Crystalizing Moments

I was struck today about how long term problems suddenly become addressed in a semi-sudden (or apparently so) surge of collective action.  The trigger for my thinking: purple tights.  Not a reference to one of my favorite picture books when my kid was younger.  Nope, my kid is wearing purple tights to school tomorrow since she is allowed/encouraged to accessorize with purple stuff tomorrow as part of an anti-bullying and especially anti-bullying of gay people campaign.  As I discussed with her, teenage gays committing suicide is not new at all, but has become a bigger cause this fall after some publicized suicides and new energy given to the tolerance movement. 

The anti-concussion effort in the National Football League (which I have discussed repeatedly here) has gained new energy this week after a series of particularly nasty helmet-to-helmet hits.  Now the question is not so much keeping guys off the field (although the Tuesday Morning QB suggests that some should not return anytime soon at all) but penalizing the hitters with suspensions.  Even Rodney Harrison, who was an exceptionally hard-hitter as a safety (an ironic position name), has come out for more suspensions and penalties.  The NFL seems to be a bit more serious this week, but we shall see.  The league and the media still glorify the really hard hits.  While I think I understand that a hard hit can lead to a fumble or a dropped ball, perhaps football can still be football without quite this level of crunching.  We shall see.

Mine safety is also getting a bit more attention.  The Chilean story, an amazing one, is not the first time that miners have been at risk.  It is an incredibly dangerous occupation.  It does seem that there is a bit of momentum pushing back against deregulation. 

Anyhow, for all of the flaws of Gladwell's work, there do seem to be tipping points--that changes in attitudes, awareness and/or political power can produce some significant changes in the politics of things.  Of course, I am hoping that the US does not tip so far the wrong way in reaction to these harsh economic times....

Non-Strategic Thinking UK style

Ok, so the Canadians may not have thought that seriously about what the F-35 would be used for.  Well, as I discussed earlier, the Brits seem to be cutting their military without thinking that hard about for which purposes they might use their armed forces.  And now it gets worse.  They are making such deep cuts in their army that they will no longer be so special--that they will not be able to put more than a brigade into a long-lasting commitment.  This makes them pretty ordinary to the US, which will ultimately have significant repercussions for British influence.  Hard choices must be made, certainly.  Not clear that having carriers but no ability to sustain land operations makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps the UK is moving back to being only a naval power, like it used to be a long time ago.  Of course, having a 25 ship navy with carriers sans planes may not be much of a naval power either. 

All Students Looking for a Law School Recommendation

Watch this:


I have so many students seeking recommendations for law school.  I wish this video would deter them. It will not.  My efforts to dissuade them (in person or via my blog) almost always fail.  Of course, it may be because i provide few good alternatives.


HT to Dan Drezner's tweet for this.

Surging and Talking

This op-ed suggests that the surge in Afghanistan is working--that there is significant pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan.  It also suggests that the Taliban have already calculated that whatever Obama decides next year, it is not going to mean a large or complete withdrawal.  Together, this means that this is the time to talk to the Taliban, as they are now in a position of increasing weakness.

Hmmm.  I do think that one does need to talk to the adversary, as civil wars end in two ways usually---decisive victory or a negotiated settlement and the former is simply not going to happen.  But, I find it a bit hard to believe that the Taliban is convinced of the resolve of the US.  American allies are unsure, particularly Karzai, so I am not so sure that the enemy is expecting the US to stick around for a long time.

On the other hand, other dynamics might be mattering:

Personal connections, which have been essential to the cohesion of the movement, have been broken by the deaths of many mid-ranking commanders and their replacement by younger and lesser-known successors. Regional and local commanders have become more independent and less likely to follow orders that go against their personal interests; for example, in the way that they raise and use money, often keeping it for themselves rather than passing it back to their leaders for redistribution. Following Afghan tradition, local commanders are building independent fiefs that they will be reluctant to relinquish.

This is good news and bad.  Fragmentation of the Taliban would make it somewhat more likely that pieces of it will turn and settle with the government, especially if they are mostly interested in being bought off.  But as the new generation of scholarship on civil war indicates, the more actors one has to bargain with, the longer the war lasts.

Of course, the real question is what would the Taliban elements need in an settlement?  Slots in government?  Just payoffs?  Just hunks of Afghanistan?  The devil is more than in just the details but in the major pieces of any agreement: what happens to the foreigners (NATO and AQ)? how is power alloted? who gets to keep what weapons?  How is the government altered.

None of these are easy questions, and, as someone at a conference I was at this weekend remarked, these kinds of negotiations take years.  Will the US and its allies be able to keep up the pressure, if such pressure is already sufficient?  The article asserts that the current level of pressure is sufficient.  I am not so sure, and I am more doubtful that it can be maintained.

Story of the Week to Follow: A-Stan Police Reform

At Slate, Christopher Beam is doing several stories on efforts to build an Afghan National Police.  This is one of  the big keys to success or failure in Afghanistan.  The police have been a huge problem in Afghanistan (even worse than you can imagine) with not just corruption in the form of bribes but abuse of power.  This article depicts the challenges pretty well

 The ANPs could use the help. They have a reputation as the delinquents of the Afghan National Security Forces. Schooling levels are low. Corruption abounds. Drugs and misbehavior are commonplace. It's no secret why: When the Taliban fell to coalition forces in late 2001, the new government's priority was national security, which meant beefing up the Afghan National Army. The ANA thus got its pick of Afghanistan's best warriors. Unlike the Army, which has a long pre-Taliban history, the ANP was starting from scratch. And in many ways, it still is.

 Germany agreed to lead the ANP effort at first, which, to me, is kind of a joke since the Germans could not operate in the South or East.  And in the North, they can only mentor the ANP on base, which is pretty ineffective.

The MPs, on the other hand, seem to be suited for the task:

Military police, by contrast, are built for diplomacy, he says. They work in police departments back home. They're used to community policing—going on patrols, maintaining a presence in the neighborhood, asking folks what the police could be doing better, and generally getting to know the people they're protecting. In theory, they're ideal counterinsurgents.

 Well, actually, the MPs are not ideal counterinsurgents--the local police, if they are good, are the ideal COIN-operators.  Which makes this effort so important.

Keep following this series this week.  I know I will.




*  I like the five S's for encountering potential threats, reminds me of the five d's of dodgeball.
** Interesting take of where the MPs are in the military hierarchy.  Reminds me of the Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child (damn addicting series of thrillers).

All We Need is Love?

Pondering Sonny and Cher:

Reaping What You Sow

The Awakening is, as many of expected, starting to fall apart.  The Sunnis who turned against the Extremists and sided with the US during the Surge are now starting to return to the Extremists.  Why?  There are many arguments, but the clearest reason to do so is that they do not trust the Iraqi government. 

"The defections have been driven in part by frustration with the Shiite-led government, which Awakening members say is intent on destroying them, as well as by pressure from Al Qaeda. The exodus has accelerated since Iraq’s inconclusive parliamentary elections in March, which have left Sunnis uncertain of retaining what little political influence they have and which appear to have provided Al Qaeda new opportunities to lure back fighters"

As I have been saying for years, the question is how will the majority treat the minority?  And as I have been arguing more recently, the question is not so much of state capacity (what the government can do) but restraint and assurance--can governments assure the populace that it will not be a threat?  The Iraqi government has been breaking promises made to the Sunnis that switched sides.  This bodes poorly for the future of Iraq, and there is little the US or anyone else can do now to get the Iraqi government to change course.

