There can only be one HP movie left. Go here for a bit of the trailer and then a key early scene with Mr. Ollivander.
I think that ends my longest streak of non-HP-ness in quite some time.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Beware of Officers Carrying Reading Lists
Military folks are surprisingly well read. We academics tend to think of folks in the military as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, but they almost surely, on average, have read more stuff than civilians, especially non-academic ones. They tend to have very sharp eyes for stuff on military history, strategy and such. Indeed, commanders at all levels have developed reading lists for those under them so that the subordinates can understand where their bosses are coming from.
But I would like to suggest one caveat: these folks tend to better when focused on the military and less so when it comes to getting background on where the military will be operating. Lots of stories now, starting with a 60 minutes piece on Greg Mortenson and his Three Cups of Tea book and its limited accuracy. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen was a big fan of this book (although his official reading list did not include this book).
I am familiar with this tendency within the military, as the Balkans Branch of the Joint Staff had Balkan Ghosts by Robert Kaplan on its reading list in 2001. Perhaps my greatest contribution during my year on the Joint Staff was getting to revise the list and drop that book. It is exactly the kind of thing that seems attractive to uniformed types--a travelogue with lots of local color, developing a very general (but severely flawed) understanding of the place.
So, the lesson du jour for civilian types is discriminate when getting reading suggestions from military folks--do read their recommended stuff on military history and strategy. But don't read their suggestions for the history and cultures of countries, unless you don't mind blowing time on reading stuff that is utter crap. Of course, I cannot say if Cups of Tea is utter crap, but Balkan Ghosts was/is. The lesson du jour for the military types is that they should not buy into the most popular stuff on countries in which they are operating. Just because something is widely cited does not mean it is good or right.
But I would like to suggest one caveat: these folks tend to better when focused on the military and less so when it comes to getting background on where the military will be operating. Lots of stories now, starting with a 60 minutes piece on Greg Mortenson and his Three Cups of Tea book and its limited accuracy. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen was a big fan of this book (although his official reading list did not include this book).
I am familiar with this tendency within the military, as the Balkans Branch of the Joint Staff had Balkan Ghosts by Robert Kaplan on its reading list in 2001. Perhaps my greatest contribution during my year on the Joint Staff was getting to revise the list and drop that book. It is exactly the kind of thing that seems attractive to uniformed types--a travelogue with lots of local color, developing a very general (but severely flawed) understanding of the place.
So, the lesson du jour for civilian types is discriminate when getting reading suggestions from military folks--do read their recommended stuff on military history and strategy. But don't read their suggestions for the history and cultures of countries, unless you don't mind blowing time on reading stuff that is utter crap. Of course, I cannot say if Cups of Tea is utter crap, but Balkan Ghosts was/is. The lesson du jour for the military types is that they should not buy into the most popular stuff on countries in which they are operating. Just because something is widely cited does not mean it is good or right.
A Good Weekend for Ethnic Outbidding?
We live in nationalist times. Some of this is clearly economic--that even in good economies, uncertainty feeds the beast of nationalism, but in bad times, nationalist demands may increase as blame is directed at other groups and as the economic costs of pursuing nationalist courses matter less. That is, if the economy is tanking, then there will not be as much additional damage if a government chooses a nationalist course of action. In some places, the incumbents have simply been around too long.
Why am I pondering this? Mostly because of a weekend meeting of the Parti Quebecois, but also a couple of other news stories:
In the same vein of responding to non-threats, the PQ reaffirmed its commitment to take the rules for K-11: that French speakers and immigrants cannot go to English public schools and extend that to the CEGEP level (two years of publically funded education in between high school and university) despite the fact that this is very unpopular. It is not clear that these two years will do a better job of creating Francophones (and separatists) than the previous 11 or 12. It almost seems as if the PQ does not want the Quebec young folks from developing the skills to compete in today's international economy.
The PQ also "voted to make French “the priority language” before all courts and tribunals in Quebec, including those under federal jurisdiction, and to beef up the province’s language police. In addition to adding language inspectors, a PQ government would mandate them to investigate whether anglophone hospitals and municipalities serve enough anglophones to continue operating in English." SourceI am not even sure that this can happen even if they rely on the notwithstanding clause (the compromise that allows any province [or the federal government] to engage in unconstitutional behavior by simply passing a majority vote).
The basic idea, of course, is to provoke as many battles as possible so that Canada says no and so that the Francophones become mobilized enough to support a referendum. I guess this is possible, but since the PQ has made it clear that this is exactly their strategy, I don't think that either Canada or the folks in Quebec will over-react when the PQ over-reaches.
All I do know is that it will be disruptive and that the government will end up dumping heaps of $$ down a black hole in pursuit of anightmare dream that will never happen. But nationalists tend to be self-destructive.
Why am I pondering this? Mostly because of a weekend meeting of the Parti Quebecois, but also a couple of other news stories:
- Hungary's right of center party, Fidesz, gained enough seats in parliament to re-write its constitution. And it is doing precisely that: "With references to God, Christianity, the Holy Crown of Hungary, fatherland, national pride and traditional families, the text has raised concerns in the Hungarian press and among observers, who see it as discriminatory."
- France has banned the burqa even though there is hardly a threat of many women wearing it. Just good old symbolic politics.
In the same vein of responding to non-threats, the PQ reaffirmed its commitment to take the rules for K-11: that French speakers and immigrants cannot go to English public schools and extend that to the CEGEP level (two years of publically funded education in between high school and university) despite the fact that this is very unpopular. It is not clear that these two years will do a better job of creating Francophones (and separatists) than the previous 11 or 12. It almost seems as if the PQ does not want the Quebec young folks from developing the skills to compete in today's international economy.
