The Dark Timeline Gets Darker: Bibi Returns

I am not a Mideast or Israel expert (I have religiously avoided studying Israel/Palestine in my career--too much literature to read, too much emotion to wade through), but my understanding of ethnic politics leads to a few thoughts that converge with Marc Lynch's tweet yesterday:

I just assumed all along Netanyahu would win since it's worst possible outcome and when in Middle East these days is that not best bet?
— Marc Lynch (@abuaardvark) March 17, 2015

What can we conclude from what happened in this campaign and with this outcome?  Simply that Israel is screwed.  Netanyahu successfully "gambled for resurrection" by running as if Obama was his opponent, by outbidding his opponents in demonizing the Arab voters, and by taking the two-state solution off of the table. 

Give Bibi props as it worked.  And it demonstrates something that we political scientists have known far too well and for too long--that which is good for the short term, that which is good for the politician is often bad, very bad for the country.  Indeed, the Bill and Steve book (which needs to have the new intro be an etch-a-sketch so that we can add new irredentism news these days) is entitled For Kin or Country for a reason. 

No good can come of the stances that Netanyahu took in the last days of the election.  His move to deny a two-state solution was an essentially irredentist one--that Israel will be larger, containing the Jews outside the traditional boundaries and bring in the historical (Biblical, I guess) territories.  The problem, of course, is that this will mean that Israel will continue to contain an ever increasing population that is not Jewish.

People have long pondered whether Israel will remain democratic or Jewish, but that it could not be both.  If a large hunk of the population cannot vote, then Israel will not be truly democratic.  If they can, then they will vote and erode the Jewish character of the state.  The two state solution was a way to avoid this fork in the road.  Instead, Netanyahu pushed on the accelerator and the choice seems have been made last night.

I had a bit of hope, as I thought that the increased Arab vote (those residing in the 1947 boundaries can vote) could be a critical coalition partner that would lure at least one major party to engage in a multi-ethnic appeal.  But Netanyahu has proved, I think, that he can win by going the other way.  It is always hard for the multi-ethnic party to compete with the ethnic outbidder, but not impossible.

It seems like enough of Israel has chosen its destiny.... a very difficult and dangerous future where its most powerful ally is alienated, where the task of governing hostile territories becomes not just part of Israel's past but an integral part of its future, and where the values of many are sacrificed due to fear.  Israelis have often felt friendless before, but now they are governed yet again by someone who is making friendlessness both a strategy and a goal it seems.

Tis a dark timeline indeed.

Israel's Best Hope

Ironic maybe that Israel's best hope is seen as a danger:

Disgusting MT @ChemiShalev: Netanyahu: "The right wing's rule is in danger. Arab voters are moving towards the polling booths in droves."
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) March 17, 2015

In the ethnic politics literature, it is generally seen as a positive thing when parties representing the majority have to appeal to minority communities for votes (see Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict).  The need to appeal to non-majority groups serves to mute the incentives to engage in ethnic outbidding--to promise ever greater steps to protect one's ethnic group at the expense of others.

If Israeli politicians actually had to appear to Arabs, it might offset the power of other minorities, the ultra orthodox, as well as strengthen the hands of the less irredentistly inclinded.  The statements by Netanyahu in his desperate bid to stay in power reveal that some trends are pushing against him and his party--that if the Arab vote turns out, more moderate forces may be able to govern with the support of parties presenting the Arab community.

Of course, this speaks to a larger challenge down the road--but much closer than it used to be--when Israel has to choose to be democratic or be Jewish.  The one-state non-solution that Netanyahu favors these days would drive the country directly at this fork in the road.  Demonizing one part of the electorate to stay in power is a perfectly democratic thing to do in the sense that it happens in most democracies (see voterfraudfraud in the US for a similar example), but it is pretty hostile to the idea and practice of democracy.

If there were not already sufficient reasons to cheer for Netanyahu's defeat, this last gasp, aimed at a minority group, should be enough. 

Globalization is Over-rated, Tale 47

There is good news for border-crossers: the US and Canada are working to make it easier to cross the border.  It would allow that which happens at eight Canadian airports to take place in other ways--that I get cleared by US customs at the Ottawa airport (or Montreal or Toronto, etc) so that the plane then lands anywhere in the US without having to do the customs thing.  The story here suggests that customs people can board trains or buses and pre-clear people before the border so that people don't have to get off, go through customs at the border, and get on.

Great in theory.  But given that I have only been able to go the Nexus line once or twice when I have driven back to Canada, because it is almost always closed, I wonder if either country will pour money into having the personnel and/or into building customs facilities elsewhere to make this happen.  New customs facilities in bus stations?  Really?  Hmmm. 

