Exceeding My Expertise in the Cold

On a very cold day in Ottawa (subzero in all measures except Kelvin), it is probably appropriate that I got sucked into a discussion about the Arctic.  I got into a twitter conversation with @rolandparis* about the latest Canadian efforts up north.

*  The funny thing is that Roland is the bigger fan of IOs and of norms and of international law and I am the committed skeptic.  Holy role reversals, Batman!

That is, Canada, as other Arctic nations are doing so, are submitting claims to a UN organization.  The key basis for claims to territory up north is whether one's continental shelf extends--so one needs scientists to get data and draw up maps.  Canada's initial effort did not include the North Pole, which either has symbolic value due to Santa's presence or has material value as there is much oil and other stuff under the Arctic Ocean.  Anyhow, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the scientists to go back to the drawing board until they come up with results that allow Canada to claim the north pole.

My basic contention is this: by doing so, Harper has undermined the legitimacy of Canada's claims.  Why?  Because it is known to all that the non-politically driven work of the scientists was not good enough for Harper.  He has now asked them to work backwards from the endpoint--that Canada will claim the North Pole, so figure out some measures/data that support this conclusion.  This reminds me of a mantra I heard in the Pentagon--that intel should drive policy.  The original sin of Iraq was that policy drove intel.  That what we "knew" was driven by the desired outcome.  It is one thing for a journal or press to ask for a revise and resubmit to get a scientist to improve the quality of their work.  It is another thing entirely for politicians to do so--they are not looking for the best science but the science that is best for them.


Any observer of this will question the science behind Canada's revised bid because it is clearly being driven by an outcome that Harper has in mind, rather than what the geography will tell us.  I contend this is a big problem for Canada: countries that are smaller should support legal frameworks that provide them with fair decision-making procedures, such as those based on semi-objective science.  Stronger countries should prefer processes that rely on bargaining since stronger countries have more means with which to bargain--not just coercion via standing military forces but also a wide array of economic and other assets that one can play linkage politics with.  Canada is not unarmed in this--it can try to bargain with its oil riches and whatever else, but it is almost always going to be in a position of weakness relative to the US or Russia.  Sorry, but that is just the reality.

This whole debate makes me uncomfortable because I tend to be skeptical about international organizations and international law.*  But one thing I do get is this: international law is usually on the side of Canada when it has a conflict with the US or with Russia (except for that whole problem of wanting to regulate the northwest passage--law of the sea is on the US side on that one). 

* I am also uncomfortable because this stuff is way out of my expertise--law, arctic, etc.

I am not surprised that Harper is acting in this way, but I am rarely surprised when politicians do that which makes sense from short term domestic interests but is bad for the long term interests of the country.  Hence the title for my second book--For Kin or Country.

The Good Old Days in Academia

When people lament about how broken academia is now, I am so tempted to generalize about the olden days:

• Many, if not most, jobs were not advertised publicly and many job processes were really old boys networks at work.  The job market may not be efficient and does induce heaps of stress, but it is probably better than the olden days.
• Speaking of old boys, how many jobs were held at any level by women?  By non-white folks?  Things are not perfect today, but compared to forty years ago?  Oy.
• Speaking of gender, there is still sexual harassment today but now it is something that is mostly seen as beyond the pale and something to be punished.  It used to be accepted and normal (like the way drunk driving was depicted in early Mad Men episodes).  So, yeah, things are better.
• Lots of folks got jobs and then never did any research or just produced a few articles and then left the publishing game.  It would be a fun project to explore the CVs of those hired in the 1960s and 1970s and see what they produced before and after tenure compared to those produced in the 1990s and 2000s.  While there are new deadwood folks being produced today, I would guess that the percentage has gone done significantly.  
• Perhaps not everyone should be doing research (although I still strongly believe that teaching and research inform each other), but you would think places that are research schools would have expected everyone to be doing research but you would be surprised in the olden days.
• It used to be that much of the leading research was produced at only a few schools, but despite the continued importance of the Harvards and Princetons, there are more interesting and important researchers doing interesting stuff elsewhere.  When knowledge production is centralized, in-breeding and group-think can be problematic.  By having a larger and broader research community, we are more likely to see innovation, dynamic debates, and progress.  No guarantees but more likely. 

