Blogging Vacation Ends ... Tomorrow

Just got back from vacation, so blogging will commence with a bit more frequency and depth (well, perhaps not so much the latter) tomorrow.  Luckily, I do have some meat stored up--Granatstein wrote a pretty dumb piece on NATO while I was off boating and climbing.  So, the fish in the barrel have been lined up.  


If anything happened in Montreal last week, let me know as I did not get any news.  I did, however, drive out of my way (west off the island) to avoid the various bridges and tunnels that were closed/failing/falling.  So, I am ready to rant about Mtl infrastructure if there is any new story to focus my ire.

I am a Master-mind?

I have blogged last month about why I blog.  As it turns out, I may have been deceiving myself and my readers.  It turns out that I am far more strategic than I thought, as blogging may increase one's reputation in the field, if political scientists are anything like economists (that is our aspiration as they make more money). 

I do know that more folks are aware of certain scholars because of their web 2.0 (or whatever) efforts, such as Dan Drezner, Marc Lynch, the folks at the Duck of Minerva and elsewhere.  But more visibility may not mean a better reputation, just perhaps a reputation for being silly, distracted, entertaining, snarky, indiscreet, whatever.  I would guess that the nature of the heightened reputation would largely be shaped by the quality of the blog.  To use Drezner as an example, I am pretty sure he is positively viewed by most folks, although the nattering nabobs of negativism at Political Science Job Rumors see Drezner negatively.  Not a surprise, but does provide the dose of caution that more visibility can provoke jealousy as well as admiration. 

So, the folks behind the first post asked the next question--impact on policy?  Their next post may provide some data to answer the question, but they are asking folks to provide their own views on this.  An interesting conversation to follow.  

Coach Finishes Strong

I think Friday Night Lights ended wonderfully, but I don't mind hearing the speech that might have been.  Coach apparently had a speech that would have run over the ending montage.  I see why they didn't use it, but it is fun to get one last bit of the show.

Transition Skeptic

Check out my new post at Current Intelligence.  Consider me a transition skeptic. 

And next one will be thoughts about ten years after 9/11.

It is Not Just Me

Check out this piece at Foreign Policy.com which applies the logic of post-conflict politics/policy recommendations to the aftermath of the War Against the Dark Lord.  See, I am not the only scholar of conflict that is excessively obsessed with Harry Potter.  I have heaps of company, and this particular piece is a particularly useful exercise.

Academic Humor Graphic Du Jour

From http://sotak.info/

School's Out. Let's Talk About School

Several interesting posts from people who know well the pro's and con's of advanced degrees and life doing foreign policy stuff.  Check out the discussion spawned by Andrew Exum and Erin Simpson and then commented on by Dan Drezner,  Robert Farley and James Joyner.

Most of these folks have more policy experience than I do (one year), more experience with policy schools (none yet, although IR/PS was near the UCSD poli sci dept and I worked with profs who were based at IR/PS), but I have had students move on to policy positions and most of my PhD students have found tenure-track positions.  So, I have heaps of opinions about this stuff but I can summarize it in one line, given this job market

• If you do not have a deep curiosity about politics, a PhD in political science is not for you. 

 The PhD is no guarantee of a job, and it does represent a serious opportunity cost (see Farley) in terms of time.  Once you are in a PhD program, it becomes mighty hard to leave as sunk cost logics tend to overcome arguments about exiting.  Having a PhD does open up some interesting alternatives but strangely closes others as one becomes over-qualified in some eyes.  Policy PhDs and academic PhDs are entirely different beasts with only some programs doing a good job of providing people enough of a background in each.  It really is a case of path dependence--you can get off the path, but it has costs.

I do disagree a bit with Joyner who basically says don't go to a school outside the top ten or twenty-five.  Rankings are far from perfect, as I have noted before.  And one can end up doing great in grad school (great idea, great execution, strong pubs)* so that a very good program can be good enough.  But there is a point--that the worse the reputation of a school, the more you are daring the fates.  You can get a great education in a middling program and get a good job, but it is riskier.

* Not referring to me, as I had good idea, good execution and no pubs.  

Grad school is a reasonable choice, if you go in with your eyes open to what opportunities that it may or may not open up.  But there are tradeoffs, so it is not a great idea for those who simply want to delay "real life" a  few years. 