The PQ also "voted to make French “the priority language” before all courts and tribunals in Quebec, including those under federal jurisdiction, and to beef up the province’s language police. In addition to adding language inspectors, a PQ government would mandate them to investigate whether anglophone hospitals and municipalities serve enough anglophones to continue operating in English." SourceI am not even sure that this can happen even if they rely on the notwithstanding clause (the compromise that allows any province [or the federal government] to engage in unconstitutional behavior by simply passing a majority vote).
The basic idea, of course, is to provoke as many battles as possible so that Canada says no and so that the Francophones become mobilized enough to support a referendum. I guess this is possible, but since the PQ has made it clear that this is exactly their strategy, I don't think that either Canada or the folks in Quebec will over-react when the PQ over-reaches.
All I do know is that it will be disruptive and that the government will end up dumping heaps of $$ down a black hole in pursuit of a
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Women and the Future of the US Military
Some twitter folks were linking to this piece on Women in Combat this morning, and it reminded me of an earlier post here. While I think the equity argument is an important one--that serving in combat is required for folks to become leaders and if we keep women out of formal combat positions, we are ensuring that they cannot rise that far--my point here is more about modern combat. Because the US is so superior in conventional capabilities, most conflicts down the road will be unconventional ones, which has two effects relevant here.
First, the line between combat and non-combat positions is beyond silly at this point. As Vietnam showed and Iraq/Afghanistan reinforced, the distinction between the "front" and the "rear" is largely irrelevant. Women have been in combat for much of these wars. Indeed, even in the opening offensive in Iraq, women were in harm's way as truck drivers and providing other logistical support. The article linked above provides plenty of evidence to support this notion that the only folks who believe there is a separation between combat and non-combat positions are in the US Congress. This parallels the distinction between the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom--two different missions that cannot really be distinguished except by European legislators imposing restrictions on their contingents.
Which gets to the second point: these restrictions in the US military serve as the equivalent of the caveats for which we have been castigating our European allies. We have imposed a restriction on how we deploy (sans women in combat), which matters a great deal, especially in countries where the local women will not talk to foreign men. Our military women not only serve as important role models, but also as important conduits of information from Afghan women to our intel folks. The US Marines have tried various tactics to avoid the US legal restrictions, but it is not easy.
Just as in the gays in the military debate, framing this as rights and equity may not be the only way to proceed. We need to remember that women not only can do stuff as well as men, but in some cases are indispensable. Restrictions on their involvement in combat have hurt the war effort. So, the folks who argue against women in combat (ignorant on so many levels) are actually anti-American in that they are advocating that we go to war with fewer weapons at our disposal.
UPDATE: Count the Aussies as being ahead of the US curve--just announced decision to allow women to serve in combat units.
First, the line between combat and non-combat positions is beyond silly at this point. As Vietnam showed and Iraq/Afghanistan reinforced, the distinction between the "front" and the "rear" is largely irrelevant. Women have been in combat for much of these wars. Indeed, even in the opening offensive in Iraq, women were in harm's way as truck drivers and providing other logistical support. The article linked above provides plenty of evidence to support this notion that the only folks who believe there is a separation between combat and non-combat positions are in the US Congress. This parallels the distinction between the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom--two different missions that cannot really be distinguished except by European legislators imposing restrictions on their contingents.
Which gets to the second point: these restrictions in the US military serve as the equivalent of the caveats for which we have been castigating our European allies. We have imposed a restriction on how we deploy (sans women in combat), which matters a great deal, especially in countries where the local women will not talk to foreign men. Our military women not only serve as important role models, but also as important conduits of information from Afghan women to our intel folks. The US Marines have tried various tactics to avoid the US legal restrictions, but it is not easy.
Just as in the gays in the military debate, framing this as rights and equity may not be the only way to proceed. We need to remember that women not only can do stuff as well as men, but in some cases are indispensable. Restrictions on their involvement in combat have hurt the war effort. So, the folks who argue against women in combat (ignorant on so many levels) are actually anti-American in that they are advocating that we go to war with fewer weapons at our disposal.
UPDATE: Count the Aussies as being ahead of the US curve--just announced decision to allow women to serve in combat units.
Consistency is the Theme of the Day
U of Ottawa Prof and twitter pal Phillipe Lagassé pondered this morning:
Harper has been consistent in his inconsistency: Parliament matters and is an important constraint when he wants to be constrained, and it is not when he does not want to be constrained.
I don't know much about the powers of the PM, Parliament, the Crown and such stuff, whereas Phil does. His tweets suggest that Harper's consistent inconsistency is not consistent with Canadian laws, conventions or practice. While I don't consistently agree with Phil (as our Sunday morning tweet battles prove), I will consistently concur with him on Harper's drunken view of Parliament.
Anybody feel Prime Minister Harper is using Parliament (being in mid-election campaign) as an excuse to not make difficult decisions about the Libya mission?I immediately responded back that this worked for the Afghanistan mission--that when asked, Harper would always say that he would respect the parliamentary mandate to end the combat mission in Kandahar in 2011. This was almost a non sequitor as the PM could exert some political effort and spend some capital to get the mission renewed as he did in 2008. So, it struck me that Harper views Parliament as the drunk in the old saying views the lampost--for support, not illumination.
Harper has been consistent in his inconsistency: Parliament matters and is an important constraint when he wants to be constrained, and it is not when he does not want to be constrained.