This Week in Dysfunctional Quebec Politics

I missed several days of Quebec news while hanging out at Mount Holyoke for a conference on "Building Coalitions to Build States."  And a theme emerges: none of the parties here look too good.

• Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party that runs at the federal level) was in DC, trying to sell his cause with the twin messages of the inevitability of a successful referendum on independence and on how good it would be for the US.  The coverage suggests that he was not terribly convincing on either score.  Regarding the latter, it has been historically the case that American leaders have wanted to stay out of this issue, but have also indicated that they would prefer for Canada to stick together.  Quebec separatists tend to forget that the American Civil War continues to make secession rather unpopular.
• The Parti Quebecois (the provincial separatist party) was riding high until this week.  News of a potential third party emerging proved to be most distressing.  A possible center-right Francophone party immediately polled as well as the PQ.  The striking thing is that the new party would be essentially putting separatism away, trying to focus on governance.  That a non-separatist Francophone party would immediately divide the PQ vote suggests that much of the support for the PQ is not about separatism but (justified) frustration with the province's Liberal Party.  This means that pushing on separatism would actually not be the way to go.  Hmmm.
• Which brings us to the Liberals of Quebec.  They have called a special session of the National Assembly to push through the reforms to the language laws governing education (which I have discussed frequently here).  One columnist here has tried to figure out whether this tactic reflects that the party is sneaky or stupid, arguing for the former.  That is, did the Liberals screw up the legislative calendar or are they trying to sneak the legislation through in a way that minimizes controversy?  I would argue it is a mix of both, as they have to figure out a way to sell out their Anglophone supporters not too obviously without providing too much meat for the PQ to chew over.  The Liberals have clearly governed too long, making everyone tired of them, and looking for a change.  The problem, as the discussion above suggests, is that the alternative (the PQ) is not very attractive.  

While the political ads in the US (I saw more than a few while in Massachusetts) are pretty depressing, I find voting there to be far less depressing than if I had the right to vote here. 

It Could Be Worse: We Could Be British

The budget crises at American and Canadian colleges and universities could be worse--the British are cutting not just to the bone but beyond.   80% cuts in government support for higher ed?  And suddenly?  Expect more classes in North American to be taught in British accents.  But, of course, they will face steep competition from already glutted job markets.  What will become of UK schools?  Tuition hikes are inevitable.  If the govt refuses to lift caps on tuition while doing this, then it is hard to imagine the damage done to their universities. 

While cuts anywhere hurt, it has been made abundantly clear over the years, that money spent on higher education is a sound investment, leading to growth in the neighborhood as well as building intellectual capital for the next generation.  These cuts basically mean that the UK is going to undermine its future far worse than what has been happening on my side of the Atlantic.

All I can say is good luck to my friends in these nasty times.

Too Many Tests?

Check out this site.  It depicts the nuclear bomb explosions over time.  Pretty dramatic.

A Stranger in a Strange Land

I am at a conference at Mount Holyoke, an all-women's school nestled in the hills and trees of western Massachusetts.  As I walked around yesterday during one of the short breaks, I was very aware of being a distinct minority on campus.  I rarely saw any other males while I was walking around.  I did see many more campus cop cars than I usually do on an average college campus, but could not tell if the cops were males or females.  But I did wonder why the patrols were so frequent.  My self-centered-ness made me think that they might have been eyeing me as I was an anomaly. 

The funny thing is that, despite the constant vigilance (Mad-Eye Moody's catchphrase, or, at least, his imitator's) potentially aimed against me, I feel more secure than normal.  I left my computer bag in the conference room when we went off to lunch rather than being paranoid about the possibility of theft.  Why I am so "chill" about computer security?

• It might just be the idyllic quality that this beautiful small college generates a relaxed attitude about security. 
• Or it might be an unconscious idea that women are not as acquisitive (thief-ish) as males.  
• Or it might be that with my use of dropbox (www.dropbox.com), I don't really worry anymore since my data exists somewhere else.  But I love my new laptop, so its theft would be a drag. 

I don't know.  Too many explanations, not enough observations.  Classic social science challenge.

All I do know is that this is an incredibly beautiful campus: lakes, creeks, trees in full fall color, hills, nice buildings, huge campus for a small liberal arts college.  And the students are very smart.  A few of them joined us last night for the reception and dinner.  They asked sharp questions.  In sum, an impressive place, even with frequent police patrols. 

You Know You Have Made It When

The Simpsons disses you:



I don't mind this at all, since an attitude that McGill is the Harvard of Canada does no one any favors except the t-shirt makers.  As I have said before, the students are terrific at McGill and I would match them with those anywhere else.  But thinking that a school is already number 1 tends to create an attitude that changes are not required.  Why fix what isn't broken?  Um, because you can do better.  Instead, there tends to be a satisfaction with how things have always been done because, hey, we are the Harvard of Canada.

So, if the Simpsons can just shake this attitude just a bit, it would be a good thing.

Ask The Reader: Canada and the Security Council

Much blaming now for who messed up Canada's application to be on the UN Security Council.  I scoffed yesterday, as I fell back on my UN-skepticism.  But before asking the reading about the relevance of this all, we might want to think why Canada fell short in votes. 
Possibilities include:

• Domestic disunity.  I find this pretty dubious, as most voting countries probably were not aware of Ignatieff's stance.
• Friends of Dubai: The timing of the vote is pretty bad, given the conflict with the UAE over Emirates Airlines and Camp Mirage.  
• Countries at sea level: Canada has not been making progress on the reduction of global warming emissions.  Indeed, it has gotten worse, rather than better.
• Opponents of Canada's Arctic Sovereignty: Russia, Denmark, maybe Norway.
• Friends of Portugal: Lots of finger-pointing here but it was a competition for votes and Portugal might have done something right, rather than Canada doing something wrong.  EU membership has its privileges, including getting support from members, those aspiring to membership, and those that just want to get on the EU's good side.

The question is, though, aside from the blow to Canada's collective ego, what is lost by not being on the UNSC?  That is my question to the readers, as I am blinded by my UN-skepticism.

Too Little, Too Late?

It is 2010, and it seems that only now that there are adequate trainers on the ground in Afghanistan.  It has always been the case that the Afghan Army and Police would require a massive investment to even have a chance of success.  But many opportunities and time were lost.  And doing it faster is not necessarily doing it better.

 Early this year, the Pentagon and senior Afghan and American officers in Kabul insisted that the complex operation to re-establish a government presence in Marja, a Taliban stronghold, was “Afghan led.”  It was not. And many Afghan units, by the accounts of many Americans present, performed poorly. Some units openly shirked combat duty — refusing to patrol, or sending a bare minimum of soldiers on American patrols, sometimes only a pair of soldiers to accompany an American platoon. The remaining Afghans stayed behind, lounging in the relative safety of outposts the Americans secured.

It has always been a tough, tough mission given the starting point of an illiterate pool of potential recruits.  This story provides a pretty even-handed perspective.   The frustrating thing is that people are asking for patience now, but nine years have elapsed.  It is not their fault that much of that time was wasted, but the reality is that patience has its limits.  It will be interesting to see what comes of the next review--how realistic it is and what choices become available to Obama. 

Go with the Flow

A federal judge has ruled against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Given that the Obama Administration has not and will not be able to get the policy changed via legislation (due to an out of touch Congress), it would seem that that the best course of action is to let this stand rather than appeal.  Thus far, the Obama folks have defended a bunch of policies that they originally seemed to oppose.  This time, just maybe, they can let a good decision stand.