Political Science Joke!

Really. Since I am on vacation (or holiday), I am borrowing a quote that lil Steve quotes in his blog:

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Barack Obama and an independent and pragmatic president beholden to no party, ideology or interest group are walking down the street. At the same time, all four spot a dollar bill on the ground. Who gets the dollar?
Obama, of course. The other three are figments of your imagination.

I am glad some folks are addressing this.  If we get any third party candidates, they are not going to be in the middle, but on the extreme wing of one of the parties, or both.  Things may not be looking good for Obama right now, but why should he be any different?  This time next year, well, it will be interesting to see who folks blame and whether the GOP can put forth a candidate that is not a joke him/herself.

Speaking of the NDP, Forget About Libya

The NDP is opposing renewal of the Libya mission, but I do believe that it will not matter.  Majority government is new to Canada these days, but perhaps the NDP knows it can take an easy position--opposing a military mission for which it has no responsibility.  I do believe the mission will go ahead, no matter what was said a few months ago.  Libya is a good mission for the Harper government--no casualties, Canada plays a leading role via LtGen Bouchard, most other NATO countries are doing far less.  I still doubt that any Canadian troops would ever be deployed, but the air mission is one that Canada can sustain with its relatively small air force for a while longer.

Much Ado About Party Hopping

This piece puts things into perspective as the new leader of the NDP, Nycole Turmel (replacing Jack Layton, who has another cancer battle ahead), was found to have a history of supporting separatist parties in Quebec. 

Party hopping is a Canadian way of life, so this is not so strange.  And as the piece linked above suggests, we ought not be surprised that a left-wing Quebec pol supported the various separatist parties.  The real problem is not so much Turmel's past but the NDP's present--that the pandering during the election made it unclear where the party really stood on the big questions of Canada: what is the role of the federal government during the next referendum?  Yes, there will be another one some day, but will it be a clear question?  Will the NDP support the Clarity Act, which gives Parliament a say, or is it all about 50% plus one? 

I perhaps reacted too quickly on twitter when the news first came out, but I would like to correct for that.  The NDP does have a heap of Quebeckers, but not all of those folks are sovereigntists.  The party itself has an interest in national unity since the NDP would be a marginal party without Quebec.  So, I am not so worried about the NDP so much.  The PQ?  Absolutely.  Their incentives push entirely towards messing things up (as I see it).  Other than collapsing infrastructure, Quebec is doing pretty well with rising property values, growing economy, decent jobs picture, and so on. 

Anyhow, stuff in August is likely to blow over.  I hope so.

Civilian Role in Strategic Debates

I found this piece posted regarding the role of civilians in Aussie military debates.  It does a nice job of arguing why civilian folks might just have both different and valuable perspectives to bring to the table even if their military experience is minimal.  Civilian strategists might not have much to contribute to tactical matters (how to fight a particular battle) and just a bit to operational planning (what the military should be military should be doing this month in Helmand.  But for questions about whether the effort is worthwhile, what are the political consequences at home, in the field and farther afield, how we might evaluate the tradeoffs, and so on, civilian experts provide a valuable perspective.

War is too important to be left to the generals, as Clemenceau apparently said.  True, too many cooks spoil the broth, but good decision-making requires a variety of inputs.  The problem is that any one unit has a distinct culture and shared set of experiences that is likely to limit the diversity of views.  Involving outsiders is a good way to have a check on that.  It does not mean that the civilians are always right, but having to answer their concerns is a good way to force the military to think a bit more about their assumptions. 

Of course, the MacArthurs and Tommy Franks of the world will not listen, but, luckily, not all military leaders are as impervious to insight as these folks are.

It Gets Silly

I was really touched by the It Gets Better campaign.  So, I carefully post this amusing parody.  It is a wonderful imitation of Snape and his take on it getting better.


Even for Snape, it got better.  Sort of.

Whose Afraid of Montreal Tunnels?

Me!  I don't need this article to influence how I drive.  I went south this past weekend and drive west off of the Island even though it meant I then had to drive southeast to dodge the broken bridges and tunnel.