Given the budget realities in both Canada and the US, consider me a doubter for now.  In the long run, this stuff is likely to work out pretty well.  In the short run, I just don't expect to see that much to change.  After all, despite the imaginations of the globalization fans, Canada and the US remain two distinct countries that fall way short of the Schengen stuff in Europe.  We ain't no EU and it ain't happening anytime soon. 

Right now, all I really want is for the Nexus lines in both directions to be open longer (the US is 9-5ish it seems except on weekends, Canada: who knows).  

Concussions and the NFL: Getting Out Before Getting Hit

Is this the beginning of the end? Chris Borland just quit football after a rookie year that was so surprisingly good that it astonished the guys on the Grantland Football Podcast week after week.

This is probably not the beginning of the end of football, but it is probably the start of athletes choosing to get out and perhaps choosing other sports.  We may soon see a migration of folks who could have been football players to other sports where the concussion risk is either less or unknown.

Given his great first year, Borland is definitely choosing health over money as he would get paid big bucks if he kept up last year's performance.  I admire him for making a very difficult choice.  There is no way this was an easy decision.  Indeed, choosing not to get hit is the brave choice. 

Update: the fan reaction is surprisingly supportive.   Given that his team just lost another key linebacker, Pat Willis, the loss of Borland is going to cause significant problems for the 49ers.  Yet the early reactions support the decision.  Very interesting indeed.

Threat Countdown: Right Wing Terrorism

Didn't Colbert have a bit about counting down the threats?  Well, the Canadian security folks, CSIS, have counted the threats and found that:

“Lone wolf” attacks more often come from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologies than from Islamic radicalism, internal CSIS documents say.

Citing recent academic research, the unclassified documents note extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideology has been the “main ideological source” for 17 per cent of so-called lone wolf attacks worldwide.

Islamic extremism accounted for 15 per cent of such attacks, the document noted, while left-wing extremism and “black power” groups followed with 13 per cent. Anti-abortion activism (8 per cent) and nationalism/separatism (7 per cent) rounded out the list, while in 40 per cent of cases there was no clear ideological motivation.

Of course, the non-lone wolf variety is probably tied to Islamist groups, like Al Qaeda.  Still, we panic so much at Islamist terrorism that we forget that the white supremacists/right wing types are as or more violent.  Indeed, what about Oklahoma City?  What about the spate of attacks in the US tied to white supremacists?

We have seen more of this with a black President and with whites declining relative to other ethnic groups in terms of relative size.  We will see more of this.  I remember that a US intel estimate with similar kinds of findings got squashed a few years ago, so it is nice to have a reminder of this basic reality.   Indeed, Homeland Security had a report last month that didn't get too much play on "right wing sovereign citizens" and the violence they are generating.

All this should serve as a reminder that terrorism is a tactic and not a movement.  There are terrorists in all kinds of movements, and that North America has as much to fear from the right as from anywhere else.

Thirty Years of Ultimate: Oh My!

Thirty years ago, I started playing competitive ultimate.  I had played ultimate informally before that--at high school and at summer camp.  In the fall of my frosh year, I took an Experimental College (EXCO) class in ultimate frisbee.  I could have started playing inter-collegiate ultimate that fall, but I waited until spring.  As a result, sometime this month thirty years ago, I began playing "serious" ultimate--first with a college team against other college teams and then on league teams against other league teams with some other kinds of tournaments along the way.

The specific date does not matter, but I am struck by the reality that I have had a longer relationship with ultimate than with my wife.  Sure, I have had periods of non-ultimate in my life (didn't play that much in grad school, hard to find in Texas, no time while in Virginia).

I will always be grateful that the folks playing ultimate when I started did not have the same kind of athleticism as the folks I encounter these days.  I would never have gotten as much playing time ... well, I did have one advantage in 1985 that might have guaranteed it--I had a car that could fit an entire team easily.

Why has ultimate meant so much to me?  Partly because I enjoyed playing a sport I could play well.  Partly because the people involved tended to be silly, sweet, fun, funny, and mighty sharp.  It is pretty telling that in my travels across North America, my friends usually came from two places: my department and the ultimate folks.  Only in Ottawa, my latest stop, has this not applied--I had friends via other sources.  But in Texas, our friends were exclusively from these two groups, and this was largely true in Montreal as well. 


Anyhow, I thought I would mark the anniversary by going through the digital pictures I have handy and noting some of the teams and moments along the way. 

I have a few pictures of my time playing at Oberlin. This one is handy:

It is on the baked fields of Ann Arbor, Michigan, as we played in the sectional tournament (we only made it to regionals one time during my four years and only because another team that was ahead of us could not make it).  One of my teammates had a couch in the back of his truck, and it was handy on these hard fields. 