I don't know much about the powers of the PM, Parliament, the Crown and such stuff, whereas Phil does. His tweets suggest that Harper's consistent inconsistency is not consistent with Canadian laws, conventions or practice. While I don't consistently agree with Phil (as our Sunday morning tweet battles prove), I will consistently concur with him on Harper's drunken view of Parliament.
A Pretention of Pretense?
Alan Kuperman's take on the Libya mission is getting a heap of play on the internets: he essentially argues that there was no looming humanitarian catastrophe that US/UK/France and their NATO pals needed to prevent. He blames the rebels for manipulating the outsiders. Had anyone wanted to, they could have written the piece for Kuperman since it is very consistent with his previous writings on Rwanda and elsewhere.
The temptation here is to deploy Emerson's quote about foolish consistency, but I have to admit that I tend to see ethnic ties (from my first book) and xenophobia (from my second book) everywhere and perhaps more than they are relevant.
Others, especially Jon Western, have done a great job of arguing that there was something there to stop--that is, there was a real risk of a mass killing to prevent. I would only add to that one of the pieces of social science that is relevant: we know that overwhelming victory tends to end civil wars more durably but also more bloodily. That is, when one side wins outright, they tend to engage in large scale killings of their opponents. So, if we abstract away from the particular case, we can still expect that Qadaffi would killed lots of folks had the outsiders not stepped in to prevent the fall of Benghazi.
Of course, the title of the piece, pretense, suggests that there is an ulterior motive. While we can speculate about Sarkozy's interests in terms of domestic political strategies (wag the chien),* for the US and UK, the domestic gains are less obvious. If one wants to say anything about oil, the reality is that the old strategy has always been the best one for cheap oil--support the autocrat. Indeed, one of the problems in the Marxist-type arguments about resources and intervention is that outsiders usually can get resources from the regime or its opponents, so it is often not so obvious that supporting the rebels is the best way to get the resources. Given that US relations were at the best with Qaddafi before this wave of dissent and repression, it is hard to say that Obama needed to support the rebels due to a thirst for Libya's oil. The Europeans could be more concerned about access to Q's oil, but again it is not clear why supporting the rebels would be the way to go.
The temptation here is to deploy Emerson's quote about foolish consistency, but I have to admit that I tend to see ethnic ties (from my first book) and xenophobia (from my second book) everywhere and perhaps more than they are relevant.
Others, especially Jon Western, have done a great job of arguing that there was something there to stop--that is, there was a real risk of a mass killing to prevent. I would only add to that one of the pieces of social science that is relevant: we know that overwhelming victory tends to end civil wars more durably but also more bloodily. That is, when one side wins outright, they tend to engage in large scale killings of their opponents. So, if we abstract away from the particular case, we can still expect that Qadaffi would killed lots of folks had the outsiders not stepped in to prevent the fall of Benghazi.
Of course, the title of the piece, pretense, suggests that there is an ulterior motive. While we can speculate about Sarkozy's interests in terms of domestic political strategies (wag the chien),* for the US and UK, the domestic gains are less obvious. If one wants to say anything about oil, the reality is that the old strategy has always been the best one for cheap oil--support the autocrat. Indeed, one of the problems in the Marxist-type arguments about resources and intervention is that outsiders usually can get resources from the regime or its opponents, so it is often not so obvious that supporting the rebels is the best way to get the resources. Given that US relations were at the best with Qaddafi before this wave of dissent and repression, it is hard to say that Obama needed to support the rebels due to a thirst for Libya's oil. The Europeans could be more concerned about access to Q's oil, but again it is not clear why supporting the rebels would be the way to go.
* See Roger Cohen's piece that puts France and Germany into perspective.And this is here I only partially embrace my own foolish consistency. I do think that some of the motivation here is immigration prevention--xenophobia. But I recognize that the interventions of many are motivated and/or justified by the real concern about watching dissidents get killed. What Kuperman fails to highlight is that Qaddafi's opponents did not start by fighting but with protesting. They fought back after getting shot at. No small distinction there. Again, I am contradicting my own earlier work by suggesting something was contagious here. The decisions to support the Libyan rebels are linked to the positions taken by Obama and others with regard to Tunisia and Egypt (and even Bahrain, sort of).
Friday, April 15, 2011
Another Advantage of Living in Canada, part 2
Another entry into "things are better in Canada" column:
You can still can play poker online. Yep, the US has now arrested some folks who run the major online sites (Pokerstars, Full Tilt) and blocked their URL's. Good to know the morals of America are protected from gambling. Oh, states are proposing online poker within their boundaries? To raise money in a time of difficult budgets? Huh. It would make sense for the feds to do that, too, but we have to appease the social conservatives since gambling is a sin.
What is next? Dancing? Where is Wren when you need him?
You can still can play poker online. Yep, the US has now arrested some folks who run the major online sites (Pokerstars, Full Tilt) and blocked their URL's. Good to know the morals of America are protected from gambling. Oh, states are proposing online poker within their boundaries? To raise money in a time of difficult budgets? Huh. It would make sense for the feds to do that, too, but we have to appease the social conservatives since gambling is a sin.
What is next? Dancing? Where is Wren when you need him?
Whither NATO?
Steve Metz concludes a sharp piece on NATO thusly:
It is time for this debate over NATO’s viability to take place. While NATO may serve as an institutional reminder of the shared democratic values of the Atlantic community (and NATO’s not-so-Atlantic new members) and help with interoperability between its members’ military forces, the Alliance, in its current form, has proven it cannot lead and execute complex, sustained operations in today’s world. Three strikes in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and now Libya may not be enough to put NATO out of business, but it certainly should be enough to place the question of its value on the table.He rightly points out many of the problems when NATO is involved in an operation--conflicting goals, restrictions on the troops (my fave topic of caveats), and so on. However, while I have raised many questions about the limits of NATO in my blog and in work underway, the question is really not NATO or not but NATO versus what else? That is, we need to consider what we expect NATO to do, whether it meets, exceeds or falls short of our reasonable expectations, and what would replace it.
