually be glad that the party has been marginalized at the federal level. Oh, and the future of the Liberals is also mighty @#$!^*&-ed, despite getting sound advice.

On the bright side, it is nice to know that Quebec and the US do not have a monopoly on politicians who don't understand math, budgeting, or education.

Sorting the Candidates

2012-01-08T11:01:00.000-05:00

Dan Drezner tweeted while watching the 2nd GOP debate in about 12 hours about a question that Gingrich might be asked: which Hogwarts House he would want to be in? So, of course, let me be the voice of the sorting hat this morning since I have nothing better to do (besides heaps of professional and personal chores on which I am quite behind).

Yes, it would be easy to consider them all suitable for Slytherin since they are so ambitious and so willing to do whatever it takes to win, but that would be too easy. Besides, in the books, not all bad people come from Slytherin and not all good people are in Gryffindor.*

* On the other hand, as my wife points out, racists belong in Slytherin, and several of these folks are racist, so take this with a grain of salt (Berty Bot's)

But, obviously, Newt Gingrich would be in Slytherin. He has no interest in ordinary values like fidelity, decency (divorce papers to a wife in the hospital for cancer treatment), etc., but whines when he does not have his privileges (like where he gets to sit on Air Force One) and is pretty ruthless.

Ron Paul would be in Ravenclaw because he thinks he is really smart and really likes ideas, no matter how batsh@#$ they might be.

Mitt Romney would be in Hufflepuff because he has no discernible talents but works really hard. Besides, the guy who wants to be all things to all people belongs in the residual category.

Jon Huntsman might be in Ravenclaw because of his intellect or Gryffindor because he actually is pretty brave, taking a position in the Obama Administration and then choosing to fight against all odds for the nomination of a party that really does not like him. Besides, since much of this seems hereditary (JK is so very British), we would like to have Huntsman's daughters in Gryffindor (which was the only house that seemed to have a good sense of humor).

Rick Perry, well, seems to think he is the chosen one but is not, so where would that put him? Given how inept Draco was in his efforts in Half-Blood Prince, I guess Perry could be Slytherin on that basis. But he is a likely drop-out. Jacob Levy suggested that Perry is actually a squib--born to a wizarding family but having no magical talent (or otherwise).

This leaves us with Rick Santorum, who believes that most people are pretty much damned and his moral superiority means he should have the chance to restrict the rights of others. So, Slytherin! Of course, of all the candidates, he would be most outraged not just at being put in this house but in the Harry Potter context because it is so satanic, pagan, and interesting.

To be clear, there is room in Gryffindor for Republicans: not just Huntsman's daughters but also John McCain who can be misguided (like Percy) but quite bold in pushing against the easy path (anti-torture, mostly); perhaps even the first George Bush (he raised taxes despite the wishes of his base); and, of course, old ~~yeller~~rail-splitter himself, Abraham Lincoln. And there are Democrats who are almost certainly affiliated with Slytherin, including Bill Clinton who had few values but lots of opportunism and used his position to advance his basest interests (and pardoned some truly awful people for cash on his way out the door).

So, where is Obama? The sorting hat would have a tough time since he has many attributes from each of the houses, but I would have to say that it is either Ravenclaw for his intelligence and respect for ideas or Gryffindor since he did push against the grain (voting against Iraq war in 2002) and risked his life, essentially, to become the first African-American president.

So, there you have it. Of course, this could all be a ruse--as any reference to Hogwarts and its houses amplify the hits to my blog big-time! That, or I just haven't satisfied my HP addiction lately.

* Oh, and I didn't sort the candidates who have dropped out--Palin, Cain, Bachmann. Hogwarts didn't have too many drop-outs until the last years when some parents realized (despite the mythology) that it was far more dangerous to be at the school than anywhere else. But the obvious place where they reside now: St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries.

Living Via Observation Bias

2012-01-07T10:37:00.001-05:00

I am both thrilled and displeased by this new piece about Canada's decision to go to Kandahar in 2005-06.

I am thrilled because it indicates something that I have long believed--that Canada didn't want to go any of the places in safer, less controversial Regional Command West because they didn't want to be commanded by the Italians. Since the Italians had/have pretty strict caveats, the Canadian Forces would not have much confidence that they would receive help in a tough battle, especially since Italy had very few helicopters in its Afghanistan inventory.

I am displeased because the article tends to portray the mil to mil planning as something sinister and repeats the canard that only the CF wanted to go to Kandahar even if it gets right the CF's motivations to have more control over how it is deployed. This article omits, like most stories like this, the reality that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was also most interested in deploying to Kandahar for some of the same reasons as the CF. To make a difference, to have more influence. And that was something Paul Martin also wanted--not just to have 40 Canadian flags showing a dispersed force in many UN missions, playing a marginal role in each. Rather, he, DFAIT and DND (CF) all wanted to be in a spot where Canada could have influence on how it was used, and that help would be readily available (especially since years of mistakes meant that the CF had no helos deployable to Kandahar in 2005).