I am sure there are other ways in which the good old days are not as good as the present.  Nostalgia has its place, but the reality is that change happens.  Not all change is good but much of it is.  Progress cannot happen without change, although stagnation works just fine for those who are advantaged by the old ways. 

The Only Path to Academic Success

The title to this post is troll bait.  There is no one single path to success.  I am inspired to write this post by the complaints of Peter Higgs of Higgs-Boson fame, as he said he would not have been successful in this current academic climate that forces folks to publish many papers rather than slowly let an idea germinate.

I have many reactions to this.  There is something to this as others in political science have complained that grad students are too busy publishing articles that marginally make a difference (add a variable here, run an additional test there) so that they cannot develop path-breaking dissertations.  My second reaction is BS! as I have been stunned and amazed by some of the stuff that grad students have been producing the past five or ten years--the Erica Chenoweths, the Jason Lyalls, Kelly Greenhills, the Idean Salehyans knock my socks off.   My third reaction is to read the rest of the article about Higgs and realize ... he is an iconoclast with strange opinions (does not watch TV, may vote for Scottish independence, doesn't do email, etc).  My fourth reaction is that he would have adjusted to the constraints of the new time frame and done fine.

So, instead, I started thinking about how to get ahead in this academic business (with the caveat that I only really know about political science).  My thoughts turned to two non-random sets of cohorts--the folks I went to grad school with and the folks whose dissertations I supervised.  In neither case is there a single recipe for getting tenure track jobs.

I started grad school at UCSD 25 years ago.  Which means I am old, but it also means that my cohort is an interesting one to look at because we are about half-way through our careers and we all entered the job market at a relatively dismal time--right after the early 90s recession.  It was not as bad as today's market, but historically, it sucked.  Of the twelve of us, ten of us completed our PhDs.

Glad I Am Not Single and Not in NYC

I have been not-single for more than half my life.  I sometimes wonder about that, and then I see stories like this.  That not only do short people have no reason to live, but shorter males have a hard time getting dates as even short woman want tall men..  I used to kid myself about being average height, but apparently as Americans got bigger, my height became less average.  Oh well.  I have come to grips with it even as students used to say when approaching me after the big class in the big lecture hall, "wow, you are not as tall as I thought" or "you are shorter than I thought." 

But it does seem strange that in the 21st century, where evolution's programming might not be relevant anymore (bigger men no longer needed to fight off threats), that the rules of attraction seem not to have changed.  At least in NYC.  I have little experimental experience to assess whether this stuff still matters.  Back in the day, my romantic struggles in my teen years were way over-determined (what, desperation is not a romantic scent?) so I cannot say my height mattered at all.  Ultimately, I did manage to break one norm as I married an older woman, but she is shorter than me. 

Enjoying my non-single-ness even more.

We Need The Internet

How much montage in the Rocky movies and where?

via http://fathom.info/rocky/

Some Magic in the NFL

I never really like it when they introduce players by their colleges, as it just reminds me of how college football programs become the tail that wags the schools.

However, I have to say I liked how it played out last night--one of the players, Greg Hardy, gave his self-appointed nickname (he had named the defensive line after Monster's Inc, so he then had to nickname each player as a distinct monster) and then gave his school: Hogwarts.



Of course, a key difference between football and Quidditch is that it is far more difficult to hide and then deploy a wand in the former.  Which might explain why the defensive line were unable to stop Drew Brees last night.  Nary a Patronus was seen.

Double Standards Commercial!

Really, a hair product commercial does a better job of expressing gender biases than damn near anything else:


This reminds me of a classic page in Donald Horowitz's book on Ethnic Conflict that lists all kinds of words used to describe "advanced" and "backwards" groups, demonstrating how stereotypes and the logic of invidious comparison are close to universal.  This ad sort of does the same thing.

More Than One Way to Skin a Policy Cat

Ok, perhaps not the best title, but this op-ed in the Washington Post is going to get a heap of play (already has early on a Sunday morning).  Such as:

The tell that Piereson & Riley are out of their depth is they're unaware economists dominate public policy schools. http://t.co/2xZpwRvhqr
— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) December 8, 2013

Before I go on, I should clarify that I teach at a kind of a policy school--one focused on International Affairs, and not a "Public Policy" school but the basic points in the piece speak to me one way or another.  Plus I live in Canada, which might mean we don't have quite the same challenges ... but we do with a recent proliferation in policy schools including those that focus on International stuff.