This picture is of the Lubbock crew (I forget our name), playing in a distant tourney.  All of our tourneys were distant, as there were no other teams in town, and no nearby towns with ultimate.  I didn't play in many tournaments as I had a young kid at home at the time, but I did make it to one in Austin, one in Los Alamos (Atomic Blast--I still have the shirt), and one in Colorado (a costume tourney, which meant I had to get a cow costume that I have kept wearing on occasion [see below]). 

Lubbock ultimate, at Atomic Blast

In Montreal, I played with a few teams.  I played indoors at first, and found out that the Montreal frisbee community was chock full of silly folks, as you can guess from this picture.  Lindsay made an immediate impression on me.  She was not alone in making me welcome to this vibrant frisbee community.  I played ultimate three to four seasons a year for ten years, even as some of the winter leagues (displaced by youth soccer) required a 45 minute or more drive on late winter nights to get to the field.  Only at the end, with the league growing so big with so many games being played off the island, with resulting rush hour driving through the choke points, did I start shedding my ultimate commitments.  

Lindsay Bales, whose hammers are almost
as silly (and effective) as her gear.

Still, the teams I played with made quite an impression.  I played with BMFHard, which stood for Break Force, Mark Hard.  I could only do the former, not so much the latter.  But the team did let me indulge in my favorite throwing tactic, which is throwing to the side of the field the defense was seeking to deny me.   I didn't always see eye to eye with my captain, but Bobby did teach me a lot about tactics and strategy.  As a result, like Bill Belichick, I seek to start on offense in the second half. 

I played several seasons with Ultimate Angels.  A very silly team indeed.  A largely Francophone team that tolerated/made fun of/welcomed the unilingual guy.  After all, he provided some company to the oldest players on the team (yes, UA was one of the few teams after college where I was not the oldest player).  

This pic was from one of my last seasons with UA and shows an old man to old man pass as Mike K was one of the few players with whom I played with and against in Montreal who was older than me.  He was also much fitter... damn it.  This also shows that I can run and cut long, something that surprised many teams since I tended to hang back and be one of the handlers (qb/point guard)

Playing with the Grandmaster's team of Montreal, Olde Ville (or something like it) was a pleasure and an honor.  And beer from a championship cup is delightful.

In my entire career, one team stands out: General Admission.  I played steadily with them in the fall and spring every year as we helped to take over the  Concordia frisbee league.  Eventually, they developed a winter league, and I joined GA in that as well.  The team was so much fun, with so much silly, so much good ultimate, and just terrific people.  

One of my first seasons with GA

Fall games near Halloween always brought out the moo in me.

I was so very touched when they threw me a surprise game on my way out of town.  The pictures here are from before and after that game.  I laughed a lot that evening.  Not just GA players but also those whom I played against over the years.  

The start to a special night.

I really felt the love that night.  I miss those guys

Phil (on the left) overlapped with me for several years at Oberlin
and Chris (on the right) is the grandfather/godfather of
Oberlin Ultimate.

It was great to go back to Oberlin for various Reunion games including the 30th anniversary of Ultimate at Oberlin.

I have had fun bringing ultimate to the International Studies Association! 

ISA San Diego 2012

For a year or two, I had great fun watching and sometimes playing with my daughter.  Seeing Jessica play was quite a hoot.  And I am thrilled to report that she now plays with her college team. 








I ended up playing on the Junior team with Jean-Levy, the tall guy on the right in this picture--a fantastic player who has played with the the Canadian national team and on teams that have won at the national tourney.  The kids, he, and I won the C/D bracket during the end of the season tournament.  One of the older teams complained about J-L and I playing, but we were playing with 14-16 year olds against 20-40 year olds.... hee, hee. 






Finally a few pictures of highlights along the way.  I could never jump that well, so I always took pride in my ability to jump down/sideways: laying out for many disks.

Evidence I can leave the ground ... yet the other player
got the disk!

Mighty proud of my ability to throw any kind of throw accurately,
unlike many players, I remember that I have a backhand throw.

And thanks to my daughter and her keen editing skills, we have this video from 2014 proving that I may still have it. 

Patricia Weitsman Memorial Scholarship

I received this from Patricia Weitsman's sister:

Dear friends and loved ones;

We wanted to share with you the good news that The Patricia A. Weitsman Memorial Scholarship fund has officially become a permanent endowment, having crossed the $25k mark. It was so meaningful to have received this news just ahead of the first anniversary of my dear sister’s passing.

The first award will be decided in December 2015 for a student entering the War and Peace Studies Program in the 2016 academic year.

Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and loving contributions.