Also, the article makes it sound like UK-CA planning was anti-NATO, which astounds me. Yes, two of the allies' militaries worked together to try to figure out the future--this is Standard Operating Procedure. Few decisions are only first discussed at the North Atlantic Council or the Military Committee. Instead, small groups of allies work together to figure out how to set the agenda, whether it is the top five contributors to the Balkans (the QUINT, also see here) or two countries that often work together (CA and UK had been in same sector in Bosnia). The reality was that in the move to Southern Afghanistan, the Brits did not want to be alone and worked hard to put together a coalition of countries that can work well together in a tough area--and they chose the Canadians, Danes, Dutch, and Australians as reliable partners, along with the US.

Yes, there was wishful thinking that the size of the force would be enough, that the Taliban was not likely to come back in real strength, and so on. Yes, it would play out well for US-Canadian politics, but Canada was going back to Afghanistan one way or another, since supporting the NATO alliance is and has been very much a core Canadian national interest. Yoking the US to multilateral institutions is also a core Canadian national interest. Articles like these make it sound like the CF was alone and was acting against Canadian interests when the reality is very much the opposite--it really was a whole of government effort to get involved (at least CF, DND, PMO, DFAIT--CIDA had other concerns).

To conclude: aargh! Of course, I could be reading into all of this what I want to read. I thought the article was really cool at first when it provided support for my existing beliefs. Then I got upset when it argued stuff that I found objectionable. Another example of biased observation, right? Well, it is for the readers to assess.

The Canada Party

2012-01-07T08:52:00.001-05:00

I love this video--makes fun of US and Canada at the same time (some NSFW language):
[H/T: The Daily Beast]

I have a few quibbles:

I think the lumberjacks of the US can be just as fashionable as those of Canada).
I resemble the remark about the illiterate foreigners from the south stealing Canadian jobs.

Anyhow, given where the Republican race has gone, perhaps Canada could do a better job?

Confusion on the Interwebs

2012-01-07T08:37:00.002-05:00

Last night, I tweeted about the US Navy rescue of a bunch of Iranian sailors from Somali pirates. I marveled at the timing--after a week of brinksmanship and hostilities, it seemed like an astounding coincidence that these pirates would be operating within six miles of a US carrier group. Even more amazing, CJ Chivers, the NYT combat journalist and Tyler Hicks, his photojournalist colleague, happened to be on board the carrier, the USS Stennis.

My marveling was seen as criticism, which was not my intent. I was surprised that the US government was able to engage deftly not just in a rescue but in the public diplomacy spin as well, complete with quotes from the rescued sailors thanking God for the US Navy:

“It is like you were sent by God,” said Mr. Rehman, huddled under a blanket in this vessel’s stern. “Every night we prayed for God to rescue us. And now you are here."

I did ponder about the timing--that this vessel has been captured by pirates about forty days ago, so why now? The story does a good job of noting that boarding an Iranian vessel to look for pirates in the middle of tense relations with Iran is problematic in the extreme, and that the USN reacted when they got a distress call. So, it could have just been happenstance.

But two things stand out: the carrier was only six miles away and CJ Chivers was on it. US Navy officers marveled at the stupidity of the pirates, and, indeed, they seemed to be amateurs in this dangerous enterprise. More strikingly, Chivers got heaps of cooperation from the US Navy to be in the right place at the right time.

To be clear, the US, NATO and partners (this anti-piracy effort is currently led by a Pakistani admiral) have been confronting pirates and rescuing people for at least the past couple of years: remember when Obama gave the SEALs the authority to shoot the pirates holding the one American captain in 2009? What happened yesterday is not that out of the range of normality--interdicting pirates, carefully deploying US naval superiority in a way that minimizes casualties and maximizes the chance for success.

So, I am not saying that there was some secret conspiracy to create an incident. What I am saying is that the USN was prepared to act in such a situation, acted well when the opportunity arose (where there previous opportunities that were nearly as, well, opportune?), marshaling not just naval assets (helicopters, multiple ships), Marines, and so on, but also the media to demonstrate to Iran and the region that the US Navy can do very good things for everyone, in addition to be a thorn in the side of Iran. The timing was very fortunate. I am just always surprised when the US does public diplomacy well, given how badly the US has been at such stuff in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And few times the US seems to have done the hero thing so well--Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman--we learn that there was more/less to it. So, I have learned to be a bit suspicious. However, having Chivers on the scene raises the credibility of the account even as it seems incredibly fortuitous. Chivers did excellent reporting on the Libyan civil war, among his many adventures. Thus, I do believe the accounts here are accurate, but do ponder whether there might have been other chances to rescue these folks that would have been less opportune--no independent media nearby to capture the event.

I think the truly wonderful coincidence that was almost certainly completely coincidental is that the captain of the ship that intervened, the USS Kidd, is a woman. Very cool. Again, I admire how professionally this rescue took place.

Year in IOs Review

2012-01-06T19:36:00.000-05:00

Check out my January piece in Current Intelligence. I am surprisingly not entirely hostile to International Organizations. Comment here or there. Oh, and happy new year, belated!

I Have Strengths?

2012-01-06T18:12:00.001-05:00

One of the fun scenes in the Harry Potter series is when the fake Mad-Eye Moody asks in Goblet of Fire what Harry's strengths are, and Harry basically asks: I have strengths? He realizes he can fly. Oh, and all that other stuff of being brave, resourceful, flexible, loyal and all the rest.