First, I do think one basic premise is correct: given the number of graduate students flowing through existing programs, anyone should think a few times and even, dare I say it, do a real market analysis before starting a new graduate program in the 21st century.  Sure, setting up MA producing programs is far better than yet more PhD programs (although the one can lead to the other), but given that governments (federal, state, municipal) have been downsizing, I find it hard to believe there is demand for yet more students with policy degrees.

Second, I don't think the rest of the argument really applies that much.  Talking to Anne-Marie Slaughter might be helpful but not for evaluating if there is too much focus on the international level.  When I was at Texas Tech, I learned that there are heaps of PP/PA programs (public policy, public admin) that do focus on the municipal level.  So, perhaps some stats here would have been handy about the numbers of programs with their different foci and any real trends towards more International programs.

Third, I guess that the authors do not use any numbers is because they think that numbers may not be all that helpful given the middle of the piece.  "The new emphasis on big data is reminiscent of the Progressive idea that if we just gather enough information, the policy conclusions will be obvious to all."  Maybe not, maybe there is a bit of a fetish for big numbers, but perhaps it might be better to actually know what is going on and then figure out if there are good policy solutions than to just guess, right?

Fourth, yes, much policy research is written in ways that are hard to digest, but this entire article ignores the reality that there is something out there that is bridging this gap..... the internet.  Twitter, blogs, facebook, and other internet stuff gives those in these schools a greater ability to sell their arguments in different ways.  Communicating to politicians, interest groups, and voters via social media offsets these other trends at least somewhat.

The irony of this article is that it has as one main source, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a person who has greatly extended her reach and influence via twitter.  Her engagement of all kinds of folks online is a good example of how to connect people to the research produced by those at policy schools.  Dan Drezner (@dandrezner) and Roland Paris (@rolandparis) are excellent examples of people at policy schools engaging way beyond the traditional audiences to communicate their research and the research of others to interested folks.  Monkey Cage is just one prominent example of a group of scholars doing much "translation" of jargon-filled academic pieces into stuff people beyond the academy can read and digest.  Indeed, the authors of this op-ed apparently do not read the Washington Post, where both the Monkey Cage and Max Fisher (who does much of the same stuff as MC but from the perspective of a journalist) reside.  Indeed, for an article about the present and future of policy stuff, it is strange to see that it touches on the internet only once (reference to Obamacare).

Finally, this piece underestimates our products--our students.  We train them to think about implementation, policy evaluation, analysis, new issues, lasting institutions, and all that so that when they get government jobs (my school has an excellent record of placing folks in government ... when it is hiring), they use these tool and this education for the rest of their careers.  This means that we have a lasting impact on policy--not just via folks who read our stuff but via the folks making policy.

I moved to Ottawa for many reasons, but one key element was to be more policy relevant--to write stuff that speaks to policy makers, to train the next generations of policy analysts, and to engage with the policy community.  Thus far, 1.5 years into it, I have no regrets.  Many of my students already have some kind of government gig--co-ops, internships, real jobs.  I am having heaps of interactions with the policy community--I have presented the Dave and Steve book to multiple policy audiences just in the past month--not to mention heaps of beers in the Byward Market.  And when I have these interactions, folks indicate that they have read my stuff.  But my story is just one.  We need to get a few more to have anecdata.

Again, the article does have some value, especially to spur debate and induce people to provide some data (!) to see what the trends really are.  But the reality is that the folks at policy schools are doing their jobs (training, research, disseminating) far better than this article contends.

Cold Possible War Reminds Me of Cold War Possible War

Whenever folks start to raise the possibility of combat in the Arctic, all I can think of is this cheesy 1982 television movie: World War III [See here for short NY review]. I mentioned it last night on twitter, and folks were surprised not to have seen it.  Of course, they didn't, it was a one time mini-series.  But it made an impression, burned into my head, so that many of the images in the trailer resonate today.

I forgot that Boomer of the original Battlestar Galatica was in it, but it looks like he gets killed early.  [No, I am not posting Spoiler for something that is more than thirty years old].  But David Soul facing down the sympathetic Soviet officer while the apparatchik's back home refuse to back down in this game of chicken served cold?  That I remember.  I also remember the ending--WWIII.  Ooops.



I had forgotten that there had been a break down in civil-military relations on the Soviet side, and I had also forgotten that random Colonel (in this case, Soul) got to speak on the phone with the President (Rock Hudson!).  So much cheesy goodness in a 2 minute trailer.  It is not worth the 200 minutes, however.  I can assure you of that.