Still, tis a bad sign when a newspaper has to ask the public if they are afraid of the repaired (?) tunnel.  Transport Quebec has uttered lost any of its remaining credibility.  Maybe I should get a boat and make $$ by ferrying people?

Political Science Geek Out Moment of the Week

The New York Times Book Review does a pretty good job of explaining a key concept that I had largely learned by osmosis: Bayesian updating.  How ought we update our beliefs?  I have not read the book that is being reviewed here,"THE THEORY THAT WOULD NOT DIE: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines and Emerged Triumphant From Two Centuries of Controversy" by Sharon Bertsch McGrayne, but I should, given how often Bayes comes up in political science.  

The funny thing is that we live in a time where there seems to be no updating--no matter how much evidence is revealed, folks do not seem to be updating and revising their prior beliefs.  Will this book change my mind about this belief?  Um, maybe.

Transition Update

As part of the transition process, NATO handed over responsibility for security to the Afghans a handful of cities and a couple of provinces, including amazingly enough Lashkar Gah, Helmand's capital.  The Brits, who have borne most of the load for Helmand until recently, have a blog suggesting that things are going pretty well:

The violence has not gone away in Lashkar Gah – on Sunday 11 Afghan policemen were killed in a suicide attack – but British military commanders in the city believe despite setbacks real progress has been made.
In six years Lashkar Gah has gone from being Afghanistan’s most violent city to its second wealthiest and thousands are flocking in from the countryside. The real change is Afghans now run Lashkar Gah’s security and international forces have not been called in for a year.
Police corruption is still a concern but not as widespread. The public are now said to be doing what was once unthinkable and reporting crime to the police, a sign that the city may be getting more stable.

It really depends on one's "metrics"--what counts as progress and stability.  Violence?  Still happening.  But if the people are relying on the police, that is huge, given how their starting point and how basic that component of the "rule of law" and security sector is. 

I cannot help but be skeptical since the British military has had a record of being overly positive about Helmand even as things were pretty horrible, not unlike some of the other militaries (Canada) operating in Southern Afghanistan.  It has been only a few weeks, and the bigger news has been the series of assassinations of Karzai appointees.

I have ponder transition a bit further in a forthcoming column at Current Intelligence.

Perils of Modern Research

One of my research assistants had her computer stolen with all of the data that she had been coding for me on it.  Backed up?  Nay.  Despite www.dropbox.com, despite the ease with which one could use an i-pod as a hard drive, nope.  I am paranoid myself precisely because I had a desktop machine stolen from my office (actually, I have had two machines taken from my office).  I remember working on my dissertation twenty years ago (oy!) and making sure I had the stuff on multiple disks in multiple places. 

I didn't think I had to alert 21st century students about the need for backing up.  I was wrong.  So, folks out there who rely on research assistants--remind them that it pays to take care of one's work. 

Collapsing Montreal Infrastructure, part deux

Actually, I don't have much to say.  Today's news is pretty much like yesterday's.  The Transport Ministry is excusing the various problems as being due to the complicated, multi-agency organizational messes that are supposed to oversee the various projects.  As it turns out, the work in the tunnel that preceded (and probably caused) the collapse was not really vetted by the Ministry.  That had been contracted out.  To whom?  To some contractors that were already in trouble for tax evasion.  Good times.

The premier (think governor), Jean Charest, just gave the head of the Transport Ministry, Sam Hamad, a vote of confidence.  If this were a professional sport, that would be the necessary next step before the guy gets fired.  The owner of a team almost always gives a vote of confidence to the general manager, manager, or coach before firing him/her.  If Charest actually keeps Hamad around, Charest then deserves to lose the next election.

To continue the theme from yesterday, the buck stops somewhere--either with Hamad or with Charest.  If Charest does not hold Hamad accountable, then, well, Charest should be.

Pardonnez-moi, Où Va L'argent Arrêter?

I thought maybe the folks in Transport Quebec might understand it better in French, but:

Where does the buck stop?