I bring this up because I was asked by the Canadian International Council (TheCIC) via twitter about what Canada's strengths might be in international relations. The CIC had a piece listing economic stability, the diasporas in Canada from elsewhere,and democratic heritage. I was asked whether I agreed, and I said yes, and added history of non-violent dissent, strong ally-ness, steady-friendly population and resource-rich.

Let me explain and qualify, starting with the ones given by CIC and moving on from there.

Economic stability. No doubt it makes Canada more influential as a trading/investing partner since no one is really concerned about the Canadian dollar or other parts of the Canadian economy. Indeed, Canada looks great around the world right now compared to the rest of the advanced democracies.
Diasporas. Their article (need to find the link) mentioned that people from around the world have relatively happy and prosperous relatives in Canada living the ~~American~~ Canadian dream, providing Canada with a good image back in the various homelands. But I would not be a scholar of ethnic conflict if I did not note that some diasporic dynamics breed conflict. As in Tamil Tigers using Toronto as a place for protection rackets to extort money from the Tamil diaspora to find violence back home. I don't know the state of play on that particular example right now since the Tamil Tigers lost their war, but I tend to doubt that the protection rackets closed up shop. So, diasporas can have a positive influence, but not always. Somebody should research systematically when diasporic segments mobilize and mobilize towards extremism (ok, I am doing that. Never mind).
Democratic heritage: Sure, Canada has a good democratic history of elections, alternation in parties, rule of law (outside of Quebec's construction industry), and so on. But I guess I might back off on this a bit, as this is hardly exceptional. There are heaps of model democracies out there so this does not really separate Canada much. Gives Canada some oomph internationally but not too much.

Ok, my additions:

History of non-violent dissent: In an age of Arab Spring, Canada stands out as a country that rarely has any kind of political violence. Elements of the Quebec separatist movement tried violence once, the entire population was appalled, and it is almost unthinkable now that violence would be used to support or oppose secession. Other than hockey-related riots, there is little violence. As a country with diversity and political conflict, such a history cannot be under-valued, and does make Canada a model around the world.
Steady Ally: Canada has a history of fighting alongside its allies when the call comes. Sure, caveats inhibited Canada early in Afghanistan and lately, but Canadians have earned heaps of credit at NATO and elsewhere for fighting in Kandahar and for fully participating in the skies over Libya and the seas nearby. This puts Canada in a pretty small group: the Danes, the British, the French, the Australians (sort of, they are very sneaky as people will realize when the Auerswald and Saideman book comes out), and who else? Yes, the cliche is true--Canada punches above its weight.
Resource Rich: How can anyone forget that Canada has heaps of water, lumber, minerals, and ... oil. Sure, lots of controversy over how pollution-intensive its oil might be, but in a world where oil is increasingly scarce, having enough to export gives Canada some heft in international relations. It is a strength and a weakness.
Immigrant tolerance: I can count the number of countries that have a long history and largely current reality of welcoming significant numbers of immigrants on two fingers. I may be forgetting someone, but it really is the US and Canada. This is somewhat different that diasporic segments reaching out to the homeland. This refers to the idea that in the world, there are two countries where potential immigrants can imagine making a life for themselves without much apprehension or fear. Yes, there is more anti-immigration noise in both countries, but compared to the xenophobic parties of Europe and the policies being imposed, both Canada and the US (even with Arizona and the other tragic nonsense) still are the targets of the dreamers out there. Rightly so, even with the US having less mobility in the past, as one can do well in either country as an immigrant if one can get there (yes, there are more limits now than in the past).

I am sure there are other Canadian strengths (obsession about hockey is not a strength) that I am overlooking, but these will do for now. Canadians are mighty proud and they ought to be, and I say that as an American who merely lives up here. They want their country to matter in the world, and it does so even when it can be costly.*

* Of course, when I want to demonstrate the notion of "conceptual stretching," I still use Canada as a great power. Canada has influence, but it is not a Great Power. But Canadians should not be insulted by this. Instead, they should realize that my comparison with Harry Potter is a very strong compliment.

Real Life Poker in Quebec

2012-01-06T08:19:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Duhamel won the World Series of Poker in 2010, but got robbed of his bracelet (what one gets when one wins an event at the WSOP] and a heap of a cash last month in his home in Montreal's suburbs. It seems to be the case that his ex-girlfriend, Bianca Rojas Latraverse, arranged the robbery, which involved beating Duhamel up. He is ok, bruised, but ok. Yesterday was the bail hearing for Rojas Latraverse and her colleagues in crime.

In reading the account, where she basically says that she plans to support herself through her poker playing while out on bail and the judge looks askance and where the evidence includes heaps of text messages spelling out what she planned to do (rob her ex-boyfriend), I cannot help but wonder how well she can play poker. Unless her courtroom appearance is an elaborate bluff, she does not seem that bright. Perhaps she can announce as she sits down to any poker table at the Montreal casino or in the poker rooms located on the territories of the First Nations folks nearby that she is the robber of the WSOP champ and use that to intimidate the other players at the table? Otherwise, I do not see the wisdom of the strategy of annoying the judge.

Of course, I know of other people who show up fairly inebriated at their trials, so perhaps there is a selection effect: people who break the law and get caught may not be all that bright. Yep, you heard it hear first. The truly smart criminals are safe in their volcano-based lairs, I suppose.