If you would still like to make a gift in memory of Patricia, please visit Ohio.edu/Give and note in the online form that the gift is in memory of Dr. Patricia Weitsman and request that funds be designated to The Patricia A. Weitsman Memorial Scholarship, or call 740-593-0732 to make a gift via phone.

With love,
Debbie

 So, this is good news.  I learned at the ISA more about how incredibly influential, sweet, touching and tough Pattie was, so I have been thinking alot about her as the anniversary of her death approaches.  I am glad to hear, although not surprised, that the fund-raising effort has been successful.  The new security journal at ISA, Journal of Global Security Studies, is something she shepherded, so that there will be a couple of very tangible legacies in her areas of scholarship--at Ohio U and at the ISA. 

Republican Letter-writing Silliness

Nice for Brian McFadden to take a swipe at HRC while he was at it...

NYT

My fave is Rand Paul's, I think, although Cruz writing to Canada is especially delightful as well. 

Sham-tastic Anniversary

While today is Π-day, in just two days, we will be "celebrating" the anniversary of that sham-wow event--the Crimea referendum.  Pretty much everyone, except for those with ties to Russia, saw the referendum as the sham it clearly was.  I wrote a piece that called it the way everyone saw it.  In the aftermath, the EU, the European Parliament, the Group of 7, the UN Security Council (vetoed by Russia, abstained by China), the UN General Assembly, NATO and the Venice Commission condemned it.  Even Russia's relatively stalwart friend Belarus indicated it was not thrilled.

The best way to evaluate the referendum?  By looking at those who supported it. 

• Afghanistan, with its own irredentist aspirations, and still led by a Karzai seeking to piss all over the West.
• Argentina, which saw the Crimea through the Malvinas ... although one could see it the reverse as well.  Oops.
• India opposed unilateral measures against Russia, which makes no sense since the world was anything but unilateral in its opposition.
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Venezuela
• The various semi-states that Russia has helped to create at the expense of its neighbors.

Yeah, great company.
So, let's just go to the videotape:


On the bright side, thanks to Vladimir Putin's putsch, Bill and I got the chance to write a new introduction for the new paperback version of For Kin or Country.

Perhaps Putin has disappeared because he is preparing a big party to celebrate the referendum.

Mach and Booze

The Ontario government is considering allowing the larger supermarkets to sell beer and wine, which would break the monopoly currently held by the Beer Store (run by foreign companies) and the LCBO (government booze stores).  So, the first reaction is almost funny in its over the top quality:
the public sector union basically has said that making booze easier to get means that the current administration does not care about women.  Hmmm, yes, the union cares about women, not about potential job losses.

Which is why I reached for my Machiavelli:
``It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.  For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it.'' 

Sing it!

The Glass May Be Half Full

So much misery in the world, at least as the newspapers report (there is less violence and poverty than 10/20/30 years ago but whatever), and much fear of the apocalypse.  But then we have this:


I had scoffed at 3D printing, having no clue about its potential.  I still don't understand it--what goes in the machine?  But if it can do stuff like this, and other things I have seen lately, well, we live in a pretty amazing time.  Of course, this is probably all just a diversion by the intelligent computers....  this video provides quite a shot of perspective sauce to start the day.

Presidential Humor

I do love that this President can laugh at himself:


And Kimmel, along with Fallon, is on fire.

Online Media Caucus: Next Steps

The Online Media Caucus was ratified at the ISA in New Orleans. The question is: now what? First, we now have a variety of online media outlets to publicize:

• ISA's homepage for us: http://www.isanet.org/ISA/Caucuses/OMC
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/OnlineMediaISA or @OnlineMediaISA
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ISAOMC
• Blog to be announced later.
• Pinterest, Vine, Instragram, and other online media outlets will be developed by volunteers.

On The Bright Side

NATO's day job, providing reassurance to its members and seeking to deter Russia from attacking members, is actually pretty straightforward.... even, dare I say it, easy.  Huh?  Yes, I have been preaching humility for a while--that the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq (yes, that is deliberate) teach us that much of what NATO and various forms of coalitions have been doing can be really, really hard and that success is elusive.

How can I suggest that NATO's eastern front is "easy" while its southern front (this is the distinction I have heard from NATO types over the past few weeks) is so very hard?  Because that which NATO and coalitions x,y and z have been doing since 2001-ish has depended greatly on getting the politics right of the places where they have been operating.  That the local allies in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on have been quite unreliable, that they have had little control beyond their national capitals, that the international efforts have required extensive whole of government cooperation and intra-alliance cooperation to try to develop semi-self-sustaining political systems.  Indeed, this week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey referred to this basic problem--that whatever we do militarily in Iraq hinges on whether the Shia-dominated government can come up with a deal with the Sunnis.