Iggy Learns Some IR
I missed the second debate because I was being feted by the warm folks at Grove City College. Plus my French is not up to understanding complex stuff like misunderstanding the UN. Apparently, the Liberal Prime Minister candidate and author on nationalism took a strong initial stand on the deployment of Canadian Forces: only with a UN resolution. Someone apparently pointed out what I always point out to my students--if you want your foreign policy subject to Chinese and Russian vetoes, then sure, a UN Security Resolution can be a fine requirement for your deployment decisions. But if by some chance you don't think that Russia or China should have a veto on your foreign policy, you may want to hedge a bit about using the UNSC as a requirement.
Iggy figured that out by the end of the debate. Too bad he had not spent much of his life hanging out with skeptical political science types. Oh, he has? So, he has a learning curve but it is mighty shallow?
As I said before, figuring out the least bad choice is pretty hard, and Iggy is making it harder still.
Iggy figured that out by the end of the debate. Too bad he had not spent much of his life hanging out with skeptical political science types. Oh, he has? So, he has a learning curve but it is mighty shallow?
As I said before, figuring out the least bad choice is pretty hard, and Iggy is making it harder still.
It Was Not Just the Serbs
ICTY--the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia--just handed down some key verdicts sentencing a couple of Croatian generals to significant jail terms and directly implicating Franjo Tudjman in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina. There were not too many good guys in the disintegration of Yugoslavia. For instance, the Slovenes did not engage in much violence, but must have known that their separatist effort would help to de-stabilize the rest of the country. The conflict empowered the criminals in most of the successor states since they were the ones who could move the goods past the embargoes.
But the folks who were most responsible for the wars were the leaders of Croatia and Serbia--especially Tudjman and Milosevic. The former died before being tried, the latter while the trial was underway. Their dueling irredentists--Croatia seeking parts of Bosnia, Serbia seeking parts of both Croatia and Bosnia--fueled the conflict. Milosevic's nationalism was pretty clearly opportunistic while Tudjman's was sincere. The latter's entire career was focused on the Croatian nation.
I don't have definitive proof, but it has always been my suspicion that Serbia's ethnic cleansing was more tactical than strategic while Croatia's was much more strategic. That is, Serbia kicked other groups out of conquered territories so that they could hold them, but perhaps Croatian folks were generally pursuing a more ethnically homogeneous Croatia. Perhaps someone can dig through the documents filed at ICTY to ascertain how ad hoc vs how planned these efforts were.
Of course, the folks on the ground will blame the "Others" no matter what. Will this erode Tudjman's place in Croatian history? Probably not that much, but scholars are working on the issue of whether these tribunals really change attitudes. Certainly, this case will get another look. For the outsiders, we need to remember that there can be bad guys on both sides, a lesson that is quite relevant today in Libya.
But the folks who were most responsible for the wars were the leaders of Croatia and Serbia--especially Tudjman and Milosevic. The former died before being tried, the latter while the trial was underway. Their dueling irredentists--Croatia seeking parts of Bosnia, Serbia seeking parts of both Croatia and Bosnia--fueled the conflict. Milosevic's nationalism was pretty clearly opportunistic while Tudjman's was sincere. The latter's entire career was focused on the Croatian nation.
I don't have definitive proof, but it has always been my suspicion that Serbia's ethnic cleansing was more tactical than strategic while Croatia's was much more strategic. That is, Serbia kicked other groups out of conquered territories so that they could hold them, but perhaps Croatian folks were generally pursuing a more ethnically homogeneous Croatia. Perhaps someone can dig through the documents filed at ICTY to ascertain how ad hoc vs how planned these efforts were.
Of course, the folks on the ground will blame the "Others" no matter what. Will this erode Tudjman's place in Croatian history? Probably not that much, but scholars are working on the issue of whether these tribunals really change attitudes. Certainly, this case will get another look. For the outsiders, we need to remember that there can be bad guys on both sides, a lesson that is quite relevant today in Libya.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Brits Play PD, More or less
The Brits had a game show that seems to be the inspiration for a similar US game show that plays out Prisoners' Dilemma.
The beautiful woman, Liv Boeree, is now known as one of the better poker players at the various tourneys. Yep, the heartless, bluffing, brutal skills of PD translate well to the poker table. Who would have thunk it?
Of course, one could ponder why the guy got suckered, and if her good looks played a role or not. I leave that to my readers. I just enjoy watching social science that is sold to the public as entertainment/reality TV.
The beautiful woman, Liv Boeree, is now known as one of the better poker players at the various tourneys. Yep, the heartless, bluffing, brutal skills of PD translate well to the poker table. Who would have thunk it?
Of course, one could ponder why the guy got suckered, and if her good looks played a role or not. I leave that to my readers. I just enjoy watching social science that is sold to the public as entertainment/reality TV.
Choices About Colleges and Universities
It is that time of year--when high seniors have to decide what to do. And this is when parents* have to figure out what they can afford. The NYT has been covering the entire process with the latest entry on figuring out what to do when one has a choice.
But it ignores the big question--what is really worth paying for? Is there a qualitative difference between schools that justify spending thousands, tens of thousands, more dollars? A follower of this blog asked me to consider this process. Believe me, I am, both because I am concerned about the "business model" of my profession and as a parent of a high school student.