Transitioning Detention

2012-01-06T08:04:00.002-05:00

President Karzai is in the news, calling for responsibility for detention of prisoners to be turned over to Afghanistan in a month. This provokes a couple of reactions and then a realization:

Given how leaky Afghan prisons are (two big jail breaks in Kandahar at the least), it is not clear that the Afghan government has the capacity to hold to folks (not to mention releasing folks that might just not deserve to be released).
Given that Afghan wardens/guards have been suspected of widespread abuse, perhaps Afghanistan is not quite ready yet.

The realization: hasn't this mostly happened already? NATO countries long ago agreed, with various arrangements for monitoring, to hand over any and all detainees with 96 hours. Yes, countries (that would include Canada) would stop handing them over on occasion when they lost confidence (ok, really lost confidence) in how the detainees would be handled. And that has been the case for all of NATO since last summer. Ok, there is one major prison run by the Americans, but it is new (so it is not leaky nor dangerous) and has been monitored. Whatever violations of due process there are not that different from what is going on in the Afghan prisons (not saying that is swell) and little abuse (which the Afghan prisons cannot claim).

Of course, the cause of this is pretty transparent: "The language in Thursday’s statement about Afghan sovereignty and the timing of the announcement prompted speculation that the move was politically motivated." Karzai is in the middle of negotiations with the US over a long term strategic partnership, with detention and night raids being the key issues: Karzai wants Afghanistan to have complete detention responsibility and the end of the night raids, the US wants to be able to put the folks it continues to collect in raids somewhere. So, this sudden demand is part of a bargaining process. Which makes sense since he no longer has to outbid anyone for re-election for a while.

The larger problem remains--the US and NATO want to get out of Afghanistan in part or in whole by the end of 2014 and transfer responsibility for everything (except paying for the whole enchilada) to the Afghans. But fast does not mean a job well done (a key distinction between my wife and I on chores around the house--I move fast, she gets the job done well but slowly).

The funny thing is that the Canadian effort to train the guards at the Saraposa prison seemed to have worked really well. The guards were far less abusive. However, the training did not focus so much on keeping the prisoners in the prison. So much to do in so little time, so you focus on some stuff (the stuff that gets heaps of attention back home) and less on other stuff. I have no doubt that a fast transition of detention would not be good for the prisoners that the Afghan government manages to keep behind bars but probably really cool for those that get out through the front gates or in the tunnels under them.

Basics in Grand Strategy

2012-01-05T16:57:00.000-05:00

The twitter-verse, or at least, one of the corners I follow, had heaps of tweets dedicated to the rollout of the US defense review, with Obama playing a starring role. Apparently, Obama briefing at the Pentagon is a new thing. Anyhow, it raised all kinds of questions, so I thought I would answer them all here. Yes, all of them. Ok, some of them.

Q: Is the review really a review of what the US wants to do, or is it a gloss over the requirements imposed by the fiscal crisis (which, by the way, is mostly caused by the refusal to raise taxes)?
A: Yes, it is a gloss, but it is more significant than that. In the good old days, Grand Strategy meant the overall approach a country took to pursue its interests and match commitments and capabilities. So, having less money than planned (note, less money than planned, not significantly less money than before these wars of the Aughts) means adjusting commitments. Which leads to the next question:
Q: All this talk of the Gulf and East Asia, and cuts to the Army, focusing on the Navy and Air Force means that Europe is taking a back seat in US grand strategy, right?
A: Yes.
A: Oh, you want more than that. Well, to be honest, that change happened the second week of my time on the Joint Staff, when the daily/weekly urgency about the Balkans dissipated as a war in Central Asia and then a second war took the focus and the resources of the US. The Balkans became an afterthought. Other than providing a handy set of bases for the Libyan enterprise, Europe has not been a place that American defence planners have spent much time thinking about.
Q: But what about Russia?
A: Good question. Well, my guess is that Russia is not seen as a conventional military threat to Europe right now or the near future. That European forces could potential deter the Russians. Ok, that makes us both laugh. With Europeans cutting their defense budgets in ways that do far more harm to readiness (as in: no more fighter planes or no more armor), Europe is not going to be that fit to take care of itself. But it has as much economic capability (once the Euro crisis settles down) to provide defense for itself, or at least supplement an American effort to "spoil" an attack. Plus the reality is that any Russian invasion of Europe would require invading countries we do not care about unless we are stupid enough to let Ukraine into NATO. Oh, never mind.
Q: Back to the core of the new strategy, what is this one war and one other thing?
A: The previous strategy had the goal of fighting two major wars at the same time and winning both. The new strategy is not that new but a bit more honest: fight one major war and have enough left over to deter adversaries and even mess with the plans of one attacker.
Q: Is this realistic?
A: Actually, yes. That is, even during the two wars being fought for the past ten years, a significant hunk of American fighting capacity was barely touched, more or less. This would be the Navy and the Air Force. Sure, they came in handy at times, but for most of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, the US still had enough fighting power to be someone else's Air Force and Navy (such as South Korea's) to challenge the adversary. Plus we have those handy nukes that do some deterring of some kinds of attacks as well.
Q: But isn't the army going to be mighty small now?
A: Smaller is not small. It will still be one of the largest armies in the world. And larger than other post-war US armies. No, a smaller army would not be able to do another Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. But perhaps tying the President's hands so that we don't do that again is not entirely a bad idea. For instance, any President would have to ponder what it would really take to invade Iran and ask what else might happen. And then realize that invading Iran is an incredibly stupid idea. Yes, a President Santorum could not make such a calculation, but I am pretty confident that such an outcome is unlikely in the extreme.* The words of former SecDef Gates are still ringing about how stupid it would be to engage in another land war in Asia (he must have seen Princess Bride recently).