I will be very confused if the Obama legal folks choose otherwise.

Bad Day for Canadian Diplomacy

Canada starts the day with news that the UAE is serious about using its waning leverage over Camp Mirage to get more landing slots for Emirates Airline.  Then, it fails to get enough votes to beat Portugal, so the quest for a UN Security Council slot fails.  PM Harper blames the Liberal opposition for not being united enough.  Sure.

So, this may cause some angst up here.  My take is that the UNSC is only a big deal if you make it one.  While Canadians tend to care a great deal more about the UN than Americans (except for those who think it controls black helicopters), the UNSC is significant but not always relevant.  How would Canada cash in there, other than ego-wise?  If it has to sell out a bunch of policy positions to get on the Security Council, then the question would be if it is worth more than what is sold.  It is not a tradeoff-free situation.  Since only the big five have vetoes, the temp members have limited influence: anything that gets past all of the big five is going to be relatively uncontroversial so that Canada's vote would not be that important.  Getting a super-majority in the SC is likely if the big five agree.  And if they don't and one vetoes, then a super-majority does not matter.

Does this mean that the world hates Canada?  No.  Does it mean that Portugal has more friends in the world?  Not so sure.  The Canadian effort seems to have been late and inept, and perhaps, just perhaps Canadian diplomats did not sell out where the Portuguese did.  We will need more info to judge, but this is not nearly as important as the media will make it out to be.

Of course, I am a UN-skeptic, so take this with a grain of salt if you will.

The Plane! The Planes!

The combination of trade dispute/military basing agreement between Canada and the United Arab Emirates just got that much visible today when the UAE denied a C-17 carrying the Canadian Minister of Defence and Chief of Defence Staff from landing.  The dispute is this: Canada has leased a base in Dubai--Camp Mirage--and the UAE will only renew the agreement if Canada allows the national airline of the UAE to have many more landing slots at Canadian airports.  The Emirates airline wants to fly more regularly to Toronto as well as having flights into Vancouver and Calgary.  The fear is that it would ultimate replace Air Canada as a major link to the Mideast and perhaps even more locally as Toronto might become a hub for Emirates flights around North America. 

The interesting thing is how much hardball the UAE is playing.  They are antagonizing a country with which they have had good relations on a core security issue--a logistics base for operations in Afghanistan--to promote their national airline.  While a colleague joked about how Emirates replacing Air Canada would be a win for the Canadian flying public, I am not surprised that Canada is being stubborn.  Just as the UAE is promoting its national airline, Canada is protecting its national airline.  And now the UAE has gone one step further by denying the landing of the senior military leadership even though there is still about a month left on the lease.  I don't see Canada caving in now that it has been slapped in its collective face. 

Perhaps the UAE is pushing so hard now because they understand that its leverage is expiring.  Once the Canadians depart Afghanistan in 2011, Camp Mirage will not be relevant any longer for Canada.  It is unlikely that the UAE would do this to other space-consumers in and near Dubai--the US--since they have other interests, including their own security.

This is an interesting case, as it turns things around.  Usually, economic carrots are promised to get progress on a security issue, like when the US promised the Soviet Union better access to American markets in exchange for progress on a variety of Detente issues  (arms control, Helsinki Accords, etc).  Or countries will receive economic assistance in exchange for basing rights.  Here, the priority is the other way around--promising a security benefit in exchange for compromise on an economic issue.  Linkage in the past has been a mixed bag, as countries may get offended by the bribery/extortion implications.  Still, this is a very interesting case.  Bears watching not just for those of us who use Air Canada or have hung out overnight at Camp Mirage but for IR scholars who care about how security and economic issues bump into each other.








*  When I was part of a group of Canadian scholars flown to Afghanistan via Camp Mirage, we were not supposed to identify to others where the base was located, even though it was listed as being in Dubai in Wikipedia.

Tales in Bureaucratic Politics

To keep two new carrier projects, the British Navy is proposing very deep cuts.  So deep that the carriers may not have any planes to launch.  This leads to all kinds of speculation--like building big carriers and then either using them for helos (which will not operate too well if anyone else has planes) or just have them standby in mothballs.  Contracts are a bitch, apparently.  Seems like the need to make a hard choice is making it hard to make a decent choice.  Hard decisions do not have to be bad ones, but that seems to be the only ones being taken seriously right now.






HT to Pete Trumbore for linking to this.

Star Trek Is So Classic

Captain Kirk explains that "We the People" applies to everyone--whether we like them or not.  Gosh, yes, Canadian over-actor, gosh, yes!

Football Play that Bests Resembes a University's Administration

Worst onside kick ever?  Perhaps. 

Why Don't I Post Much About Baseball?

Because I am a Mets fan, having lived my first several years of my life in the shadow of Shea Stadium and having Tom Seaver as my favorite player.  And it has been a frustrating few years with the best hitter letting strike three slide by and then repeated September collapses.  Now, they are making a clean sweep of the decision-makers and seeing the team for what it is, perhaps, rather than what we hope it to be. 

Aside from getting a great general manager, I have one suggest to borrow from the Phoenix Suns: invest in a much better training and medical staff.  The Mets have had repeated conflicts with their players and have had little success keeping people off of the injured list.  Perhaps if they can find folks who are as skilled as those that have kept Steve Nash on the court, the Mets might have a shot to endure 162 games and then some.

What do South Park and Mad Man Have in Common?

Shenanigans!!!

You Have The Right to What, Eh?

Not to a lawyer in Canada apparently.  You have the right to an attorney, to call one after being arrested, to consult with one, but you do not have the right to have one present while being questioned.  Given what we know about coercion and confessions, this decision is deeply troubling. 

The judges were ruling in three separate cases in which suspects had asked in mid-interrogation to speak to their lawyers again.  They said that suspects should be allowed to consult again with a lawyer only if something happens in the interrogation room to change their situation dramatically.

Remind me not to get arrested in Canada.  We already know that people will confess after long hours of interrogation, but this does not produce justice.  Well, that is if justice means getting the right person as opposed to getting just anyone. 

I look forward to my more legally-educated colleagues to rant about this decision, as I am no expert on the law.  But I think I am in good company in thinking that this ruling stinks. 

Sometimes the Realists are Right

SecDef Gates is in Vietnam, holding talks that partially (mainly?) focus on how to respond to the rising Chinese challenge.  The US and Vietnam have some differences, although much fewer than a decade or two ago, but their relationship is now quite normalized.  Some tiffs over human rights perhaps, but there is much in common--specifically that China is not only getting more powerful but it is exercising that power in threatening ways.

The defense secretary’s expected arguments to China are clear: Beijing’s dash to become a global economic power requires it to honor accepted standards for sharing oceans and airspace, and harassment of ships and airplanes in international lanes off its shores benefits none and will only harm Beijing’s long-term interests.

The shared threat is not the only reason that the US and Vietnam can put behind the past--that has been in process for quite some time.  But it does make the past even more irrelevant and more in the background. 

Cahoots?!

Can the war succeed if one of those two principal allies is in cahoots with the enemy? 

 I love the word "cahoots."  And used so appropriately in this article on the US and Pakistan.  I was a guest in a religious studies course yesterday, and they wanted my take on, among other issues, what the outsiders can do about Pakistan.  I don't know the emoticon from shrugged shoulders, but that is essentially what I did.  That the dependence the US and NATO have on Pakistan plus the limited control the government of Pakistan has over its own armed forces and territory mean that there is little that we can hope for in terms of Pakistani compliance.  It does not have to comply and I doubt that it could if it tried.