The good news is that the European front is far, far less complex.  Whatever one thinks of Ukraine's government, that is almost entirely not NATO's problem.  NATO's challenge is to provide enough military force and the appearance of political commitment that such force would be used that Russia, and the ever-opportunist Putin (thanks to Kim Marten for the idea that Vlad is a judo guy looking at one move at a time and not a chessmaster), see that the potential costs of poaching further are not worth the risks.  This is not really that easy--getting consensus at NATO is difficult, but it pales in comparison to the challenges of the past fourteen or so years in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. 

The governments of the Baltic countries and of Poland--the main countries on the frontier--are democratic, transparent, functional, stable and determined.  They are not likely to use alliance guarantees to act aggressively against Russia (unlike, say, Georgia).  They feel the threat quite intensely although Poland has much less to fear than the Baltics.  The latter have significant Russian populations that can be used by Putin as he stretches at the outer limits of plausible deniability (how implausible can one's denies be and still be plausible enough to be politically useful?).  The interests of the politicians in eastern Europe line up rather well with the US and others.  There are no Malikis or Karzais, with the possible exception of the entirely irrelevant (in this matter) Orban of Hungary. 

Sure, the Baltics need to do more to make their Russian populations feel less alienated, but if I were a Russian in the Baltics, I would compare my situation now to that of those living in the conflict zones in Ukraine.  Much better to be on this side of the bright and shiny line that divides NATO from Russia's prey. 

Again, getting consensus at NATO is hard, but even the Germans are making important commitments that tie their hands, such as agreeing to be the lead nation for the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force.  Certainly, the European countries are having a very hard time meeting the 2% GDP commitment.  On the other hand, the US can place troops into the Baltics and Poland with or without NATO consensus, to re-create the tripwire that existing in West Germany in the days of the Cold War.  There is much work to do to improve the credibility of the NATO deterrent, of Article V's applicability to the Baltics, but the point here is that this is relatively simple compared to the recent past.  And it is something with which NATO has much practice, history and doctrine.  The alliance just has to go into the archives and dig this stuff up and figure out how the old plans of how to deal with salami tactics apply in the 21st century. 

Breaking Badder: Mad Men Dead Pool

In the grand tradition of the Spew, I am running a Mad Men Dead Pool for the last part of the last season of Mad Men.  Yep, we missed the chance to include Robert Morse's Bertram Cooper.  But we have a whole host of folks who might pass on before the last episode ends. 

To be clear, this is about who dies and not who lives (the who survived Breaking Bad game got complicated due to this point).  We will be holding a draft before April (the remaining episodes are televised in April and May) where people will take turns picking characters from the Mad Men universe.  The winner of the contest will be the person who picks the most characters who die during those final eight episodes.  Yes, a death montage a la Six Feet Under would count.  To count, the character has to be clearly dead--comas do not count.  As always, I am the arbitrary judge of all matters as it is my contest.

What shall we use as a tiebreaker?  Possibilities include:

• Sally's ultimate occupation? 
• the number of episodes in which Bobby has a speaking part?
• the number of times Harry is humiliated in the final eight episodes?
• the number of successful pitches Don makes (to clients, not to ladies) in the last eight?

So, I am now opening up the contest to both requests to be players and suggestions for the game itself.  So, comment here or tweet me or email me or facebook me if you want to play and if you have any suggestions before I make the final decisions on the rules.  I will take the first ten players or so (depending on bribes, successful advertising pitches, etc).

And the prize will be the same as always--a chance to post whatever you want at the Spew

Gin and tonics all around!

Not All IR Scholars

The current trend in the meta-analysis of Russia/Ukraine is to divide IR scholars and regional experts/comparativists with the former blaming NATO expansion and the latter focused more on Russia's domestic politics.  A mix is one that focuses on petro-states. I just want to scream that it is not all IR scholars who line up in the blame NATO, apologize for Putin camp.

A certain group of realists like to define their paradigm and even the IR community in a particular way, but the reality is that there is much diversity in Realism and among IR scholars.  The blame NATO crowd does not have a monopoly among realists as this Foreign Affairs summary clearly depicts. 

As the Monkey Cage piece suggests, timing matters, and last year's events did not happen because Ukraine's NATO status suddenly changed.  No, Russia's aggression began when it lost control over events in Ukraine when its favorite politician fled. 

Realists of a certain stripe have a problem with this because it suggests that domestic politics matters--that who runs Ukraine matters because different people with different constituencies will govern differently.  This is problematic for those who over-emphasize how determining a country's position is in the structure of international relations--great power/not great power; buffer state/whatever.