* I am conflicted between the joy that would such a train wreck a Santorum nomination would be and how embarrassing it would be.

Q: This means that the era of counter-insurgency is over, right?
A: Wrong. As long as the US maintains significant conventional superiority (and this budget will not end that era), its adversaries are likely not going to make Hussein's mistake of putting a conventional force in the field and hoping the US does not shred it. Instead, insurgency will be the strategy of choice. Well, that and terrorism. The danger in having steep cuts is that the military will lose heaps of people with lots of experience and expertise in such warfare. But then again, given how long these wars went on, I am pretty sure that there will be plenty of folks left in the Army and Marines who have significant COIN and CT experience. Even if the Army wants to forget everything it learned. Plus, well, politicians have a way of putting the military in places they don't want to be. And a stabilization operation can turn into an insurgency under the ~~right~~ wrong conditions.
Q: Is China really the threat that the US should be focused on? Doesn't this strategy make the Pacific the priority? Is this wise?
A: Maybe not, yes, and yes.
Q: Huh?
A: China is not going to attack Pearl Harbor anytime soon, and it does lack some basic capacities to dominate the Pacific. War is not likely soon or in the medium term. However, being prepared is one of the better ways to avoid war. Further, it is a matter of priorities and threats. Is the Pacific a more uncertain, less institutionalized environment than the Atlantic and the Mediterranean? Yes. No doubt. Europe has its problems, including an increasingly authoritarian Hungary (oh my!), but we have a much more stable status quo there. The fears are about whether Germany will exert enough leadership, not whether various actors within Europe will drop out of NATO and start attacking others (well, except for the constant Greece-Turkey thing). In Asia, there is China, making threats to its neighbors, North Korean being North Korea, lots of other hotspots, and, oh by the way, India is in PACOM's area of responsibility. Plus Europe is closer and has much more infrastructure so the US could surge there more quickly and more effectively. Again, less resources (less than previously planned/dreamed) means prioritizing, and the Pacific is simply of greater concern.
Q: Does this mean that Mearsheimer's Offshore-Balancing is the way forward?
A: I would hate to say that Mearsheimer is right, but, well, fu@#$. Maybe he is. Maybe the US will focus its efforts on not fighting land wars and spend its effort trying to deter bad guys via sea and air-based power. Double damn. But I am pretty sure that the US will still feel compelled to put troops on the ground in places Mearsheimer does not care about for stakes he does not care about and not for the reasons Mearsheimer suspects (ethnic lobbies, imperfect marketplaces of ideas, lying politicians), but because the world is a complex place, and with great power comes .... great opportunities to get involved in places. Does this mean that offensive realism is correct? Well, no. Off-shore balancing and offensive realism might seem perfectly compatible to some people, but other theories might also be compatible with off-shore balancing (including defensive realism, liberal institutionalism and who knows what else). But that is an academic debate for another day.
Q: Why did Obama show up at the Pentagon?
A: Um, it provides lots of cool stories. Or at least I think so. My students may think otherwise.

The Alternative is Worse

2012-01-05T09:11:00.000-05:00

Either you age or you die. No other choice so far.

From basicinstructions.net.

I have measured my aging mostly by the age of my students and of my frisbee opponents:

I knew I passed key markers in time when my undergrads were born in the 1980's and their first international political memories were of Iran-Contra, bombing Libya (the first time), the Berlin Wall falling.
The second major marker was when I realized that I was playing against a team where I could have fathered every single player after I had graduated college.
The third marker was when I realized my students were less than half my age, so that they were born when I was in college or after (late 80's).
Now, my undergrads were born after Yugoslavia fell apart and 9/11 is their first major memory.

Good thing the 40s are the new 30s, right? I don't mind aging as the alternative is undesirable to say the least. But I do understand now why there are so very few professional athletes who play past 40. I can but prefer not to play ultimate on consecutive nights. Well, I wouldn't mind playing every day, but my body prefers to space things out.

Mostly, I agree with the cartoon above--things are better now, despite the best efforts of politicians and media to tell us otherwise: less crime, less violence, less tolerance of intolerance (despite 25% of Iowa caucus voters choosing Santorum), and so on. The glass is always half-filled, but looking back reminds me that it looks half-full to me, not half-empty.

On the other hand, due to a friend's facebook challenge, I learned that the #1 song when I was born was:

Holiday Regrets

2012-01-04T21:23:00.001-05:00

We were in the Boston area over Thanksgiving and could have stopped by Lowell to see this:

Alas, we did not, as my daughter was focused on another show at the time. If only we had ditched the kid..... Maybe down the road. I would say the Reduced Shakespeare Company is not going anywhere, but, of course, they are. So, perhaps our paths will intersect again.