Anyhow, that is the flashback TV tale of the weekend.

Why Quebec Is So Very Frustrating

It has such great people governed by such awful people.  Check out this short doc by Dawson College students about protesting the Charter of Values a.k.a. the Charter of Xenophobia:


Of course, it is not just the politicians as there are folks who fear and worry about that which they do not understand.  There are folks who hate and are intolerant.  It is the responsibility of politicians not to pander to the worst instincts that exist in society.  So, the Parti Quebecois is, among its various sins, incredibly irresponsible. 

Of course, this is not surprising, and one of the reasons I moved was to get out of Quebec before the PQ came back into power.  I knew what was coming, I just did not know what it would entail.  Exit or voice are the options, loyalty certainly ain't available right now.  I exited, but I am glad to see these folks expressing some voice.

Share Your Damn Data: Converging Logics

One of the recurring subjects among folks using data is: why does person x not share their data with me?  Mostly because they are fearful and ignorant.  Fearful?  That their work will get scooped and/or their data might be found to be problematic.  Ignorant?  That they don’t know that they are obligated to share their data once they publish off of it and that it is in their interest to share their data.  There is apparently a belief out there that data should be shared only after the big project is published, not after the initial work has been published.  I will address this as well as the the converging logics of appropriateness and consequences here.


Let me address first this new belief.  The idea that one can hold onto one’s data after publishing an article because one has not yet published the book is not the norm.  The norm, the obligation imposed by the National Science Foundation and expected from the discipline, is that when the first piece is published, then the data for that piece is supposed to be accessible.  That way, people can replicate that study.  If the larger study is years later (and it almost always is), that means that we would have to wait years to replicate initial article  Not only that but there are no guarantees that the scholar will finish the book project AND find a publisher.

Ok, let’s move from the specific myth to the broader logics of replication.  It has become clear over the decades that providing access to data is the right thing to do from the standpoint of a logic of appropriateness.  The discussions make it clear that scholars need to be transparent about their research and make it easy for others to replicate one’s findings.  This is the basic expectation for doing any research but especially quantitative research.  Providing interview notes can be problematic due to confidentiality issues (although the NSF is funding a project to figure this out), but providing data that one has created/collected is the standard expectation of social science.  Many journals now have replication policies and store data at their websites.  The question these days is not the obligation to share data but to share the “do” files, macros, or programs that are used to analyze the data.

Sharing data is clearly right from an appropriateness standpoint, but it is also right from a rational self-interest perspective as well.  People worry that citations are over-rated, and they may be so.  But if you want to get cited, one of the best ways to do that is to share your very useful dataset.  According to the ISP symposium linked above (p. 21): “An author who makes data available is on average cited twice as frequently as an article with no data.” If you check out the various lists of who gets cited the most, those who create datasets and share them get cited more.  Will Moore shared with some folks a story at a recent conference, saying how he got pretty famous in the discipline long before he published much because his name was attached to the Polity dataset.  He had no idea that this was going to happen.  One of the requirements of new grant applications is to show how one plans to disseminate one’s research.  Sharing data is one basic and very important strategy.

We are in the business of creating public goods–knowledge.  Not just the findings but the data we develop along the way.  It does mean that some folks may free ride, but it also means that the collective enterprise moves forward.  Holding onto data is not only selfish but short-sighted.  Having others work on the same dataset is likely to lead to feedback, which mean your work gets better, and to broader imaginations of what is possible.  When Ted Gurr developed the Minorities at Risk project, he really had no idea how others would use it.  Those that followed him used it in a variety of ways, adding bits and pieces of data (I took some of the IR data they had collected but not coded and used that to test some stuff that Gurr never intended to ponder), asking different questions and developing some very interesting findings.

Yes, folks along the way also discovered problems with the dataset, but Gurr and the larger MAR team (which I subsequently joined) worked on ways to improve the data (and, hey, we got NSF money do that–the next batch of papers will address the improvements and then the revised data will become available with better instructions).  This is how social science works.  Keeping the data to oneself, if even only for a few more years, is completely contrary to our enterprise.

The Tyranny of Terrible Terms

Lots of people complain about jargon in academia.  I tend to focus on conceptual stretching--that a term gets used to apply to more and more stuff so that it loses its essence.  My favorite example is imperialism--what is and is not imperialist?  Damned if I know.