Although the United States responded by blanketing Islamabad with mea culpas for the helicopter strikes, the incident has laid bare the fundamental challenge of the American-Pakistan alliance: When it comes to Afghanistan, America and Pakistan have very different national security interests.

Indeed.  But again, do not forget that it is also a problem of limited leverage and capabilities.  The US has very few tools to persuade the Pakistanis, given that it needs so much from Pakistan.  And Pakistan can only deliver so much, since the government has so little capability and control.

Of course, the Pakistanis do not help things with their obsession:

What Pakistan wants most in Afghanistan is an assurance that India cannot use it to threaten Pakistan. For that, a radical Islamic movement like the Taliban, with strong ties to kin in Pakistan, fits the bill. That is why the Pakistani government’s intelligence agencies helped the Taliban in its initial rise to power in the 1990s.

Um, excuse me, but given the power disparity that exists already, does India really need Afghanistan to threaten Pakistan?  It is like a 300 pound lineman taking a few more steroids.  It might mean an increase in power, but it is a marginal change.  Obsessing about India thus far has not worked out well for Pakistan, but seems to be the only thing Pakistan officials can agree on. 

And it is only getting worse for Pakistan:

“It’s unfixable,” said C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. “That’s why we’ll be working on this for the next 50 years.”  Professor Fair argues that because India is on the ascent, and will be even stronger militarily and economically in 10 years than it is now, the Indian government has no reason to negotiate seriously with Pakistan over the host of issues that bedevil the two adversaries now, when it can throw its weight around much easier later.

Perhaps reading Fair's cookbook can be informative.

Predictions Fail to Materialize

With the retirement of Gen. Jones and a new National Security Advisor, it is time to make new predictions about the dynamics of the foreign policy-making of the Obama Administration.  Or not, given how badly folks performed the last time.  Fred Kaplan does a nice job of covering the changeover although he cites Woodward's book a bit too much, I think. 

Two years ago, people predicted that Clinton and Gates would be in conflict, that Jones would play a major role, and so forth.  But Gates and Obama have gotten along so well that Jones was not needed to be the intermediary with the Pentagon.  Clinton and Gates have gotten along famously.  And Obama has been his own man in foreign policy, despite having little prior experience. 

Of course, the fact that there has been little infighting might be evidence that Jones did at least a bit of his job--to do no harm.  Other NSA's have failed that minimal criteria (Poindexter, McFarlane, Clark, Allen [Jeez, Reagan had a poor bunch of NSAs]).  Jones may have been somewhat marginal but he did not facilitate any catastrophes a la Condi Rice. 

Kaplan's piece might suggest that four star generals may make poor NSA's, but I am not sure that an additional star makes that much of a difference given that Scowcroft and Powell got good marks as Lt.Generals.  On the other hand, perhaps the experience of running a combatant command (Jones was the biggest of them all as SACEUR) might have made a difference.  Or perhaps Marines do not play well with others.

Ambivalent Now About Afghanistan?

With stories like this, how could I not be?  I am speaking to an Islamic studies group at McGill this morning about Afghanistan, and I am not sure anymore about how I answer the question: should we stick around?  I am still concerned about the consequences of a departure for the people of Afghanistan as a civil war and then Taliban government would probably ensue and the effects on Pakistan.  But unless the surge has really made a difference in creating more order in more places (jury is still out on that), it does seem like sunk costs become the argument and a lousy argument at that. 

The Woodward book seems to suggest (at least as far as folks who have read it say) the military boxed in Obama.  I am still of the belief that Obama might have given the military what it wanted to set the stage for a big policy reversal in the next year.  But that is perhaps wishful thinking.  Muddling through seems to be the policy option that is the least worst, but, again, that is not exactly a ringing call for billions of dollars and the loss of life to be incurred.

All I do know for certain is that abandoning Afghanistan will be horrible for Afghans in both the medium and long term. 

Another Blast from the Past Or the Future?

Scream 2010 Orientation Film - 1 of 3  |  SpikeTV  |  SPIKE.com

I love the use of Lost's classic bit to promote the Scream Awards and especially the dangers of bringing together two time-traveling epics.  Not to mention the beer.


HT to Doc Jensen.

Great Steves, a continuing series

When my daughter was much younger, we watched a heap of Blue's Clues.  It was far more fun and less annoying than Barney.  The host at the time was a guy/character named Steve.  He was incredibly engaging, and got the part according to the wiki page because he was the "realest" to the test kids.

 As Dr. Alice Wilder, Nickelodeon's Director of Research and Development, said, "There was just something about this kid, who was fresh out of Pennsylvania, who just knew where to look in the camera to really talk to kids. He was just right."

Which perhaps explains why he kept saying "for real" during his recent Moth podcast story.  While the tale he told was not entirely safe for work, I shared it with my daughter as she does remember Steve and Blue's Clues quite fondly, and the story was most excellent.

Steve now has a band--Steve Burns and the Struggle.  He even has a few videos on his myspace page, including this one, which made me burst out laughing within five seconds:


And so this great Steve has reminded me yet again not just of my daughter's childhood but of the great boon that is the internet.

Iran Goes Too Far?

It is hardly a secret that the Iranians have been helping to arm the Shiites in Iraq and it has been widely suspected that they have been assisting the Taliban against NATO as well.  And now this:

Authorities in southwestern Afghanistan have seized 19 tons of explosive devices that had been transferred across the border from Iran, police said.
Nimruz Police Chief Abdul Jabar Purdel said a suspect was detained. Nimruz province, in Afghanistan's southwestern corner, borders Iran and Pakistan

Of course, what strikes me is not what is happening but where.

You will notice that there is no PRT in Nimroz, and when there was just RC-S (recently split into RC S and SW), Nimroz simply was an afterthought.  Why?  Because few folks live there, so not much COIN to be done.  Anyhow, it is in the news now as a pathway for Iranian arms.  Perhaps it will be getting more attention as a result.  Of course, the real challenge is what to do with Iran, since it is already getting punished for its nuclear programs.  It is hard to pile on to that.

Next Time, Use Hockey as Your Analogy

Just a quick note that the top story at the Globe and Mail's website this morning is on an American Colonel saying that the Canadian pullout will hurt the effort.

He later sought to clarify his comments by comparing himself to the coach of a sports team. “If you tell me I'm going to lose a star player, I'm going to say ‘sure it hurts.’ ”

 Hockey, sir.  Hockey.  Canadians do not care about soccer.  Anyhow, there are two sides to this: the Canadians have been among the most flexible, active contingents, and have lots of knowledge about Kandahar.  So they will be missed.  But on the other hand, the CA commitment has topped out at around 2,800 troops, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the US forces surging into the country.  Will the Canadians be missed?  Absolutely. Will it cause the force to be too thin?  Not that much thinner than before.

Speaking of Corruption

It has been so long since there was a story about the Karzai family's role in corruption in Afghanistan.   Oh, it has not been that long.  Well, then ignore this story which is basically more of the same.

While the roles played by two of President Karzai’s brothers — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the power broker of Kandahar, and Mahmoud Karzai, a prominent businessman and investor in the troubled Kabul Bank — have been well documented, the extensive web of other family members has not previously been reported. Most of them lived in the United States before going to Afghanistan, leveraging the president’s position to put them at the center of a new oligarchy of powerful Afghan families.