Not Romney Chronicles, Episode 37

2012-01-04T16:30:00.000-05:00

Last spring and summer, I blogged quite frequently and chatted elsewhere that the outbidding in the GOP would be very entertaining. I had no idea how right I was going to be. Iowa has produced three "leaders" if one means by leader someone who has somewhat more votes than the rest. In all other definitions of the word, the pack of three lacks heaps of leadership.

Anyhow, we now have a politician that seems most electable but most reviled by the base: Romney. So that, the past few months we have seen a rotation of "Not Romney's" soar and then decline in the polls.

We have a candidate who has the most appealing personality but has a track record of insane and racist views: Ron Paul.

And we have a candidate so homophobic and now so anti-sex (banning contrasceptives?) that to think of Santorum as a serious candidate is often seen as a prelude to a joke. Yep, Dan Savage has provided the gift that keeps on giving. If that were not bad enough, Santorum's foreign policy positions seem aimed to produce war, as if we have not had enough of that lately.

What can make sense of the outcome last night? Well, here is a pretty sensible analysis--that Santorum was the only one ~~left~~ remaining who had solid credentials on social policy for the hard, hard right wing of the Republican party. Caucuses are entirely about who shows up, since it involves meetings and waiting. If you are passionate, you will wait around for your chance to have a say. If you are not passionate, you stay home. Voting is far easier than caucus attendance.

So, who is passionate? Those who hate sex. Oops, I don't really mean that. So, who is passionate? Those who are in denial about their homosexual inclinations? Oops, just because many gay-hating Republicans have been caught in various gay sex-seeking eefforts does not mean that all homophobia is driven by denial. Anyhow, the point is that Santorum played better than thrice divorced Gingrich, than the seriously bat-@#$#@ crazy Bachmann, and the fatally stupid Perry. I mean, Cain also played well for a while, and his foreign policy stances made only marginally less sense than Santorum's.

The Iowa high school musical that we call the first bellwether process (of about two or twenty) of the 2012 election produced a very close race where no candidate received heaps of support, so three are left bragging about not being fourth or fifth. What did this really show? That the GOP is so messed up that 1/4 of those who showed up supported an unelectable individual with a lousy record in the Senate and a history of saying incredibly hateful stuff. That Santorum did so well (again 25% is well) is an indictment of the party. But then again, this is not the average voter, not the average Iowan voter, not the average Iowan Republican voter, but the folks on the outer third (Santorum is not getting the median voter) of the Iowan Republican voter who shows up at a caucus.

The truly funny thing is that Romney is clearly the choice of the "left wing," if you will, of the GOP in Iowa, then Ron Paul is the candidate of the median voter. Raises heaps of questions of the meaning of median. Oy! The closeness of the outcome and the cycling before it reveal one consistency--that the Repubicans really do not like their candidates very much and have a hard time figuring out which one is least unattractive. Sure, you had some enthused supporters last night on TV, but that was selection bias in the extreme.

I have tried not to pay attention to this race, but I also rubber-neck when I see a car crash on the side of the road. Same thing.

The Video Challenge

2012-01-04T15:39:00.003-05:00

Dan Drezner tweeted a challenge today: come up with a video that best captures American grand strategy. I posted this one:

Why did I choose this one? Because a simplistic characterization of American grand strategy would, of course, focus on the threat of force, rather than something more complex about managing the slings and arrows of outrageous globalization. The new or not so new defense strategy of having enough of a military to fight one war while deterring or spoiling an adversary's plans requires a "bigger knife" not to use but to dissuade challengers.

Such a grand strategy also plays to the US's current strength--dominating conventional war through bigger and better weapons. In the video, Croc Dundee is confronted not by one mugger but several (and one can read race into this if one wants, since the mugger was African-American, and most threats to the US are by non-white folks).* His big knife spoils the plans of each of them. Sounds like a good use of resources.

* Of course, if one thinks of GOP candidates with outrageously poor judgment as the biggest threats to American security, then things change a bit now that Cain is out of the mix.

The video also illustrates the stakes: leggy model types with mediocre acting skills but with heaps of loyalty (Linda K is still married, apparently, to Paul Hogan). The parallel in US grand strategy is what? A cool knife, a nice jacket, a neat hat, and a beautiful woman? To have it all? Tis the American dream.

So, that was my first shot at a youtube clip that would exemplify the new American grand strategy. And yes, this is completely out of character since I am not relying on Harry Potter nor Star Wars (um, the US is either the Old Republic or the Empire, and neither are desirable models).

I am looking forward to seeing what Dan collects.
Updated: This is what Dan collected.

Delaying the Inevitable

2012-01-04T08:43:00.001-05:00

This post, about how doctors treat their own serious medical challenges, is most instructive. It makes sense to look at how the experts treat themselves (although considering how political scientists do politics within their departments or within political systems might cause us to think otherwise).

Doctors, at least anecdotally, are not enthusiastic about prolonging their own lives with extensive treatment. I am not sure how mainstream this guy's views really are; is CPR really that bad?