These Realists have another problem--in a nuclear world, what does the alliance status of Ukraine mean for Russian security?  Even if Ukraine were to become a NATO country (which was not on the horizon given European objections), Russia would have little to fear if one defines security conventionally--as the fear of an attack.  The reality of Mutual Assured Destruction would not change with Ukraine's alliance status.  So, one would have to expand the notion of security, make it broadly defined, in order for Ukraine to be a threat to Russia.  And that is a move that some of these Realists have long loathed.

One can be opposed to NATO expansion to Ukraine, as I have long been, and still find that Russia is entirely responsible for the events of late.  Putin has plenty of agency and chose this conflict.  It is, indeed, a war of choice.  A key irony/contradiction in modern (and classic) realism is to view other countries as being pushed by the international system as if they are billiard balls but that the reactions of the US (and sometimes its allies) are blunted by domestic politics.  If only the US too could react according to the clear imperatives of the international system, all would be ok, but politicians lie and lobbies lobby.  Damn.

What Happened to the Senate?

I seem to remember from my American history lessons long ago that one of the justifications of having a Senate with longer terms is that it would not be as likely to be swayed by whims and passions of the mob.  Well, it now seems like one half of the Senate is the mob.  Writing a letter to a foreign leader to advise him of their stance?  It is not clear whether this letter is more superfluous (pretty sure Iran gets FOX, CNN and the NY Times) or just more outrageous for over-stepping the body's role in the making of foreign policy.

I got miffed, so I tried to develop a meme yesterday:

Minimizing Risk vs Mitigating Risk

The Canadian government kept discussing "not combat" "troops not accompanying" and the like when it sent a handful of Special Operations Forces [SOF] to Iraq last summer/fall.  In January, they tripped over these distinctions when it was learned that CANSOF were spending something like 20% of their time near/at the front lines, including facilitating the bombing campaign by lasing (using laser designators to paint) targets.

Why?  The whole "no boots on the ground" mantra and this "not near the front lines" was an effort to minimize the risks the SOF were facing even as they acknowledged this was somewhat risky.  Not mitigate but downplay how risky their activities were.  This week, the risks--the chance of something bad happening--became costs as one CANSOF soldier was killed and three injured by the folks Canada is trying to help.

To be clear, I am not opposed to the deployment of SOF to Iraq and even to the frontlines.  Using the most experienced, most skilled, best equipped, best trained troops is a key way to be effective AND reduce the actual risks.   These soldiers are supposed to be better than the average infantry soldier--that they can do more damage and provide more support while exposing themselves to less danger.

The problem is that the government fell into its own trap--that there would be few risks and therefore the public and parliament should not mind.  But there were and are real risks--not the chimera of mission creep--but of accidents taking place on the battlefield. Friendly fire is not inevitable, but it is also not unlikely.  More British soldiers were killed in the 1991 Gulf War by American fire than by Iraqi attacks.  Canada's first casualties in Afghanistan in 2002 were due to American planes breaking their rules and dropping bombs on a Canadian unit.

This stuff is almost certainly MORE likely in a coalition operation where the relationships between the various friends on the ground are far less institutionalized, practiced and prepared. 

Is this a problem for the Harper government?  Probably not.  Why?  Because in the aftermath of the attacks in October in St. Jean and Ottawa, the Canadian public is probably willing to pay some kind of price to stop ISIS.  Given that there has been some progress in Iraq, where talks of offensives by the Iraqis, Kurds (and Iranians) indicate that the tide has turned for the moment, this suggests that the air campaign, combined with the training effort on the ground, has helped to stop ISIS's momentum.  Which makes the price being paid a bit more tolerable than if ISIS was still moving forward in Iraq.

Another reason why this week's events may not hurt the Harper government: it puts the Liberals into a tough position.  Liberal supporters are divided on this mission, so news about it is unlikely to be helpful to the Liberals as they seek unity in the face of the next election.

More casualties might change these dynamics, but at the moment, the events in Iraq are not bad for Harper's domestic political situation.  The decision to renew or not the Canadian deployment of planes is coming up, so we shall soon see if Harper wants to go to the exit.  My bet is on a renewal, but Harper has shifted quickly before, so it is possible that the Canadian Forces will come home.  The only thing that I would clearly rule out is the deployment of a larger, conventional Canadian contingent that has combat as its day job.