The family that plunders together stays together, right?  I wonder if the US should simply impose a contracting rule--if a Karzai relative is involved in a company, that is sufficient for saying no, right?  That we are feeding the beast is so incredibly annoying when we know that the governance issue will be the focal point of failure.

“Karzai is convinced that we are going to abandon him,” Mr. Neumann said. “What’s his answer? To create a web of loyalties and militia commanders and corrupt families all knitted together.”
“This network,” he added, “is part of his survival mechanism.”

Usually short-term thinking is considered to be a threat to the long term, but it seems here that long term thinking (although short term profit seeking may still be important) may be a threat to both the short term and long term.  And talk about self-fulfilling prophecies--corruption as a strategy to survive a US/NATO withdrawal is precisely one of the most important factors triggering a US/NATO withdrawal.  If the West decides to leave because it is not making enough progress, and the corruption problem is inhibiting progress, then Karzai is indeed making his "feared" future happen. 

Qayum Karzai said the criticism of the family was unfair, adding that it had taken an emotional toll. “We have been on the political scene in Afghanistan for more than 100 years, and never has our name been mentioned with narcotics or wheeling or dealing,” he said. “We have always been identified with the moderate traditions of Afghanistan. So this is very heartbreaking to every family member.”

 Well, now I feel bad.  The Karzais' feelings are hurt.  Well, I feel worse about the broken hearts of the rest of the Afghans, who now wonder where the billions of dollars have gone and what will happen as the patience of the outsiders wane. 

When Life Imitates Our Models

Is it wrong for me to delight in the news that the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, is embracing protectionism by trying to pass a special law that will hand over a lucrative subway train contract to a local company?  Maybe.  You see, I forgot to include protectionism/free trade as one of the classic examples of the prisoner's dilemma when I discussed it for my big Intro to IR class.  There is always the temptation to protect one's own market, and this is just fine and dandy if no one else does it.  I guess that is Charest's hope.  Bombardier, the company that has received heaps of handouts over the years from Quebec and from Canada, has a train that costs about 50% more than the competitor's, so it needs a bit of favoritism. 

If I were running Bombardier, I would wonder just a bit what this might mean for future plane/train sales to Europe, as the Spanish company can surely try to get some kind of retaliation against this decision. 

What does this mean for Montreal?  More delays in getting new trains, more money spent on each one, and less money for other stuff.  Oh, and business as usual.  Is this an example of the corruption that folks speak of?  Perhaps not, but it does corrupt the contracting process by eliminating competition.

Preventing the Future?

The classic question in any time machine kind of movie is at what point do you go back into the past to change the future?  Well, this article asks a similar type of question: when should you tell someone not to pursue a PhD?  Of course, my answer is: June 6, 2010.  Ok, my answer is when students ask me for letters of recommendation.  I tell them how perilous the course is now for an academic career (or for one in law, since that is where many of the letters go).  They listen but do not hear, or hear but do not listen (I forget which).  And so they go on to be the next generation of frustrated folks seeking a job that may not exist, at least not in the form they hoped.

 Venn from Huffington Post's wonderful collection.

Mr Watson, I Don't Need You?

One response to the budget crises at universities is to reduce or eliminate the phone each prof has in their offices.  This seems crazy at first, but technological change and cultural adaptation may have made normal phones somewhat irrelevant except as a potential resource suck.  Each phone has a cost regardless of how much it is used, and then some folks will over-use the phone, I suppose.

How do I communicate with my students?  Almost entirely by email?  With colleagues elsewhere?  Mostly by email.  I have a handful of significant conversations a year on the phone with co-authors.  I do some media stuff (radio interviews) by phone.  I have not gotten in the habit of using my cell phone to replace my landlines, so it is not so much that substitution as much as it is using email.  Now that my new laptop has a camera built in, I could be skyping more in the future. 

How would I feel if McGill got rid of the phone in my office?  I guess I would be mildly inconvenienced, especially since my cell phone service tends to be poor.  Plus I would be more likely to forget to turn off my phone before heading off to class. 

What do my readers think?

Going Green

I always enjoy when a military full of folks with conservative political values ends up acting more moderately than the Republican Party.  Easier now than ever, but still fun to watch.  The US armed forces are developing a greater interest in renewable sources of energy, finding that relying on things that burn (gas, oil) creates significant vulnerability.  The article deals with the obvious problem of getting fuel into Afghanistan, but that is not where the problem starts or stops.

Of course, domestic politics may also play a role as I doubt that biofuels requirements started anywhere but in the minds and pockets of congresspeople and senators from farming states.  That the Navy is working with algae is not only appropriate but also perhaps a nice sign that perhaps the biofuel thing is not entirely a sellout to big ag companies.  Of course, it may still be. 

To be clear, I have some major issues with ethanol, as it is not clear to me that it really is a cheaper source of energy, plus it seems to have driven up the price of corn for non-fuel stuff, like food.

Anyhow, the military is a bit slow to figure this out:

Concerns about the military’s dependence on fossil fuels in far-flung battlefields began in 2006 in Iraq, where Richard Zilmer, then a major general and the top American commander in western Iraq, sent an urgent cable to Washington suggesting that renewable technology could prevent loss of life.

Afghanistan made this even clearer given its lack of energy infrastructure and the reality that stuff has to be shipped to Pakistan and then carried over land through only a handful of passages into Afghanistan.  One striking lesson I learned in my short time in the Pentagon was the fixation on LOC's--lines of communication.  Limited LOC's into Kosovo presented some challenges that the military folks wanted to overcome.  But Kosovo was very much in Europe and secure transport was possible through Macedonia.  The concern was about what might happen to the few LOC's we had.  Now, we are actually dependent on very few, very challenged LOC's not for peacekeeping but for warfighting.  A significant vulnerability, indeed.

Elections are Not a Panacea

“National unity” was the theme, but when all the votes were counted — then recounted and finally certified months ago — identity triumphed. In an interview this summer, Mr. Maliki himself expressed disappointment that when it came to sectarianism, the country had returned to “square one.”

Should we be surprised that the Iraqi elections did not lead to ideological-based parties that sought to be big-tent parties with many ethnic groups residing in each one?  No.  Of course not.  Iraqi Democracy is flawed in many, many ways, but elections by themselves do not create national unity anywhere.  Depending on how the institutions fit the demography, elections can create incentives to make appeals to more than one ethnic group, but even then, those incentives may be overwhelmed by other pressures.

And if one makes it very hard for the competition to compete as was the case in Iraq, then we can hardly expect the election to produce joy and happiness.  A record setting length of time to form a government was perhaps not to be expected, but not that shocking either. 

The big question is the old one: how will the dominant majority treat the minorities?  Not much hope right now, given the past, including efforts that essentially disenfranchised the Sunnis. 

While elections seem to be a tool to pass legitimacy and responsibility from the outside interveners onto the locals so that they can get out, we know now pretty clearly that elections in the immediate aftermath of conflict may not be productive.  And elections during the conflict are even less so. 

Still, I expect elections to be used in the same way in the future--to pass the hot potato. 

The Limits of International Organizations

My current project with David Auerswald is an attempt to understand how an international organization fights a war--NATO in Afghanistan.  Part of the justification of the case is that it should be an easy case for IO success--NATO is a far more institutionalized, coherent organization with the commitment of the strongest players in the world.  If it has problems, one can only imagine how an IO without such resources and organization would do.  Actually, you don't need to imagine it.  Just check out this piece about the United Nations and its performance in the Congo.

“I felt personally guilty and guilty toward the people I met there,” said Atul Khare, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping, who recently visited Luvungi. “They told me, ‘We’ve been raped, we’ve been brutalized, give us peace and security.’ Unfortunately, I said, that is something I cannot promise.”