Apparently not with the Minister.  The latest in Infrastructure Collapsing Watch 2011™ has Transport Minister Sam Hamad blaming the contractors.  That might be believable if this event were not part of a systematic pattern and a systemic breakdown.  Check just today's top stories on the Montreal Gazette's website:

• Which Routes Worry You? 
• Sinkhole closes street in east-central Montreal Note--one of the streets is supposed to be one of the alternatives to the highway that has a collapsing tunnel.  
• Dorval Circle cost soars, work extended:55% increase; Project won't be finished until 2017 Note that this is the main connection between the airport and the city, so the first experience most people will have in Montreal is dysfunctional infrastructure.  Talk about transparency. 
• Champlain Bridge: Motorists beware - major work this weekend. Note that this means that two of the major bridges cannot really used much for folks who want to flee Montreal.  For my summer vacation, this means driving west to leave the island and then drive southeast to get back to the route we need.

The buck should stop with Hamad--that his ministry is UTTERLY FAILING.  Since he has been at the head of this organization as failures in infrastructure, failures in communication, and failures in responses to the infrastructure problems have repeatedly occurred, should he not focus less on the contractors and more on ... himself?  I don't know if there is anyone better to do his job, but can anyone do it worse?  We need at least some symbolic accountability--he needs to get his ass fired or he ought to resign if he has an ounce of conscience.  The last time I saw government so repeatedly and systematically fail to do its job was perhaps in the aftermath of Katrina.  At least, those folks had a huge natural disaster with which to share responsibility. 


Hamad has now agreed to review his ministry to see if it could organize repair work better.  Um, horse, barn, get it.  Fire his ass now!  The buck stops with him.

TV Gets Multinational Warfare Right?!

I have been watching Combat Hospital this summer.  It is a relatively cheesy version of M*A*S*H set in Kandahar, but not as funny.  Perhaps more China Beach-esque.  It is a Canadian series picked up in the US by ABC, hence the more visible role by the Canadian folks. 

The basic idea is that it is a jointly run/personned medical facility in Kandahar in 2006, mostly run by Canadians but also with a smattering of Americans, Brits, Aussies (mostly there to party, it seems), and others.  So, a natural plot would be to show tensions among the Canadians and the Americans, particularly given the shared Canadian sense that Americans are reckless cowboys.

So, I was most interested, given my research on many of the challenges of multilateral operations, to watch last night's episode and see a key plot focused on a rather subtle difference in rules--that the Americans don't seem to mind their helo pilots using "go pills" (amphetamines) when they are drowsy whereas the Canadians would rather rest a weary pilot (see this scene via Hulu, if you can) I have no idea if this is true, but this kind of difference in standard operating procedure is certainly one of the challenges facing any multinational unit, just as each country operating in the skies over Libya has a different targeting process--essentially different rules of engagement--that must be finessed.

As a result of this episode, I can feel as if I was working this summer while watching a decent but not fantastic TV show. 

Tunnel Collapse Update

One of the questions that comes up whenever a Montreal piece of infrastructure collapses (and yes, it does seem to happen often) is: don't they inspect these things?  Yes, yes, they do.  They just don't do anything about it.  The tunnel that collapsed this weekend was found to be in deep trouble three years ago, but nothing was done.  Actually worse than nothing as repairs on the sides of the tunnel, including using high pressure water blasting the sides, may have actually destabilized the ceiling of the tunnel. 

So, we have a two part process: ignore the results when problems are found; go ahead with some efforts to fix but ignore what these efforts might do to the rest of the tunnel.  What this tells us, as if we did not know before, is that there is something deeply and SYSTEMATICALLY wrong with Quebec's political system that allows infrastructure to fall into such a state of disrepair and then the lame efforts to deal with this problem end up causing more problems.  This would be stunning if we were not already stunned already by the previous events and revelations.

The newspapers, including letters to the editor, are clear that we understand that there is no accountability in Quebec.  The transport ministry has tried to cover things in secret sauce by claiming that documents cannot be released as they would affect bidding, or because the civilians would not be able to understand them.  But the larger dynamic is that of nationalist politics.  Elections rarely turn on good governance or its absence but on the nationalist issues of the day, whether it is hating immigrants a few years ago or on separation.  So, politicians are not held accountable for the rubble in the streets, whether the rubble is from collapsing bridges or from World War I battlefield-like potholes. 

While the Parti Quebecois is now criticizing the provincial government for being opaque about this stuff, I have no doubt that they will focus more on how best to get my daughter out of English schools when they come back into power, rather than on fixing the roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.