Still, doctors seem to accept death when the time comes. I hope I am that brave since I do not believe in an afterlife. It is all or nothing, but I think prolonging the all is probably worse than the nothing. I do know that we spend far more money on medical care on the last couple of years rather than we should, that more $$ should go to prevention and early medical intervention. As long as old people vote more than kids, that probably will not change much. But, if we educate people better about their choices and ignore the idiots who talk about death panels, we might get less painful processes for some.

Not Alone in Narcissism

2012-01-03T19:01:00.001-05:00

The folks at William and Mary have had a series of surveys about the IR profession for the past decade or so, know as the TRIP project. The most recent results for the US were released on Foreignpolicy.com today. Happy New Year of Navel-Gazing! I was a big fan of TRIP even before I got drafted to help with the Canadian franchise. I will report the survey results of Canada once I have them. Pre-draft, I was on a panel at last year's ISA that did all kinds of fun stuff with the data they had collected.

I don't have any comments on their rankings of MA programs since I have no clue about them (but will next year once I have a year teaching at an MA program).

But let me take a few issues with the rankings of PhD programs and the stuff that either the TRIP people or the FP folks put with the list.

In brief, the list is:

Harvard
Princeton
Stanford
Columbia
Yale
Chicago
UC San Diego
UC Berkeley
Michigan, MIT

Some qualifiers here--this seems not to be about Poli Sci programs but about IR programs (the giveaway is the listing of IRPS at UCSD and not the poli sci dept), but I am sure the folks surveyed probably did not consistently make that distinction. So, you can read this as top Poli Sci/IR programs.

I would probably rank Stanford ahead of Princeton and then Harvard, but, of course, this raises the question about what the hell is being ranked? Scholarship (quality? quantity?)? Quality and placement of their PhD students? I am not sure. I tend to care more about breadth and depth of a program (which also means for IR--how good are their comparativists) and whether and where they place their students. If one is ranking IR Phd programs, then it really is about the outcomes, right? And yes, we have lousy data about placement, despite some new efforts to get honest about it. We lie less than law schools, but that is not saying much. My impression has been that Stanford has consistently produced some of the most interesting, well-published, and influential graduate students. More so than Princeton, more so than Harvard, but I am not as well versed in the quality of new phd students, so take this with a grain of salt.

I would rank UCSD fourth because, well, that is where I got my degree. So, it makes me feel good. Oh, that's right, people will tend to rank the schools they came from highly. Why? Self-esteem. I also have more information about the place, including the quality of their PhD students since I keep meeting them. I also remember their affiliation more than the impressive students I meet from other programs. Moreover, UCSD's IR folks are mighty deep because it is not just IR/PS but those folks and the IR folks (and Comparativists) in the department. My diss committee included folks from both parts.

I would probably put Michigan next--they are very, very good at what they do, and what they do is pretty central, if the stereotypes are still accurate--mostly high tech quantitative work. Yale is stronger in comparative than IR. Columbia would probably be next--they have a very good crew of IR folks. Chicago, well, I would not rank so highly as they tend to drive away some of their more eclectic folks, and because their primary flavor of IR is quite narrow--Mearsheimer's realism. In the past, they produced great IR folks, but I would need some prompting to remember who they have produced recently.

Berkeley simply should not be on the list. It is simply not a top ten IR program unless you count comparative very, very much as the heart of your program. While the listing of "Stars" on the FP page is probably fairly ad hoc (David Lake should be listed for UCSD, for instance, especially since he was the advisor the guy behind the TRIP project [quite the party foul, Mike!]), it is telling that Berkeley is the only one of these ten listed that has only one star listed. Obviously, UCB has other excellent scholars, but who has been very productive the past ten years in IR besides Robert Powell and Barry Eichengreen?

Instead, I would probably list Minnesota, Ohio State, and George Washington in some order as they have heaps of sharp folks doing interesting work, and OSU produced one of my co-authors, so there you have it (oh, and Stanford and UCSD produced a couple of my other co-authors, so now my ranking scheme is becoming obvious). Oh, and Cornell perhaps. By the way, Dartmouth might be listed here if only it had PhD students, as it, along with William and Mary, has an incredibly strong IR crew.

About the stars:

The Stanford list had me giggling. Condi Rice! Hee, hee. If one is asking about Phd programs, the real value in stars is in supervision of Phd students and getting them placed. My guess is that Rice had a slim record before she became the worst National Security Adviser in US history and has not accumulated heaps of phd students since leaving government. I doubt that Fukuyama supervises heaps of Stanford Phd students either. But someone has been doing well with the ones I have bumped into over the years.

Harvard and Princeton have the biggest names listed as their stars. Colombia should list Jack Snyder since he has supervised numerous folks. Yale's list is reveals that someone who is not at TRIP made the list of stars: Bruce Ackerman is not an IR prof. Yale's real strength is in its recent IR hires and in their comparativists. One of the schools in the this list has a "Star" whose most central work has been ripped apart in APSR and elsewhere for basic selection bias problems. Hmmm. Again, plenty of IR folks at UCSD not listed as stars but should be. Michigan should have James Morrow and Allan Stam listed as stars.

Other info on the page:

Time to graduate: almost honest here. Most of the schools list 5-6 years, when 6-7 is more realistic (fieldwork does take time). Much longer than UK. But then again, most US Phd programs do not count the MA coursework students received elsewhere. So the time includes the 2-3 years of courses and exams and then the dissertation research.