Of course, it is not just that the UN sucks as a peace-keeping bureaucracy (as Michael Barnett documented in his book Eyewitness to Genocide).  It has much to do with the lack of commitment by the powerful, so that the peacekeepers in Congo are too few, too poorly resourced, and a very week Congolese government. 

“The government’s able to dominate only the road,” explained Lt. Col. R. D. Sharma. “The rest,” he said, sweeping his hand over the treetops, “is the negative forces.”

The place is lacking in so many things including communications infrastructure so the news gets out slowly, if at all.  One cannot even use a metaphor of plugging fingers into the holes of a dike because there are more holes than dike. 

Do I expect UN performance here to improve?  No, as its most powerful members have their attention and their resources focused elsewhere. 

Nobel Prize time again

Wouldn't it be great if another political science type won the Nobel Prize in Economics?!  Elinor Ostrom won last year, making the Econ folks go ape@#$.  Just my random thought of the day.

Aggressive Montreal Women

Ok, just fictional ones played by real ones (although see this cracked on myths about women being the less aggressive gender):

Women at War

An interesting piece about the new strategy of deploying female Marines along on combat patrols so they can engage with the Muslim women who are encountered along the way.  It seems that the female Marines are having the same problems as the male Marines: lost weight, stress, broken marriages, etc.  Of course, reading that a 21 year old female Marine's marriage is breaking up, my first thought is that it is not the war that is breaking the marriage but the youth of the folks getting married. 

The main purpose, as alluded above, is for the female soldiers and marines to interact with the women encountered since the culture of the place makes it hard/impossible for the foreign male soldiers to interact with the local females.  But:

To the surprise of some commanders, the female Marines have sometimes connected more readily with Afghan men than have male Marines. Capt. Brandon Turner, the commander of G Company in southern Marja, said, “You put a lady in front of them, they’ll start blabbing at the mouth.”

This program hit a bump when a Congressperson started asking questions about whether it violated current restrictions against women serving in combat units.

Current Pentagon policy bars women from joining combat branches like the infantry, armor and Special Forces, and Congress in the past has sought to restrict military women’s roles even more. But in a common side step during nearly a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, women are “attached,” rather than assigned, to combat units. The female engagement teams simply say they “accompany” Marine infantry units on their patrols. 

 So, they have to dance along the edge of what is legal to do what they are supposed to do to contribute to the effort.  This restriction against women in combat (already moved beyond that for pilots) is, like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a dysfunctional relic, not unlike an always infected appendix, no longer necessary and can be positively harmful.

“The current policy on women in combat is outdated and does not apply to the type of war we are fighting,” she wrote to her parents, friends and this reporter in an e-mail after the legal review in July.

There are only two responses I can make to this: either Ooorah! (if I am speaking like a Marine) or Hooah! (if I am speaking like a soldier).  In other words, yes, ma'am, this policy is broken.

She said she told Corporal Coate: “Yes, this happened to you, but this is what’s happening in Afghanistan. This is awesome, you’re making a difference here.” 

Surprising Best Twittering

Roger Ebert has been an incredibly fruitful source of stuff on movies, politics and other stuff since I started following his twitter feed.  Sure, he puts out a lot so not each tweet is terrific.  But his links are often worth following.  For instance:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/nbsp-nbsp-1.html

And if that is not terrific enough:

#$%&* That!

Interesting op-ed about cursing and television by the son of Allen Funt of Candid Camera.  A very informed take on what happens when you start bleeping words and when you don't.

Most producers understand that when it comes to language, the sizzle has far more appeal than the steak.

And then he cites Jimmy Kimmel's standard bit of bleeping ordinary words to make clips of TV shows seem much racier.

Still, I was pretty surprised when "bitch" was tossed out in the middle of No Ordinary Family since it was an 8 pm show--the family hour.  And the show has been billed as a family show.  It is funny that I did notice that word and the discussion of teen sex when Alan Sepinwall tweeted about what age is this show appropriate for, but forgot about the scene of the two parents in bed post coitus.  [No, this is not an effort to increase the hits on my blog].  Just interesting what I noticed and what I did not, given how much sex, violence and cursing I do see on TV via cable and now networks.  [Speaking of TV, Stephen Cannell will be missed]

By the way, No Ordinary Family is the only new show on network TV that I am currently following (although I will catch Hawaii 5-0 and Nikita when I can).  Undercovers has been a disappointment--Chuck is superior in pretty much every way.



I still think the best is yet to come with The Cape and The Walking Dead.

Bipartisan Program Works!

TARP costs smaller than Ireland's

Tim Geithner projected yesterday that the final cost of the $700 billion TARP program — as unpopular as ever — will be under $50 billion*, and Jackie Calmes writes that it "could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit."
A reader sends over another story from today's Times to put that in perspective: Ireland just took over a bank in an intervention that will put the total tab for propping up the banking sector alone at $68 billion. That's for a country with a population of 4.5 million — a bit more than 1 percent of the population of the United States.
The government obviously took a range of actions and spent a lot of money around the financial crisis. But it is increasingly hard to argue that TARP should be seen — as it still is — as some kind of original fiscal sin.

This was considered by one article (source forgotten) as the most recent bipartisan program.  And it worked great.  Well, it worked to stave off economic collapse.  It failed politically--that politicians have gotten heaps of blame even though it will net a small cost or even perhaps a gain.  There is no reward for prevention.  We knew that, but this situation will provide a glowing example for the next generation of politicians--better to cower in fear of a reaction than do something that is costly in the short term but beneficial in the medium to long term.

Zombie Survival Guide

Looks like they unearthed a 1950's instruction video for surviving a Zombie attack.  Remember the five d's of zombie defense: dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge.

Rare Earth Metals Are Neither Rare Nor Earthy?

I really don't know much about chemistry anymore.  Sad because I was once a chemistry major before International Relations captured my heart and mind.  Here is a great piece* explaining what they are and are not and why the Chinese shot themselves in the foot, apparently.

Now that the specter of a monopoly being exercised for political ends has been raised, there will be sufficient political will to break that monopoly. ....  China has reached its dominant supplier position through good old-fashioned industrial aggression, not innate geographical superiority. Cheap labor, little environmental scrutiny, and a willingness to sell at low cost have made other producers give up.

Cheap output meant other sources elsewhere dried up essentially.  But if this stuff gets more expensive, then others will enter the market.  One could infer from the article that governments and industry now have a clearer incentive to sponsor research that would make the sorting/filtering of this stuff easier and cheaper. 

The security dilemma lives on--you act in a threatening way and the world will react.  You make someone less secure and they will develop means to cope, which then erodes whatever advantage you had.  Reminds me of classic problems in the intel game--you use your cards once.  Using them means that the other side figures out how it is vulnerable and responds.  IR is dynamic, which is why it captured me so thoroughly.













* Foreign Policy has become the best source for all IR stuff, not just Zombie-related blogs (drezner.foreignpolicy.com) or excellent coverage of US military stuff (ricks.foreignpolicy.com) or Middle East stuff (lynch.foreignpolicy.com).

Woodward, Obama and Afghanistan

Nope, I have not read the book yet.  Too busy reading books submitted to the ISA Book Award contest--I am on the committee to judge the winner.  So, here is a good short review that puts it all into context nicely.  Of course, to be fair, bashing Woodward is as much of a popular sport as bashing Obama....