For me, the big question is of size: do I want my kid to go to a large research school, like the places where I have taught, or a small liberal arts college, like where my wife and I went? And does a potential cost difference overwhelm the benefits of going small? I think one can get a good education at a large school especially if one wants to get into a specialized kind of major that is not offered at a smaller school, but that the students are better off in a smaller school on average where they can actually get to know the profs and the students are viewed less as an inconvenience for the profs.
I am sure my life would have turned out fine if I had gone to a bigger, public school such as Penn State, although I would not have met this particular wife.* But my experience would not have been as positive, I think. I would not have known the profs, they would not have known me. I would not have gotten the advice I would have used to choose my next steps, and I may have been turned off from this business of profess-ing. I didn't end up doing what the folks I admired did--I didn't end up at a small school, but I have come close enough. But that was the market at work, not my original intentions.
Of course, I am over-simplifying as there are many big schools that are just as expensive as the small ones. For those, the differences in benefits still exist, but I do have a harder time justifying the expense of additional $100,000 or more over four years. I do think that the university education is an incredibly important investment, but the prices have gotten so high I am not sure that the debt associated with the highest quality is worth it. In my mind, the size variable is the key.
We will see what I am compelled to do in a couple of years, because it will be my daughter's preferences that matter the most. I owe her the education that best suits her. And it will be her life and thus hers to choose.
* This applies to the US. In Canada, there is not the same kind of cultural expectation that parents pay for the kids' university education.
But it ignores the big question--what is really worth paying for? Is there a qualitative difference between schools that justify spending thousands, tens of thousands, more dollars? A follower of this blog asked me to consider this process. Believe me, I am, both because I am concerned about the "business model" of my profession and as a parent of a high school student.
For me, the big question is of size: do I want my kid to go to a large research school, like the places where I have taught, or a small liberal arts college, like where my wife and I went? And does a potential cost difference overwhelm the benefits of going small? I think one can get a good education at a large school especially if one wants to get into a specialized kind of major that is not offered at a smaller school, but that the students are better off in a smaller school on average where they can actually get to know the profs and the students are viewed less as an inconvenience for the profs.
I am sure my life would have turned out fine if I had gone to a bigger, public school such as Penn State, although I would not have met this particular wife.* But my experience would not have been as positive, I think. I would not have known the profs, they would not have known me. I would not have gotten the advice I would have used to choose my next steps, and I may have been turned off from this business of profess-ing. I didn't end up doing what the folks I admired did--I didn't end up at a small school, but I have come close enough. But that was the market at work, not my original intentions.
* Thus, I prefer the choices I made. And the ones my parents could help me with.
Of course, I am over-simplifying as there are many big schools that are just as expensive as the small ones. For those, the differences in benefits still exist, but I do have a harder time justifying the expense of additional $100,000 or more over four years. I do think that the university education is an incredibly important investment, but the prices have gotten so high I am not sure that the debt associated with the highest quality is worth it. In my mind, the size variable is the key.
We will see what I am compelled to do in a couple of years, because it will be my daughter's preferences that matter the most. I owe her the education that best suits her. And it will be her life and thus hers to choose.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Flying While Thinking about No Fly Zone
I am traveling today so this post will be short. I just want to note that caveats and such apply to the Libyan operation as much as to Afghanistan:
It should not be surprising that there is a division of labor/responsibility where some countries are willing to engage in striking targets on the ground while others refrain, enforcing only the No Fly Zone. This has much to do with domestic politics and how these dynamics interact with the various meanings attached to the UN resolutions.
The Danes are keen to support NATO, especially with their former Prime Minister running NATO. France is demonstrating quite clearly that caveats are a matter of Presidential interest or disinterest. They were in the club of rations consumers (as opposed to burden bearers) in Afghanistan under Chirac, but Sarkozy has been pushing French participation in NATO since then.
Regarding the British, coalition government does not seem to be restraining its foreign policy as some (that would be my co-author and I) would have expected. Will have to think more about this case.
The debate about the pace of bombing reflects a bit about how countries have different rules of engagement--some are far more willing to risk collateral damage while others are not. Some countries are eager to participate symbolically in a NATO mission, any and all NATO missions, but not engage in any kind of effort that would be controversial.
One of the amazing things is how many countries are participating at a time of steep budget cuts. Folks say that NATO does not matter or is entirely ineffective, but it does have a big impact of maxing pressures to participate at some level. That is, NATO members tend to feel obligated to participate plus domestic audiences are more likely to expect their country to participate in a NATO operation. On average, it is almost certainly harder to get domestic support for ad hoc missions than for NATO ops. So, NATO does matter, even if it is not effective as folks would like. Am I surprised that countries disagree about the pace of the operation? No. Anytime there is more than one actor, there will be differences about how an operation is conducted.
Britain and France, for example, are now flying the bulk of the attack missions, with Norway, Denmark and Canada also striking Libyan targets on the ground. But other countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are taking less aggressive roles, enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya or conducting reconnaissance missions, in a nod to political considerations back home.NYTThis is hardly surprising. Well, it may be surprising that the Dutch are there at all, given that their sweeping defense cuts will be eliminating all of their tanks. Perhaps their participation here is partly aimed at justifying to the home crowd the need to keep their current planes (or at least most of them) and invest in the next generation of planes (F-35's).
It should not be surprising that there is a division of labor/responsibility where some countries are willing to engage in striking targets on the ground while others refrain, enforcing only the No Fly Zone. This has much to do with domestic politics and how these dynamics interact with the various meanings attached to the UN resolutions.