Update: this effort to minimize the risks is still going on:

Sunday Silliness: Obamacare Edition

Brian McFadden pulls no punches today on how one can react if the Supreme Court shoots down Obamacare:

Random Ranking: Oscar Songs

We were listening to Glory on the way to seeing a movie tonight--Hot Tub Time Machine 2, and I realized that this might be my favorite Oscar-winning song ever.  I had to check out a list and see where it stands on my top five:

1. Glory
2. Streets of Philadelphia (Neil Young's song, also nominated, for this movie is seriously underrated).
3. Chim Chim Cher-ee ... because any Mary Poppins song has to be near the top for historical reasons (got our family through toddler surgery).
4. Jai Ho
5. I Just Called to Say I Love You

Live and Let Die would be number one but it didn't win--just nominated, losing to The Way We Were.  Glory may be at the top due to recency bias, but  I doubt that any previous Oscar winning song was as moving with the possible exception of either of the two songs from Philadelphia.

Which Costs Matter

There has been much focus, and deservedly so, on the economic sanctions hitting Russia hard.  The problem is whether they hit those who support Putin or not, and whether they create economic opportunities for those who are good at evading the law (the police, organized crime) who also happen to be tied to Putin.

The latest reports focus on a different set of costs--that the Russian military is losing "large numbers" of soldiers in Ukraine.  This matters a great deal not so much because the mothers of these soldiers might become a huge political force (I am not sure their impact during Afghanistan was exaggerated or not) but because coercive political rule always, always, always depends on a key question: are the folks with the guns going to fire upon those who oppose the government?

Chenoweth and Stephan have engaged in much research on when non-violent dissent works, with one key factor being defection among the military/police.  What might cause the military to be more ambivalent about Putin?  Bearing the costs for his adventures.

I am not saying anything is going to happen soon or quickly, nor should we be thrilled that Russian young men and women are paying the price of Putin's aggression.  Also, as Bill and I argued in our book, there is nothing new about a country paying the price for a leader's ambition--the question is not what is best for the country but for the "kin".  In this case, the relevant kin are not the Russians in the near abroad (nor in any case of irredentism we studied) but those who prop up the government.

This is not going to end soon, but it may at some point end.  Hope is not a plan, but costs are integral for Ukraine's future and perhaps Russia's as well.  Does that make me favor the delivery of arms to Ukraine?  Um, still not sure about it.  It would increase the costs for everyone involved, and I am not sure that is a good thing even if it promotes dissension in Russia's ranks in the long run.  Why?  Because Ukraine will pay a higher cost in the short run as Russia has escalation dominance--it can and likely will go up and up in terms of escalating the conflict.

On the other hand, Ukrainians die while we sit by patiently.  If this were an easy problem, the answer would be obvious.....  And the last few times I have advocated the use of force, I have been not so happy with the outcomes (Libya, Afghanistan surge).   I have learned a wee bit of humility in all of this. 

Saideman's Law, part two

I have argued that stupid decisions in the past should not serve as binding precedents for stupid behavior in the present or future.  Upon reading this piece, I had a similar reaction with a modification of the rule.  Rosa Brooks argues that there are plenty of others who messed up in similar ways.  Maybe the system is broken, but Petraeus still knowingly gave highly classified info to a person who did not have the same level of classification.  His initial reluctance is rather telling. Then, of course, he lied about it.  So, he broke the law and should be penalized, just as others should have been.  And if the law is a problem, then, yes, it should be modified.

To be clear, I am not a P4 hater.  I had a brush with him in 2001-2002 when I was on the Joint Staff as I had to talk to him about something (I forget the specifics) as I was on the Bosnia desk and he was serving at the time as the Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations for SFOR, the NATO force in Bosnia.  I was impressed at the time, and followed him avidly when he was leading the 101st division into Iraq and into Mosul. Early reports and then Tom Rick's Fiasco indicated that Petraeus was doing the occupation stuff far better than most Americans at the time (a low bar but still).

So, I was a Petraeus fan before it was cool.  Perhaps I am pissed off now as a let down fan.  Or because he slept with his dissertation supervisee (Paula Broadwell).  But I also think that one should not think with one's penis when handing around classified material.  That she had a classification is not sufficient, as there are degrees of classification for a reason.  Well, many reasons but two are: need to know and degree of risk.  She didn't need to know, and reserved officers are a much wider group of people so no need to have as many with high classifications.

In my year on the Joint Staff, I had a Top Secret clearance.  Which was handy and it did allow me to see stuff that I didn't need to see--the daily intel circulated throughout the interagency.  But I did not get to participate in some meetings, especially those involving terrorism and the search for PIFWCs (war criminals) as that stuff involved Special Operations (what I inferred, not what I actually learned).  I knew what I was missing, but not the specifics.  And despite my desperate genetic imperative for more information--I am a very curious person, I was ok with being outside the room and not in the circle of trust.

Paula Broadwell should have understood that she was overreaching, and Petraeus should have gone with his first instinct and not give the stuff to her.  As they say, you do the crime, you do the time. 