Taking Shots at The Tea Party

No need for me to do so. This Rolling Stone piece is a wonderful screed.*  It will not change too many minds, as it will be read by TP opponents and dismissed by TP activists.  It does touch on some key points:

• TP folks are not really opposed to government spending.  They just don't want the money to go to other folks.  As medicare consumers and the like, they like government programs just fine as long as they directly benefit. [Reminds me of my selfishness argument in Kin or Country--opposing irredentism because you don't want to share your welfare state with others, even if these "others" are of the same linguistic/ethnic identity]
• "It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists.They're completely blind to how offensive the very nature of their rhetoric is to the rest of the country. I'm an ordinary middle-aged guy who pays taxes and lives in the suburbs with his wife and dog — and I'm a radical communist? " [They are giving narcissists a bad name. I may have to re-consider my embracing of my narcissism.  But only if I can still use first person five times in one parenthetical expression in my blog.  Mine.]
• "It's not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It's just that they're shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid. " [Reminds me of senior IR scholars at top schools who complain about being oppressed.  Give me a break]
•  That TP folks sell out?  Perhaps. Rand Paul is not talking about armies of EPA jackbooted thugs entering houses to enforce environmental agreements anymore.  "The candidate who just a year before had pledged not to accept money from TARP supporters was now romping in bed with those same politicians. .... Making fun of the Bailout Ball was just for the primary."

I read this piece a day after I lectured my upper division course on the IR of Ethnic Conflict about my book with the non-terrorist Bill Ayres.  One of our main points is that the folks who wanted to endanger their countries by trying reclaim their lost kin nearby (irredentism) had natural allies in those who wanted to be isolated from the international economy.  Aggression would lead to isolation and some folks prefer to be isolated than integrated into the worldwide competitive market.  So, I was struck by this piece, as the xenophobia we talk about in the book that serves as a brake on international aggression via irredentism seems pretty similar to the TP ethos: "their desire to withdraw from the brutally complex global economic system that is an irrevocable fact of our modern life and get back to a simpler world that no longer exists is so intense, it breaks your heart."  However, in our book, we admit the tradeoff between international peace and domestic consequences of xenophobia is a significant challenge.  In the US today, there is no bright side to xenophobia as it is not braking a quest for territorial conquest.  It is merely driving the country off of the rails. 




*My favorite line in the article: 

"Paul had an extensive record of loony comments, often made at his father's rallies, which, to put it generously, were a haven for people gifted at the art of mining the Internet for alternate theories of reality."

HT to Steve Greene for highlighting this piece in his blog.

Too Much of A Good Thing

George Lucas now wants to put out Star Wars in 3D.   Please, George.  Stop.  Please.  It is bad enough that the movie business is trying to make more money by 3D-ing films that don't need 3D (Harry Potter) just so that they can make more money on each ticket.  But to re-release Star Wars in 3D is just too far.  I think you have made enough money, GL.

The negative public reaction to previous films that have been converted to 3-D, Mr. Knoll said, was probably the result of rushed work on those conversions. 

That and the fact that we know we are being gouged.  In Montreal, 3D tickets are 50% more than 2D.  For Avatar, it kind of made sense.  For most other movies, not at all.  If you want me to rent more DVDs and attend movie theaters less, this is a good way to go.

Frame This: Buying Rights or Denying Rights

Yes, readers of the Spew may be tired of posts about language politics in Quebec, but when a guy has got to spew, a guy has got to spew.  The latest: Pauline Marois, leader of the separatist Parti Quebecois, spoke yesterday about what her party would do after it wins the next election: repeal the Liberal bill 103 that would provide some mechanism for immigrants and Francophones to have their kids be educated in English.

This is really some pretty clever framing of the issue.  The status quo allows folks to send their kids to unsubsidized private English schools (there are very few of these).  The new bill would let folks send their kids for three years to such schools and then they would be eligible for English public schools.  This is all happening because the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the previous modification to the status quo ante--that kids would become eligible after one year of private school in English.  Marois and the PQ are arguing that the new "pathway" lets the rich buy rights that the rest of the population does not have.  Oooooh.  Rights buying!!!  Nicely framed as to make it look like the issue is of rich Anglophone immigrants buying their way into English education for their kids.

Of course, one could take a different approach, and say that the PQ is denying people the freedom to choose for themselves what is best for their kids.  This would mean that all are denied rights, not just the rich.  On occasion, Marois and other PQ folks have said exactly that and then retreated.  Oops.  So, Marois has to argue that the Canadian Supreme Court is an alien entity with no jurisdiction in Quebec, which is what she does:

Calling the Supreme Court "a tribunal exclusively controlled by another nation," Marois says the PQ would use the notwithstanding clause to extend the French language charter to include all private schools.

Blog Themes Collide: Size and Limitations

The National Research Council ranks the doctoral programs of all/many/some (I dunno) disciplines, and today was the much delayed release date.  This has instantly led to much analysis, recriminations, joy and sadness about where various poli sci PhD programs land on the rankings.  Many of the threads at poli sci jobs rumor mill have tried to understand, justify, and/or criticize the rankings.  Not just a little bit of schadenfreude at the "plight" of certain programs that this ranking might suggest have been over-rated. 

What does this all really mean?

• That we are incredibly insecure?  Our self-worth depends on where our programs are ranked, where a small dip or increase can shatter or boost self-esteem?  
• That we are poor social scientists?  The rankings come with a variety of measures, so we can snipe at every variant of rankings until we find one that boosts our own programs at the expense of others.  
• That not much has really changed. We need to remember that nothing really changed between this evening and this morning.  Not one professor changed departments, not one department suddenly gained or lost funding, or found a new generation of super grad students.  Change takes place over time and perceptions take a long time to change.  Lots of folks will not read the document or even be that aware of most of the rankings.  Some will obsess--we call these people Chairs and Deans.  Grad students are already concerned that they bought into a program that was over-rated.  But again, reputation is sticky.  My guess is that those programs that shot up will change perceptions and help those in such programs get perhaps a bit more attention, but those in programs that sunk will probably not be so affected. 
• That there will be heaps of new social science done, to design counter-metrics that improve the rankings of some programs and hurt those of others.  And those articles will be written by people whose departments rise in their take of the rankings.  I remember one of my colleagues at my old school at Texas Tech spent significant research time and assistants (and $$) trying to revise the rankings so TTU would not be so lowly ranked.  But there is only so much you can do.  Profs fled the political science dept at TTU in waves since the time I arrived until now.  You don't need rankings to determine that TTU is not as highly respected as other institutions--the emigration figures tell the tale. 

I, of course, could quibble with these rankings if they de-emphasize books (which such efforts tend to do), but I am not going to invest heaps of time trashing the rankings.  I have far too much stuff on my plate, and there are far more important things to figure out.  These rankings have their uses, but their impact, their power, should not be over-estimated.  My big concern is that the various ingredients in the rankings can become focal points for administrators who might try to improve the rankings by narrowly focusing on categories rather than focusing on the general well-being of the department.  The real recipe for good rankings: hire good people, reward them when they do good stuff, provide resources so that they can do the work and attract good students.  I am sure there will be studies that show that $$$ matter, but as a Mets fan, I can tell you that having a bigger budget is not a sufficient condition for success.  But having little in the way of resources certainly hurts.

Anyhow, I felt duty bound by my profession to post at least once on these rankings.  Consider this due semi-diligence.

Size Does Not Matter, Passion Does (Subject is Not What You Think)

Pretty thrilling piece about how a big school went from worst to first (at least in test scores) by emphasizing in all classes, even gym, reading, writing, reasoning, speaking. 