The Danes are keen to support NATO, especially with their former Prime Minister running NATO. France is demonstrating quite clearly that caveats are a matter of Presidential interest or disinterest. They were in the club of rations consumers (as opposed to burden bearers) in Afghanistan under Chirac, but Sarkozy has been pushing French participation in NATO since then.
Regarding the British, coalition government does not seem to be restraining its foreign policy as some (that would be my co-author and I) would have expected. Will have to think more about this case.
The debate about the pace of bombing reflects a bit about how countries have different rules of engagement--some are far more willing to risk collateral damage while others are not. Some countries are eager to participate symbolically in a NATO mission, any and all NATO missions, but not engage in any kind of effort that would be controversial.
One of the amazing things is how many countries are participating at a time of steep budget cuts. Folks say that NATO does not matter or is entirely ineffective, but it does have a big impact of maxing pressures to participate at some level. That is, NATO members tend to feel obligated to participate plus domestic audiences are more likely to expect their country to participate in a NATO operation. On average, it is almost certainly harder to get domestic support for ad hoc missions than for NATO ops. So, NATO does matter, even if it is not effective as folks would like. Am I surprised that countries disagree about the pace of the operation? No. Anytime there is more than one actor, there will be differences about how an operation is conducted.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
China Opens Way for American Domination
Seems that the Chinese are banning work on time travel. Ok, they are banning tv shows and movies that depict time travel, but isn't this the first step towards fostering ignorance in this area of research? This could be just the break the US needs in the economic and security competition down the road.
Perhaps rather than being miffed at the Lost finale as the Gawker post suggests, maybe the Chinese are just miffed that the Indians are viewed pretty favorably? Namaste!
Perhaps rather than being miffed at the Lost finale as the Gawker post suggests, maybe the Chinese are just miffed that the Indians are viewed pretty favorably? Namaste!
Kids These Days
Choose evil apparently:
At Disney, you are supposed to choose to be a Jedi, not a Sith. Perhaps too much Fox News in this kid's household.
At Disney, you are supposed to choose to be a Jedi, not a Sith. Perhaps too much Fox News in this kid's household.
Sesquicentennial Celebrations: Happy Civil War Everyone!
Today marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the bloodiest war in American history. It can be called many things: the American Civil War, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression,etc. But one thing stands out--the right side won. While folks can claim that the war was not about slavery, but they would be wrong. The Southerners chose to secede because Abraham Lincoln was elected, and it was not his anti-state's right position that caused such a reaction--it was the key issue of the day that defined the state's rights/federal government's responsibilities debate--slavery.
I am no expert on the Civil War, but we have seen over the past year here and elsewhere posts about the origins of the war that make it mighty clear why there was a war. Of course, individuals chose sides for all kinds of reasons that may or may not have related to the master narrative about slavery, but the war had a very clear outcome, one that the Southerners had fought to prevent: the end of slavery.
The war did not solve America's race problems nor did it resolve the debate about state's rights (except to rule out secession). Today, we still have a debate about what is the proper role of the federal government, with Southern states mostly lined up against the federal government. Red vs. blue does not strictly correlate with Blue and Gray, but it damn near does. Wouldn't it be cool if we could just not have all of those right wing voters and politicians that skew our political systems? Sure, secession of the South today would be mighty cool since I no longer live in Texas. But history is just a bit path dependent.
So, one could ask whether the war was worth it? Well, that is a neat academic question, but given that there were people living and dying in chains, the question is hardly academic at all. Sure, it took another hundred years to realize some of the promises made during and after the war (13th, 14th, 15 amendments) via the civil rights acts, the federal government using troops to integrate high schools and universities, the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. and so on. And, yes, many African-Americans live behind bars today as our war on drugs has been carried out in a way that is quite unjust. But it took a great deal of bloodshed to address America's original sin, and slavery is such an abomination that, yes, it was worth it.
We will certainly spend the next four years re-visiting the war, which will provide ample opportunity for revisionists to try to gloss over this very central point. But the words of past Presidents and the current one about "a more perfect union" have at their core the notion that we started flawed, but not fatally so. That we overcame slavery, that we overcame much (although not all) oppression due to race, religion, gender, and sexuality, but there is much left to do. Remembering where we started, how far we got, and what it cost might not be a bad way to spend the next four years.
I am no expert on the Civil War, but we have seen over the past year here and elsewhere posts about the origins of the war that make it mighty clear why there was a war. Of course, individuals chose sides for all kinds of reasons that may or may not have related to the master narrative about slavery, but the war had a very clear outcome, one that the Southerners had fought to prevent: the end of slavery.
The war did not solve America's race problems nor did it resolve the debate about state's rights (except to rule out secession). Today, we still have a debate about what is the proper role of the federal government, with Southern states mostly lined up against the federal government. Red vs. blue does not strictly correlate with Blue and Gray, but it damn near does. Wouldn't it be cool if we could just not have all of those right wing voters and politicians that skew our political systems? Sure, secession of the South today would be mighty cool since I no longer live in Texas. But history is just a bit path dependent.
So, one could ask whether the war was worth it? Well, that is a neat academic question, but given that there were people living and dying in chains, the question is hardly academic at all. Sure, it took another hundred years to realize some of the promises made during and after the war (13th, 14th, 15 amendments) via the civil rights acts, the federal government using troops to integrate high schools and universities, the movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. and so on. And, yes, many African-Americans live behind bars today as our war on drugs has been carried out in a way that is quite unjust. But it took a great deal of bloodshed to address America's original sin, and slavery is such an abomination that, yes, it was worth it.