Oh and one story about classified materials: on 9/11, I was on the way to State with two army officers.  After the plane hit, these guys were determined to get back to the building both to see if our comrades were ok and to deposit the classified materials they were carrying.  Taking stuff home is serious business and requires serious paperwork (see Erin Simpson on this).   So, we did, indeed, go back into a burning building (a very big building where the burning was on the other side) to drop off the documents.

Back to the Casino: Wagering on the Next CDS

Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson is stepping down, which is not great timing for NPSIA since we have him at our school on Monday.  But it does allow us to play the favorite game of: guess the next CDS.

I suck at this game, having guessed wrong before.  When Rick Hillier stepped down, I had a favorite candidate--the officer that I knew personally and whom I thought would be a good political choice given his Quebec origins--Mike Gauthier.  Gen. Walt Natynczyk was chosen, and should have been the obvious candidate, given that he is quite soft-spoken.  I tend to bet on Stephen Harper seeking to manage messaging more than most other priorities, so this choice made some sense.

Next time, Harper chose Tom Lawson, which was a bit surprising to me since the Air Force had been much trouble--F-35 and all that.  Still, Lawson has proved to be pretty good at sticking to the messaging. 

Which is why I doubt that Jon Vance, currently the Commander of Canadian Joint Operations Command, is likely to be chosen. Vance proved in Afghanistan that he was willing to push hard against the rest of the government when he thought his model village plan was better than sticking to the playbook as written.  That is, he did not care so much about the magical six priorities and three signature projects--he would build schools that did not count on the whole of government map of 50 schools.  I just don't see Harper going that route. 

Beyond that, I am not sure.  There is no formal rotation among the services, with the Navy being left out of this spot for 18 years.  However, given that the Navy has much of the focus in the years ahead with the shipbuilding program, it might make sense to put the Navy first for a change. 

I honestly don't know, but if I were in Vegas, I would wager on the Not Army line if the odds were good.

21st Century Travel

I could complain a great deal about how hard it was to get home from Berlin--that after two days of flight cancellations, I ended up driving home via rental car.  Instead, as my brother noted (I stayed overnight at his house in between the day I was supposed to fly back to Ottawa from Newark and the rescheduled day where I was supposed to fly to DC and then to Ottawa, which was then cancelled and led to a proposed flight to Chicago yesterday and then on to Ottawa today):

Messed up map--too much work, too little time

No, the point of this post is to celebrate.  What?  The modern smartphone and all of its apps.  I have FlightTrack, which along with alerts from United via email, informed me all along the way of flight changes.  This allowed me to call directly (one app has a button that spits out the United phone number) or go to the desk and start work on the next flight plan.  I got immediate service since I was just ahead of the curve.  I also got phone calls and emails from family who assisted me along the way (that the GOES card people found my lost Nexus card, that my wife could call National and rent me a car, that National informed me that I had a reservation before I stepped on the Chicago flight).  If I got on the Chicago flight, I would have called the airport Hilton to get a reservation before I landed....

The phone also has a GPS app which helped me navigate out of NYC until I was on I-80 and knew how to drive home from there. 

So, I could have been more stressed, but I was constantly informed and then reacting (keeping the illusion of control) all along.  Good times.  Woot for the 21st century smartphone plus apps!

Travel Notes In an Airport That is Easily Frightened by Snow

I thought my travel complain du jour was that I didn't get a happy ending in either Berlin or Newark, but it turns out that Newark's airport shuts down its flights to Canada pretty quickly when it snows.  In Canada, this kind of snow would not shake things up.

Anyway, it seems like it was a "random" day at security for Steve, as I got "random" attention twice.  The second time it was hardly necessary since I went through security to get to my flight and then turned around both because my flight was cancelled and because I dropped one of my ID cards in the Customs area.

Good times.  The good news about the cancellation is that I can't teach tomorrow I had plenty of time to go back and get my dropped id.  The other big of good news is that NYC is a Saideman-rich environment, so I am blogging while I wait for my brother to pick me up.  

I forgot to mention in my previous posts that something happened on the way to Berlin that I had never seen before.  The bathroom door fell off its hinge so we got to watch the flight attendants repair it mid-flight.  They turned out to be handy folks.

I am enjoying my year of United Gold as it gets me into European airport lounges, and the pretzels in Berlin were tasty and soft.  Almost as good as Philly soft pretzels.

On the way back,  I watched Big Hero 6, which was good but not as worthy as the Lego movie.  I did enjoy both the Eye of the Tiger montage moment and T.J. Miller yelling "Science, yeah!"  I am pretty sure that the movie won the Oscar because they put the animator credits before the voice cast credits.

Spoilers below