The good news is that all of these places seem to give guaranteed funding for five years or so. In my day, it was four years of guaranteed, and uncertainty but still probably funding for a couple more. What does funding mean? No or little tuition and then a stipend of some sort--enough to live on as a graduate student but not super-comfortably.

Entering class size--that is interesting info. Bigger programs mean less attention, more weeding unless there is a big number of profs. Again, this is a deceptive list since the UCSD list, for instance, is for the entire political science dept, with 1/4-1/3 being IR.

Anyhow, interesting results, and notice I have already applied wuffle's law. Check out the rest of the stuff that they are reporting. I may have more thoughts as I go through the rest of this stuff.

A Discourse on Degrees

2012-01-03T16:56:00.001-05:00

M.A, Ph.D, M.Phil? No, of course not. It is time for the annual Fahrenheit was right post. I had to go downtown today because I had to pick up my new Permanent Residency card (every five years or until I go full Canadian, eh?). So, I went to school as well to do some paperwork (see aforementioned blogpost on recommendations).

And ... yuck! Today was the first semi-brutally cold day of the winter, and we were poorly adjusted since winter has been quite warm here (more ice than snow on the slopes). Sure, it did not duck down below 0F (-18C), but it got close. And, as Mr. Fahrenheit set 0 at the temp where things get damned uncomfotable, I felt pretty darned uncomfy today.

Sure, it allowed me to test out my new jeans with flannel on in the inside (thanks to Mrs. Spew's mom's holiday gift),* but it also reminded me that the winters here in Canada have a surprising impact: I wear out the zippers on my winter coats. This time, both the metal holding the tag one uses to pull on the zipper and the zipper itself are damaged. The zipper keeps unzipping from the top back to 3/4s, which, in weather like this, ain't good. Do North Face or other brands have more reliable zippers than Columbia or does Canada's winter defeat them all?

* Mrs. Spew noted on the previous word could that she did not appear, but I am pretty sure she would rather not appear often than be discussed in my blog on a regular basis (plus the way the word cloud worked, discussion of her would be Mrs. and Spew but not Mrs. Spew).

Yes, I am looking forward to my next job, which should allow me to go from my house to my garage to a parking garage to a tunnel to my office, with very little walking in near or sub 0F. Of course, that would leave poorly adjusted for skiing, but then again, there is less skiing near Ottawa, one of the big downsides of the move.

Letters of Pain and Suffering

2012-01-03T11:29:00.001-05:00

Grading remains the worst part of the job of being a prof (which, of course, is a great job). But writing letters of recommendation comes in second. They come in two flavors--for PhD students looking for academic jobs and undergrads applying for grad school.*

* Next year, I will have to start to learn how to write letters for MA students looking for real jobs.

Grad schools have mostly gone to electronic submissions (with several Canadian schools still stuck in the past including my present and future employers! aargh!). So, now we profs whine about the different web-based systems:

Why ask us each time for our mailing address and phone numbers? No one ever calls us for these kinds of recommendations (real jobs, academic jobs sometimes).
Why email us a password and then make us set up a new password? GWU and Georgetown have the exact same web-based system, but I had to do this twice.
Menus for the ritual "is this student top 5% or top 10% or whatever for attribute x" are inferior to buttons, which we can zip through.

Am I forgetting anything? Well, besides pondering whether these letters actually have heaps of meaning down the line?

What do my academic readers think?

Update:
My commenters (thanks, Ron!) hate the online systems much more than I do. I hate how they are implemented, but I much, much prefer even these annoying systems to doing it all by paper. Paper gets lost, paper forms may not make into the correct envelope, it means envelops are part of the process, signing the back of envelopes to prove that the letter is mine can be awkward, and one has to write on the form lots of the same stuff that is annoying to type into a web-form. I got into the habit of stapling business cards to the part of the form asking for address, phone number and such. So, yes, we hate the web-forms, but I still prefer them to the old system (which I still have to do, especially when some Canadian schools are involved).

Spew Point of Pride: Few Extra Clicks

2012-01-02T10:46:00.002-05:00

One of the things I will never do with this blog: purposely come up with a list that requires heaps of pageviews to get the complete list. I only insert a break and compel clicks to see more for two reasons:

The post is really long, and I want to break it up so that readers of my blog can see multiple posts at the same time.
The post involves a spoiler for some book/movie/television program.

Of course, it is easy for me to have some principles on this since I am not making money per pageview. Indeed, I am not making any money at all. Yes, blogspot makes easy to have ads attached, but I have refrained. I don't need the pennies. I guess if there was some money being made, then I might feel the need to increase the click-rate by coming up with slideshows and lists that require eleven clicks for a top-ten list. Until I succumb to temptation, the Spew will remain a minimal click zone.

My easiest New Year's Resolution--not to page through the gratuitous slideshows at Foreignpolicy.com (otherwise, one of my favorite sites) and other places.

Narcissism in 2012

2012-01-01T17:42:00.000-05:00

I do like a good word cloud. This may not be a good one.

I am not clear how much (how far back) of my blog is included in this. Funny that Netherlands is larger than Libya. I need to do more work to get rid of the ordinary words. Your thoughts?