We will certainly spend the next four years re-visiting the war, which will provide ample opportunity for revisionists to try to gloss over this very central point. But the words of past Presidents and the current one about "a more perfect union" have at their core the notion that we started flawed, but not fatally so. That we overcame slavery, that we overcame much (although not all) oppression due to race, religion, gender, and sexuality, but there is much left to do. Remembering where we started, how far we got, and what it cost might not be a bad way to spend the next four years.
Backfill Flashbacks
One of the stories that was most revealing during my time on the Joint Staff was the Rummy effort to get US units out of everywhere. Because I was essentially a free hand, my bosses had me do the initial draft of a response to a Rumsfeld request to get US forces out of all of the various commitments around the world.
So, I basically coordinated with the various JS folks responsible for all of these missions. Once I wrote the response, it went up the chain with various micro-editing along the way, but then it got kicked back down. Why? Because Iceland had not been on the list. Who wanted it on the list? The US Air Force 2 star who was a couple of rungs up the chain. Why? Because the US had a small detachment of fighter planes (F15s's and or F16s) that represented the US and NATO commitment to the defense of Iceland.* Why would this be problematic? Well, it was not so much the fighters, which the US had in abundance, but the need to deploy refueling aircraft and long-range search and rescue units (helos). These were quite scarce, particularly as Afghanistan was heating up (fall 2001).
Well, now I know. Instead of being a US commitment, it is now a NATO commitment to send planes occasionally to fly over and around Iceland (update: see here for CEFCOM info on the mission). The current shift belongs to: Canada!! And this was a bit more complex this time since the unit initially slated to go to Iceland is now flying over Libya.
This is interesting to me partly because of the nostalgia for one of the snowflakes that kept me busy during my year in the Pentagon (Rummy kept asking the same question). But it also shows some interesting bureaucratic politics (USAF pushing the change, one of the few instances where service seemed to challenge the Joint atmosphere of the JS); alliance politics (could not offend the tiny Icelandic folk); Rummy's unilateral obsession and so on. Good times!
So, I basically coordinated with the various JS folks responsible for all of these missions. Once I wrote the response, it went up the chain with various micro-editing along the way, but then it got kicked back down. Why? Because Iceland had not been on the list. Who wanted it on the list? The US Air Force 2 star who was a couple of rungs up the chain. Why? Because the US had a small detachment of fighter planes (F15s's and or F16s) that represented the US and NATO commitment to the defense of Iceland.* Why would this be problematic? Well, it was not so much the fighters, which the US had in abundance, but the need to deploy refueling aircraft and long-range search and rescue units (helos). These were quite scarce, particularly as Afghanistan was heating up (fall 2001).
* It is important to note that Tom Clancy's fantasy of WWIII, Red Storm Rising, turn entirely on Iceland due to a game he had been playing.The problem was that Iceland didn't want to see the fighters go away since that was their only defense. So, they threatened to kick out the US naval forces that used Iceland as a base for detecting submarines in the North Atlantic. Ooops. So, the memo did go up with the inclusion of Iceland on the list, but I always wondered what became of it.
Well, now I know. Instead of being a US commitment, it is now a NATO commitment to send planes occasionally to fly over and around Iceland (update: see here for CEFCOM info on the mission). The current shift belongs to: Canada!! And this was a bit more complex this time since the unit initially slated to go to Iceland is now flying over Libya.
This is interesting to me partly because of the nostalgia for one of the snowflakes that kept me busy during my year in the Pentagon (Rummy kept asking the same question). But it also shows some interesting bureaucratic politics (USAF pushing the change, one of the few instances where service seemed to challenge the Joint atmosphere of the JS); alliance politics (could not offend the tiny Icelandic folk); Rummy's unilateral obsession and so on. Good times!
Monday, April 11, 2011
Let Me Review the Literature
No! Please Stop!!! I am catching up on stuff I need to read--articles to review for journals, MA papers that need comments, and dissertation chapters.* The most painful part is reading the obligatory review of the literature. Part of the academic ritual is to show that one has read the stuff in the field: to please one's advisers to show them that you know what others have said; to please journal article reviewers so that their own work is cited and not slighted; and to put the question/answer at hand in context. The funny thing is that if one focuses on the last, one should be in good shape.
If you cannot cut all the literature that you think is tangential to your argument, put it in the footnotes.
Saideman's rule number one for writing--just because you read something or learned something does not mean it is relevant. Saideman's rule number two--edit before submitting to Steve or anyone else. The problem is that if you bury your argument in a heap of lit review, the person reading it might not be able to find the argument or care that much when he/she does because the attention will be focused on the heap of extraneous literature and not on the logic of the argument.
Of course, I have written crappy lit reviews and some of them have even gotten published. Students should read stuff in the field not just to get the arguments, but figure out what styles of writing work best. If nearly every piece in a journal has a "literature review" sub-heading, then ignore my plea and follow the model for that journal. Read the best articles that review literatures (Annual Review of Political Science has many good ones) or heaps of pieces written by Jack Levy (like this one or this one).
More is less, less is more. Yes, some reviewers want heaps of literature, but if you put it in the notes, you should be ok. As long as you cite me.**
* My PhD students have largely learned to avoid subjecting me to these reviews as I have given them heaps of painful feedback over the years. The post today is due to the other two categories of folks.So, the tendency is to label a section of a chapter or an article "Literature Review" which, for all intents and purposes can be read as "Beware, here lies boring and largely irrelevant stuff." There are two ways to write this stuff (well, more than two, but why not dichotomize wherever one can): list a heap of stuff written in the field; or discuss why previous work is insufficient and how one is building one's argument by relying on the various arguments made by others. If the latter, then name the section or sections more descriptively.