I had a sudden realization when reading this piece that has a similar take on neo-liberalism what is a larger dynamic that separates useful phrases embodying bounded concepts from overly stretched labels that have lost their meaning: when a word is hurled as an insult by one set of intellectuals at others, the term has lost its value.

I am not sure what neo-liberal means because it already had different meanings depending on whether one was talking about International Relations Theory, economic policy, and whatever else.  But now it is a way to label folks with whom one disagrees.  And poof, whatever use of the concept is gone.

Another kind of example is how the "War on Poverty" and such has now become the war on everything, where it is mostly value-less (war on Christmas).

What are other examples of formerly useful words/concepts that gone down this path from useful to insult to meaningless?

Academic Forecast

Sometimes Phd Comics can be a bit bitter:

Your Academic Forecast (new comic!) http://t.co/nDuR32lcoX pic.twitter.com/JiThjtJM4Q
— Jorge Cham (@phdcomics) December 4, 2013

 It is a good gig, but we can whine with the best of them (and it is very tough for those trying to enter, of course)

Canada and NATO: BFF's?

It used to be taken for granted that Canada and NATO were best friends forever, right?  Not so much anymore.  Despite tremendous sacrifices in and near Kandahar and the street cred Canada earned there and in the skies over Libya, NATO folks are pondering Canada's commitment.  Canada has pulled out of a few smaller NATO programs: the Airborne Warning and Control System and Alliance Ground Surveillance program. 

This topic arose today during the Q&A after my talk at the Conference of Defence Associations, which is a Canadian institution that represents defence contractors and holds roundtables to address foreign policy and defence issues.  I was presenting the findings and implications of the Dave and Steve book on NATO.  The topic of Canada's commitment to NATO came up a few times and perhaps most pointedly by a defence attache from one of Canada's best friends in NATO who noted that one has really read Canada's last defence white paper, the Canada First Defence Strategy, to see NATO mentioned anywhere.

I have heard whisperings that this government is not a big fan of NATO despite its decisions to extend the mission twice in Afghanistan (although readily agreeing to an early departure), the training mission (my reference to the Hotel California fell flat today), the Libyan mission, and so on.  There are other strangenesses over the past few years--justifying the F-35 based on Arctic Sovereignty makes far less sense than alliance interoperability, for example.

Why would Harper and his folks be less than fond of NATO?  I could not really explain why Canada was tossing away some of the credits it had won by pulling out of two relatively inexpensive NATO programs and not taking advantage of other opportunities (NATO centres of excellence).  Likely alternatives include:

• Harper just is opposed to multilateralism. Given other foreign policy stances (IRAN), this makes some sense.
• Harper opposes anything that the Liberals supported/built/identified with.  
• NATO is a pain in the ass, having to bargain with a bunch of whiners.  Well, yeah.

The thing is that the reason why Canada went to Afghanistan and fought and bled was not to help the Afghans but to fulfill Canada's obligations to ... NATO.  As a middle power, Canada cannot do much on its own in the realm of security.  It can either depend on the US or on NATO.  The safe bet is to work through both multilateral and bilateral channels.  Working solely with the elephant in the south means that any sneeze could leave one trampled.  Working through NATO means binding the elephant with some webs of institutional predictability.  It is not perfect, but a country with a small military can do only so much. 

NATO has been a force and diplomatic multiplier for Canada.  Despite the criticisms of NATO and its members that Dave and I raise in our book, we find that NATO is better than the alternatives.  This government does not have to salute everytime NATO calls, but it probably should not needlessly fritter away hard won credits either.  Sure, one can save a few dollars by opting out of a few NATO programs, but such cuts are mostly symbolic, kind of like the cuts made into academic research into defence issues.  At least that latter effort makes sense if one's focus is on message management (we academics are a pesky bunch).  But the former?  I am still kind of mystified.

Canada Giveth Much

The Rob Ford stuff keeps on giving:

The British Say Shhhed-oo-ul, We Say Calendar

I got mighty miffed this weekend when I saw a piece suggesting that the militaries of the US and Canada acted similarly as those in 1914 Europe by pushing timetables and escalation plans upon the civilians. 

So I wrote this at CIC.

Your thoughts here or there?