My favorite part of the piece:

Writing exercises took many forms, but encouraged students to think methodically. A science teacher, for example, had her students write out, step by step, how to make a sandwich, starting with opening the cupboard to fetch the peanut butter, through washing the knife once the sandwich was made. Other writing exercises, of course, were much more sophisticated.

I liked this because I stole this exercise from a prof at Oberlin to help fill up time to illustrate the difficulties of implementation when I first started teaching American and Texas Public Policy.  It was a fun demonstration, following the students' instructions.  Made a big mess. 

Of course, the real lesson here is you need to have really dedicated, passionate teachers, willing to spend significant time (Saturdays) to figure out what is required and then administrative support (or at least the administrators staying out of the way).  "“Let me help you,” was a response committee members said they often offered to reluctant colleagues who argued that some requests were too difficult."

“In schools, no matter the size — and Brockton is one of the biggest — what matters is uniting people behind a common purpose, setting high expectations, and sticking with it.” 

This does not have to be so conflictual:

Teachers unions have resisted turnaround efforts at many schools. But at Brockton, the union never became a serious adversary, in part because most committee members were unionized teachers, and the committee scrupulously honored the union contract.
An example: the contract set aside two hours per month for teacher meetings, previously used to discuss mundane school business. The committee began dedicating those to teacher training, and made sure they never lasted a minute beyond the time allotted.

Making meetings more focused, effective.  Wow.  So basic, but such a "force multiplier" as the military gusy would put it.  Which reminds me--we had morning meetings everyday in our division of the Joint Staff--they almost always pretty short, but allowed the commander to get situational awareness quickly and for the rest of us to keep track of what our colleagues were doing. 

Tradeoffs?  What tradeoffs?

When the school began receiving academic awards, they were made into banners and displayed prominently.  Athletics had traditionally been valued above academic success, and coaches had routinely pressured teachers to raise the grades of star players to maintain their eligibility. Dr. Szachowicz said she put an end to any exceptions. But the school retained all varsity sports, as well as its several bands and choruses, extensive drama program and scores of student clubs.

Scholars have studied this case and others and found the following:

“Achievement rose when leadership teams focused thoughtfully and relentlessly on improving the quality of instruction.” 

Note--improving quality of instruction--not firing teachers, not focusing on test scores (although the article talks much about them), but on instruction.  

Knowing Your Limitations, theme of the week

Opponents with a nasty, nasty, funny cheer

Been thinking again this week about the running theme of knowing one's limitations.  Why?  Primarily because I participated in the yearly Grandmaster Ultimate tourney here in Montreal this past weekend.  The team, again, was stacked with veterans of national and world competitions.  So, I went from my usual situation of being among the best handlers (think point guard or quarterback) on my team to being one of the weaker players.  I didn't play as well as I would have liked, nor did the team (we finished third).  But I had heaps of fun.  Anyway, I knew where I stood on the team, and didn't mind too much playing less in the most important games or being a decoy on many of the set plays.  I knew my role and was ok with it.  As more great players age and become eligible for this tourney (40 and up), I am expecting to either play on the B team or not at all in the years ahead.  I am ok with it, again because I know that I am good but not great player.

But this would not be the theme of the week if there were not more instances than just one fun ultimate tourney.  I noticed on the political science rumor mill that the Canadian thread had a question of where one should study if interested in civil-military relations, and some folks had responded with the usual Toronto or McGill alternatives, and then a response suggesting me, and then a counter mocking me.  Because I am new to civil-military relations, studying it just these last few years, I pointed out that coming to McGill to do civ-mil when there is only one person who does it and only recently would not be the best idea.  Yes, I am telling potential grad students to go somewhere else.  Is that wrong?  Should I always be shilling for my university?  I have a hard enough time advising students who do work that is more closely related to my strengths (the IR of ethnic conflict/civil war) as they end up studying something that is not that close to my stuff (militias in the middle east, for example). 

Finally, I am way over-committed this week/month, so I may not be blogging as much as usual.  My time management skills seem to limited these days. 

Civil-Military Relations Explained Well

But it is one thing to debate how to marry military strategy and domestic politics -- it is another to debate whether to do it. The need for the latter is clear: Good strategy is politically sustainable strategy. Anything else is unrealistic and self-defeating. And any president who did not worry about the domestic politics of his strategy would be a very poor commander in chief indeed.

 Steven Biddle at Foreignpolicy.com does a great job of destroying some of the new mythology about Obama and Afghanistan being generated by Woodward's new book.  Read it (Biddle's post). 

McGill Math Sucks, part II

McGill's student newspaper has headline: Quebec Tuition Increasing Faster than National Average.  But the numbers that come with the article belie the headline just a bit.

The lighter gray is for 2009-2010 and the darker is for 2010-2011.  It is easier to have a high growth rate when the initial value is low: % change is equal to (t2-t1)/t1.  So, the smaller the original value, the higher the percentage of change will be.  The absolute value of the change in tuition is still very small, but the % seems like a lot.  Right now, the yearly cost of tuition at McGill is about 2 HDTV's.  Not cheap, but not outrageous either.

Madly in Crisis [updated]

While we ponder Peggy's absence, spoilers await below the break.

Academic Confusion

Just finished watching Tenure, a movie with Luke Wilson about an English prof who is striving for tenure.  Other than the idea that it is publish (at least a bit) or perish at a third rate liberal arts college, the movie set back the public's understanding of the academic world by about 50%.  Just about everything else was wrong:

• Dean and Chair of dept announce at the dinner on the eve of spring break that they hired someone that no one else knew about.
• The new prof starts teaching after spring break?
• Tenure is not a zero sum process--two folks going up at the same time in the same department is treated as zero sum
• Parties for tenure?
• Dean decides to give the guy who teaches great but researches badly probationary tenure.  Um, that would be tenure track, not tenure.
• Excellent researcher gets fired from Yale after not teaching well the first three years. 
• Anthro prof looking for Sasquatch.

Definitely a movie one can miss, but was laughably bad.  Only good thing was that the prof didn't sleep with his student although she wanted him to do so.

India, Kashmir and Learning the Lessons of Scholarship

India seems to be changing its basic policy outlook in Kashmir.  About time.  The scholarship on dissent and ethnic conflict is pretty clear.  More repression does not work too well, and closing off opportunities for young folks to go to university is only going to be self-destructive.  It is about time India tried another way.  Of course, as the Kashmiris see it, the proof is in the implementation, not in the announcement.

“Let us see how many of these commitments actually translate into changing the ground reality,” Mr. Mattoo said.  

 We shall see if this improves things.  Pakistan desperately needs to focus on the problems within its existing borders. If things could settle down in Kashmir, it might make it better for everyone.

Quebec is Corrupt? Mais Non!

I guess it was time for the regularly scheduled brouhaha where Quebec gets accused of being corrupt, and then Quebec politicians can say this is just typical anti-Quebecism.  Is this just "racism"?  Um, no.  Montreal, after all, had an election where corruption was a central issue, and the challenges lost in part because the primary competitor had a 2nd in command who was, well, corrupt.  This allowed the incumbents, who had claimed ignorance, to stay in power.  

I have argued before that there is less real accountability in Quebec precisely because of the nationalist issue.  Quebec politicians are already covering up this latest round of corruption claims with their special brand of denial sauce--nationalism.  I have no doubt that despite hearings/trails/commissions that the current way of operating will continue.