If you cannot cut all the literature that you think is tangential to your argument, put it in the footnotes.
Saideman's rule number one for writing--just because you read something or learned something does not mean it is relevant. Saideman's rule number two--edit before submitting to Steve or anyone else. The problem is that if you bury your argument in a heap of lit review, the person reading it might not be able to find the argument or care that much when he/she does because the attention will be focused on the heap of extraneous literature and not on the logic of the argument.
Of course, I have written crappy lit reviews and some of them have even gotten published. Students should read stuff in the field not just to get the arguments, but figure out what styles of writing work best. If nearly every piece in a journal has a "literature review" sub-heading, then ignore my plea and follow the model for that journal. Read the best articles that review literatures (Annual Review of Political Science has many good ones) or heaps of pieces written by Jack Levy (like this one or this one).
More is less, less is more. Yes, some reviewers want heaps of literature, but if you put it in the notes, you should be ok. As long as you cite me.**
** That is a joke. For jokes, see Marx, G. (1939).
Known Knowns, Apparently
It is so classic that Rumsfeld would ask his staff for a list of things that had not happened--things that they had not screwed up--only to see nearly all of them happening:
Ok, to be fair, not all of these happened. Just nearly all of them.
Ok, to be fair, not all of these happened. Just nearly all of them.
- Turkey, Iran or Israel? Check with a major empowering of Iran.
- No WMD used against US or allied foces. Nope. Of course, they didn't have any.
- No Israeli involvement.
- Iraq descends into Anarchy? Double check.
- Iraq becomes balkanized? You mean, ethnic cleansing and clear dividing lines between the ethnic groups? Check.
- POW crisis? Oh my goodness, yes.
- Saddam using WMD against rebels? Um, real WMD fixation here for 2004 when we knew there were no WMDs.
- No hot pursuit.
- Widespread vigilante justice? Well, stuff happens, right Rummy?
Choosing the Least Bad?
Americans always gripe that they have only two choices in most elections--the bad and the least bad. That is, with two major parties dominating the process, and both often having primary processes that filter out moderate, sensible folks, one has to choose not the best candidate but the one that is less likely to do severe damage.*
* Note--I don't think this applied to the 2008 election where Obama was actually a good candidate that people could, ahem, prefer. He was not the hold your nose candidate that John Kerry was, for instance.But, in some ways, the Americans are kind of lucky. I was asked recently by someone who I would vote for in the current Canadian campaign, and I responded that I was glad that I could not (I am not a citizen, just a resident).* Why? Because I would have four or five candidates to choose from and picking the least worst is much harder.
* Another advantage--I was able to turn away a couple of Conservative folks who appeared at my door--sorry, I cannot vote, go away.Surely with four or five parties, one has to be attractive, right? Um, not so much. Process of elimination is the only way to go in my entirely theoretical ballot:
- We can include the Greens, but that would be an entirely wasted vote. They have not gained any seats in parliament as far as I can tell.
- The Bloc Quebecois: If you follow this blog, you know how I feel about Quebec separatism (they call it sovereignty, but who are they kidding? Only themselves if they think it works). Quebeckers will argue that voting Bloc gives Quebec sway in Ottawa. Sure. But as a spoiler since a successful bloc means no party gaining a majority, which might be fine. But since the BQ will not be in power under most potential realities, it is voting for a party that can only extort. For me, any vote for a party that promises secession is, well, voting for secession. That would be against my interests as an Anglophone in Quebec, and against Canada's interests and Quebec's as well, since another referendum, successful or not, will disrupt the economy and produce much animosity.
- The Conservatives? Um, what do they stand for? Not for the missions in Afghanistan--that would require standing up. For a variety of relatively right wing positions such as banning the registry of long guns (rifles, I guess). Not to mention that Harper has not been the most open, transparent, accountable of Prime Ministers. That the PM's Office writes the talking points of most/all government officials is perhaps even more problematic than stamping Harper government all over the place.
- The New Democratic Party [NDP]? Jack Layton is clearly the most "Prime Ministerial" of all of the party leaders, and is fighting a good fight despite fighting another fight--cancer. I do admire the man. The party, well, not so much. Not only do you have candidates talking about the "American war machine" in the context of the F35 debate (I don't mind opposing the US, just 1960's era mindless jargon), but the party's pacifism is not a stand I can support.
- More importantly, the party, which would seem to be for rights and freedom, always panders to the French nationalists within Quebec, siding with them when various issues come up where the NDP can support oppressing the Anglophones. They seem to be the only Federalist party using only French signs in Quebec. Their hypocrisy here bothers me far more than the other parties for some reason. I guess I am always annoyed when the self-righteous are so very wrong.
- But they are a party of panderers, as their latest promise to freeze tuition suggests. First, the Federal government here has no role to play on tuition since that is a provincial matter. Second, given how much the provinces vary in their tuition (it is still low across the board), there is nothing to this platform promise but a play to the young who may not understand math.
- Which leaves us the Liberals. Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, makes everyone believe the old saying: those who cannot, teach. Iggy just lack any credibility to be a decent Prime Minister. I am still frustrated that the Liberals ran away from the Afghanistan mission when they were the ones that started it. Their platform calls for more peacekeeping and less war-fighting. I really do not want to see the day that Canadian Forces are deployed again in a peace-keeping mission because the public and the Liberals will be upset when folks shoot at the CF whether they are wearing blue helmets or not. The world changed after Somalia and Rwanda and one of those changes is that the opponents in these kinds of missions will fire upon the folks from the international community to drive them away. If you are not prepared for that, then don't deceive everybody into thinking that it will be the 1960's all over again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)