Karl Marx and the US Air Force Academy

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."  This is a famous Marx quote but could apply quite well to the US Air Force Academy.  I have posted far more often about the USAFA than the other military academies.  

A sample from google

1. Saideman's Semi-Spew: The Past USAFA Awful-er Than Present?

2. Saideman's Semi-Spew: Our Evangelical Air Force

3. Saideman's Semi-Spew: Academy At Sea

4. Saideman's Semi-Spew: Picking on the USAF

5. Fighting for Religious Freedom in the US Military - Saideman's Semi ...

6. Saideman's Semi-Spew: West Point Sucks, Too

Why is that?  Is the USAFA more flawed, more worthy of scorn and criticism than the others?  Probably, but to be honest, it is probably because I visited USAFA more recently than Annapolis and have never been to West Point.  

When I visited the USAFA in the early Aughts, it was part of an academic outreach program all three military academies had (have?) where they brought in undergrads from around the country to have discussions about some key topic and also brought in some random academics to moderate some of the discussions.   What struck me most strongly was that I felt like I was at a religious university, as the environment seemed to be quite ... Evangelical.  I had flashbacks to my time in Lubbock, where I felt like an outsider since I did not follow a particular brand of Christianity.  The symbols (especially the extravagant chapel) and the discourse all made it apparent that this one public, academic institution had been pretty much taken over by those with a sectarian view of the institution's role in the U.S.  Which disturbed me utterly.  

Of all the Amendments to the Constitution, the first is the most important, I think, as it creates boundaries that restrict how much the government can be captured by some groups to be used against others.  Freedom of speech, freedom of the press are basic fundamental requirements for democracy.  But so is keeping religion out of the government.  As a scholar of ethnic politics, I understand only too well how dangerous it is for religious groups to impose their views on the rest of their society.  When we have a military educational institution doing pretty much that to its students, then we have trouble, big trouble.

I guess I have a heap of schadenfreude about USAFA troubles.  An institution that tends to use "Jesus as crazy glue"? The Academy is largely captured by those who seem to be holier than thou yet is this corrupt?  That tends to demonstrate the wisdom of our founders--that religion is not a guarantee for higher morality.  Indeed, those who try to extend domination of one religion are far more corrupt and problematic.

So, what is the latest news out of the academy that has gotten my ire and fire?  To combat its sexual assault problems and other challenges, the USAFA academy apparently persuaded (coerced?) students to become informants and thus violate the code of conduct that I once mocked.  Read the story--it is appalling.  What is perhaps the worst part about it?  How the leadership of the institution and of the US Air Force run away from responsibility?  Well, perhaps it makes sense since Sergeant Schultz was in the Luftwaffe, right?  So, "I know nothing, I hear nothing" is probably a universal Air Force mantra?  The institution is not even responding to a Senator's inquiries, but I guess we should be used to the institution ignoring its overseers (see point three).


Perhaps we should follow Robert Farley's advice and just get rid of the entire service?  Sure, that seems extreme, but given how broken the USAFA is and that the USAFA is the building block for the entire officer corps of the US Air Force, it suggests (as the Chief of Staff's denial indicates) that the service is rotten to the core.  If we cannot disband the Air Force, we might want to consider getting rid of the USAF Academy and selling off its assets to the local religious organizations.  I cannot think of a worse place in the US to train the next generation of leaders of the US Air Force than the US Air Force Academy.

When Is PD Not Prisoners' Dilemma

When the dilemma is about a prison instead?  See below the break for Walking Dead spoilers as zombies smell bad enough even before they spoil:

Holiday Gift Guide Spectacular

Brian McFadden has a nice holiday gift guide today:

Sure, this morning Mrs. Spew was pondering a catalog that had heaps of fleece stuff that her mother could get us, but what else do I want for Winterfest 2013?  I don't need a new job or house or neighborhood since I am very happy with those gifts from the recent past.

• A magic scholarship so that I don't have to worry about Teen Spew's college costs next year?
• More importantly, a potion, hopefully tasting like butter beer, that wipes away all the stress that Teen Spew is experiencing as she has to write college applications, take the latest SAT, complete her classwork and deal with her parents.
• A house elf (one that we would treat nicely) to deal with our messy tendencies (yes, I am a slob).
• A reliable snow removal company--one area where Montreal is better than Ottawa.
• More time with the smallest relatives.  I had the chance to hangout with my cousins' kids twice over the past few weeks after not really seeing them much at all.  They are delightful.  Need more cousin-kid time.  Nice to know my skilz for playing with small children are not utterly degraded through disuse.
• Gold status, please!  I have found that my airline has been reducing the benefits of Silver status, so I am now eager to get to Gold, which might be possible given the events on tap for 2014.  Of course, by the time I get to Gold, it will probably be worth relatively less than it once was.
• Speaking of which, I need someone to give me "how to sleep in planes" lessons as I have a trip to Australia and hopefully one to Argentina ahead in 2014.
• Speaking of travel, I hope some one gives me big audiences for the many book talks (Ottawa, Kansas City, Denver, Calgary, Sydney, and more?) I am trying to schedule as the Dave and Steve book finally comes out in January.  

Speaking of which, yes, you! can order it now, print out the Amazon email indicating your order, and put it in a stocking for a loved one (my sister just moved to Amazon, so it is now officially the favorite bookseller for the Spews).  The book will come to your loved ones in January, making 2014 a very happy year chock full of NATO, caveats, and comparative civil-military relations for one and all.

Poker Advice for Mr. Karzai

Every Thanksgiving my mind turns to ... poker.  Why?  Because I evaded my family's annual arguments about the 2000 Presidential election (despite everyone being on the same, pro-Gore side) by watching the World Series of Poker which led to teaching my daughter and her cousins how to play poker.

So, with folks invoking poker when discussing Karzai's positioning on the bilateral security agreement, I thought I would provide some poker tips.  To be clear, I am not an expert--my time playing online has diminished and my days of regular payouts have ended (I guess I had been beating more Americans than others in the old pokerstars games before they got kicked off).

Still, some basics can go a long way:

• Does the other player have a record of bluffing?  If you have seen the other player display poor cards or back down when their bluffs are re-raised, then they may be bluffing again.  However, when Iraqi politicians showed no willingness to give Americans immunity, the US had no problem signing a Status of Forces Agreement that had a built-in departure scheduled.
• The stakes.  While in poker, both sides might have to throw in the same amount of chips (which is where this analogy really falls apart--since the US commitment is far less than the Afghan), the size of the pot relative to the size of the chip stacks matters.  That is, what is at stake in Afghanistan compared to what are the larger stakes for the players?  For the US, what is at stake in Afghanistan is tiny compared to its entire set of concerns and political capital.  For Afghanistan, this particular hand is ... damned near everything.  If the US leaves, that changes everything in Afghanistan since the US and its allies will not continue to fund the Afghan government, including its army, if it leaves.  So, if Karzai re-raises the American bet, he and his country can lose everything.  Which explains why nearly everyone else in the political and social scene, including folks Karzai appointed, are asking Karzai to sign the agreement.
• Where in the game are we?  Has the game just started or are we near the end?  A friend raises the possibility on twitter that one side might be acting like a fish (a lousy player) in order to get the other side to overplay their hand later.  Well, in this case, we are much closer to the end than the beginning.  So, Karzai and the US cannot really play the game today in a way that will alter their reputation tomorrow.  It is this hand that matters.  Karzai is out of power (sort of or entirely) after the election, and the US is phasing out either slow or fast.  So, this hand is not being played for the long game. 
• The cards matter just a bit.  The behavior during the hand should tell you a bit about what kind of cards the other side has.  Is the US likely to have a weak hand here, that it is overplaying via  a bluff?  Could the US actually have "leaving" as one of the cards in its hand that would trump pretty much any hand that Karzai could have?  Um, yeah.  
• If we move towards the signaling dynamics, with the US and Karzai having other audiences for other games, then, well, damn, the US is pretty convincing.  While Karzai may be trying to deflect responsibility for the agreement, the US has sent very strong signals not just for this game but for the broader community of observers that it is ready to walk if this agreement is not signed.  Yes, the US could walk back its threats.  But the US has many other poker games to play, so developing a reputation here as a bluffer who backs down has costs beyond Afghanistan.

Again, I have lost money at poker and I have won money as well (I am ahead but not by as much as I would like), so take my poker advice with all the grains of salt you need.  All I can say is that if I was Karzai, I would be folding.  Sign the agreement and enjoy the money your family moved to Dubai--it is not in this game, but your ability to enjoy it might be.  We don't need to show Karzai pictures of a former Afghan President swinging from a lamppost.  

and yes, of course, this is the song that Karzai should be listening to: