There Is Politics In Military Stuff?

 The first day of our workshop on Military Politics provided quite an illustration and contrast: the civilian academics raised key questions about military officers as political actors and the military speakers, um, proving the academics right while mostly denying everything the academic said.  You can guess which side of this discussion your humble (or not so humble) blogger was on.  

Thomas Crosbie, our host, set the table by invoking and then complicating Peter Feaver's principal-agent approach to civil-military relations.  He made Feaver's various binary choices in the original game less binary, so the game tree had 64 outcomes rather than 8.  Oh my.  As I rely heavily on Feaver (and Avant) for my understanding of civil-military relations, I found this presentation quite interesting==that militaries have more options than work or shirk.  But the terms he used will still annoy military officers.  Of course, work or shirk is super annoying to them because they tend not to understand that shirk does not mean that they don't work--it means they operate differently than the civilians expect--doing sometimes more or sometimes differently than the civs expect.  Given the senior officers' frustration with civilians expressed in a later session, they intuitively agree with the notion that they don't act as the civilians expect.  But the shirk thing wrankles.  More on that below.

Risa Brooks was the keynote speaker, and her terrific presentation unpacked "professionalism" which is the key to so much stuff in civ-mil relations.  Professionalism, thanks to Sam Huntington, has played a major role in how modern democratic militaries see themselves (yes, much of this is about identity).  The shorthand is that militaries see themselves as the exclusive experts on the management of violence, that they see other military officers as part of the same profession, and that the best way to manage civil-military relations is to divide stuff into two spheres--the civilians make the larger strategic decisions and then grant the military to manage themselves as they follow the strategic orders.  Autonomy here is key, with the notion that since the military folks are the sole experts on violence, they are best situated to make the operational and tactical decisions.  

There are more than a few problems with this as Risa identified nicely in her recent article.  Partly there is the ghost of Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means so there is much need for thinking about politics all the time and that civilians might have something to contribute to that.  Risa talked about how the conceptualization of professionalism greatly shapes how militaries think about politics--that they are apolitical [no, they are not], that different militaries have different senses of professionalism (although there are common tendencies or traits).  Risa's discussion reminded me of how I think about nationalism and identity--that a military's sense of professionalism defines who counts as a professional, who does not, and how one engages the non-professionals.  Her presentation will greatly inform how I teach professionalism next semester and forever after.

The next panel included retired and active senior Danish leaders.  It was very interesting and very frustrating, as the officers didn't really engage the civilians.  They tended to argue that there was no politics--but then often said that officers have to pick their battles when dealing with civilians.  That is a very political thing.

I spoke about multilateral stuff, and started with defining politics as the making of choices for more than oneself.  Which means yes, damn near everything is political.  Most of my talk was about how military officers face two chains of command in pretty much any multilateral operation, which means they have to navigate the differences in what they are asked to do.  This makes much of what they do obviously political.  I pointed out some strategies that officers use.  

I'd summarize the rest of the day, but I am still addled by jet lag--I missed much of the second day's first session since I overslept after not sleeping well last night.  I do remember quite well a delightful diner with a bunch of folks last night--I so missed this kind of stuff.  The day was enlightening and the evening was entertaining. I am hoping we can do more and more of this stuff.

When The Hell Am I? Traveling in the Late Pandemic

 This title refers to two things--that Denmark went back to standard time from daylights saving while I slept (and I managed to sleep) and Denmark is considering itself to be post-pandemic.  I arrived yesterday morning to a country that had mask wearing at the airport .... and nowhere else.  It was a very abrupt shift from twenty months of pandemic life.  And, damn, it feels pretty good if still quite strange.

I am here for my first out of body Ottawa workshop--a twice or thrice delayed project on military politics.  The core idea here is that it has been long argued that in democracies, the militaries have no role in politics, but the reality is that whenever there are choices to be made, there are politics.  So, the military always has some kind of politics, whether that is battling for budgets or deciding how to cooperate with other actors in "whole of government" efforts.  My role here is to talk about military politics in multilateral efforts.  Building/borrowing from the NATO book, the basic idea is that whenever units are sent abroad, their commanders face multiple masters--the home chain of command and the bosses of the multilateral effort.  With two bosses come conflicting demands--adjudicating that requires politics--making decisions that have outcomes for the various collectives.  

Because I missed a recent civ-mil conference, I really wanted to participate in this workshop.  I get to see some of the sharp folks/friends who do civ-mil stuff and get to eat/drink with them.  Last night's dinner was so terrific as we exchanged stories of pandemic teaching and research, catching up on their various lives, and sharing older stories of the pre-pandemic.  It just felt so good.  And my FOMO got reduced by 27.5%.   Oh, and the food and drink were good, too.  

I walked around yesterday after I arrived--my room was not ready--with Chris Ankersen, a prof from NYU.  We walked north along the waterfront (ok, a waterfront, as there is a lot of water in Copenhagen), with both old and new ships, past the famous Little Mermaid statue, the citadel, some of the royal buildings, and the like.  It was good post-flight fresh air, sun (really!), exercise, and chatting.  

 

 

 

 

 

I actually managed to sleep with only one interruption.  I often can't sleep past 3:30 am in Europe on the first night or two, but managed to do so.  I slept so late I thought I missed the hotel breakfast, but it went long plus the change in daylight savings time meant I didn't sleep that late.  It was bustling, and, yes, hotel breakfast buffets are back.  Again, am I livingin the pre-pandemic, mid-pandemic, or post-pandemic?  Since Canada is still mid-pandemic, one of my afternoon activities will be finding a PCR test place for my flight back in 72ish hours.  After that, the gang goes to Tivoli--one of the very first amusement parks in the world--which will be Halloween-themed.  Since it is so old, the ghosts there may be real?

While eating breakfast,
I noticed I was being watched

 

 

I am off to bike in the mist to work off the stuff I ate last night. 

A New Minister of National Defence: What's Next?

 Today, finally, the cabinet was shuffled, and we have a new Minister of National Defence: Anita Anand.  She was Minister of Public Services and Procurement, so she has ministerial experience and she has experience with procurement.  Indeed, since that spot shares responsibility with MND for big military procurement projects, that part of the MND job will be pretty familiar.  She was successful in getting Canada heaps of vaccines, which was not easy (see other countries that have failed at that task).  And, yes, she's a woman, which is symbolic given the sexual misconduct crisis that has been in the news the past eight months or so (and, of course, goes all the way back).  

To be clear, add woman and stir is not enough.  Adding super smart, experienced, competent woman is better but still not enough.  She will need much support from PMO and PCO and from the Prime Minister to address problems that are deep and wide.  The first responsibility is to understand the job--that the Minister of National Defence is the key person in Canada's civilian control of the military.  The previous officeholder didn't get that.  This means not just managing the Chief of Defence Staff but making sure that the Department of National Defence is not pushed out of matters that the CAF (or the CDS anyway) does not want it messing with.  Deputy Minister Jody Thomas said on the Battle Rhythm podcast that General Jon Vance, when he was CDS, was kept out of the sexual misconduct response.  That can't happen again.  

But getting back to managing the CDS, Anand must fix the confusion about that spot--either name Eyre as CDS rather than Acting CDS or find a new one AND tell Admiral Art McDonald to retire.  Or else?  Yes, or else he will be charged with insubordination (or whatever is the equivalent for his incredibly misconceived letter he sent around).  Anyhow, much clarity is required about the leadership at the top.  She will have to make clear to those at the top that they will be overseen more closely than they have been used to.  Folks in the CAF might complain about micromanagement, but (a) management involves the layer or two below you while micromanagement is managing very distant folks as if they are the layer below; and (b) the CAF has shown that left their own devices, they have an abuse of power and sexual misconduct problem.

What else?  Decisions have to be made on fighter replacement (F-35s or whatever), the design for the new frigates, the costs and design of modernization of the northern warning systems, etc.  So, heaps of procurement stuff.  Operations?  What role does Canada have in Iraq these days?  How can the CAF make sure it is not training wannabe Nazis in Ukraine?  Personnel?  Oy.  How can the CAF recruit and retain a more diverse force, how can it get rid of the white supremacists in its midst, etc.  The sexual misconduct crisis will require many axes of effort, including setting up more independent investigative/prosecution/judicial processes.  There have been many recommendations by previous reviews so those need to be implemented while we await Arbour's review.  Indeed, she should not wait for Arbour--that there is plenty of stuff to do that should be done without waiting for a retired Supreme Court justice to tell them to do it. 

This is a really tough job.  Unless Anand gets help, she will be set up to fail.  If she can handle this job well, she should be rewarded handsomely with not just glory but more influence in the Liberal party.  The good news for her?  There is much expertise that she can tap into as she works on this stuff. That crises provide political openings to make change.  It will be very hard for anyone in the CAF to argue that the old ways have been working just fine.  As I learned a long time ago from Peter Gourevitch's Politics in Hard Times, crises break previous coalitions allowing political entrepreneurs to build new ones to support reform.  

But there will be resistance and there will be old habits and cultures are hard to change.  It will require Anand to work really hard and to keep her eye on many different spinning plates.  I don't envy her.  I am glad that the long overdue change has been made, and I have a fair amount of confidence that the Prime Minister chose the best person for the job. 

Getting Inside the Sausage-Making: A Chat with the Chief

[This post was written before the latest news about Lt.Gen Cadieu and Admiral McDonald]

I didn't expected to be doing this much writing/talking about the Canadian military when I moved to Canada twenty years ago.  My new title was Canada Research Chair in International Security and Ethnic Conflict, which was confusing since I was neither Canadian nor did I study Canada.  Over the course of time, and perhaps inevitably, both of those conditions changed.  I have been Canadian for six years as of this month, and my work on NATO and Canada's work in NATO led me to the study of Canadian defence politics.  My work moved from the IR of ethnic conflict to civil-military relations, with a very comparative focus.  Asking questions about Canada's role in Afghanistan ultimately led to a project on legislatures across the world's democracies and the role they play in civilian oversight over the armed forces.  

In that project on NATO in Afghanistan, I ended up interviewing many senior Canadian officers including the Chief of the Defence Staff at the time, Rick Hillier, the Vice Chief who would later become Chief, Walt Natynczyk, and Major General Jon Vance, who would later become chief.  I didn't interact with CDS Tom Lawson until deep into his tour when he gave an off-the-record chat at NPSIA.*  I never met Admiral Art McDonald who lasted four Scaramooches in that role [despite his desire to return, it will stay at forty or so days].  I  did meet then-LtGen  Chief Wayne Eyre at the Kingston International Security Conference when he was just returning from his tour in South Korea and was starting his role as Chief of the Army. We then had him and Deputy Minister Jody Thomas on our podcast this past spring.  In that podcast, both he and Thomas said that they listen to our podcast.  Which is pretty cool but really?

Apparently, really, as I got contacted a few days ago by his assistant to arrange a call to chat about stuff I had raised in the most recent episode (around the 14th minute mark).  So, we then chatted for about thirty minutes about the personnel issues that Stef and I discussed in the podcast and then some other stuff.  I basically suggested in the podcast that without civilian oversight, the CDS could just appoint whoever he wanted, and that it could produce an Old Boys Network, as has been rumored about Vance's decisions.  I keep pointing to the decision to give Vice Hadyn Admiral Edmundson the spot of heading the CAF's personnel command as emblematic because Edmundson had escaped any career-harming consequences from being accused of sexual assault years ago--his nickname of Mulligan Man came from that. I found that decision particularly problematic since navies are known for firing captains for running their ships into a rock--a one-time event, but assaulting one's staff is not a career destroyer?  Eyre could not speak to Edmundson's elevation to Chief of Personnel since Vance did that.

What Eyre could speak to are the changes in the process by which senior leaders are promoted and selected for specific jobs.  He and his staff put together a set of materials--past evaluations, psychometric testing that assess character, leadership, problem-solving skills, etc.  The evaluations of past performance are different now--the so-called 360 evaluations which involve not just superiors but peers and subordinates is no longer limited to ... those the candidate chooses.  That's right, if I understand General Eyre correctly, the old system was one where the candidate could choose whose evaluations would count in their promotion process.  Now, the very new process is anonymous, random, blind, and diverse, which should produce more accurate assessments.  A board, including civilians, take these reports and assessments to build a score that is compared with the scores of the others who are eligible, which then leads to pools of folks who are eligible for promotion and those who need more time in rank.  Is there a third pool of those who should be frozen or kicked out?  I should have asked that.  Anyhow, once the pool of promotable officers is determined, they figure out who is fit for which jobs, and then that package of information is given to the minister for approval.

And there is the question I really wanted to ask but knew the general could not answer: does the Minister actually read the packages or is it a rubber stamp?  "Is the Minister doing his job?" is not a question that the General would answer, so I didn't bother asking it.  

I then asked about the case of Major General Peter Dawe, who was given a new job once his suspension was over--one that was presented in the media as the person responsible for reading the reports from the various retired Supreme Court justices and vetting recommendations for how to reform the Canadian Armed Forces.  While averring that the media didn't quite get Dawe's new job right, Eyre admitted that he made mistakes in this process, that it should not have happened.  I compared this decision with that regarding Vice-Admiral Craig Baines, the chief of the navy who had played golf with disgraced former Chief of Defence Jon Vance.  That it was pretty clear that the Baines decision involved much consultation, and when it was made, Eyre explained it.  The Dawe decision was not transparent.  Part of this was that this all happened during the election period, where folks in government do not make big announcements.**  Both decisions attracted much fire, including from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.***  I think Eyre was on stronger ground with the first decision because he was able to explain it as it happened.  I do think that these cases are hard decisions as the CAF can't/won't/shouldn't fire every officer who has made a mistake.  Indeed, in our conversation, Eyre said that one of the issues he is giving to Lt.General Jennie Carignan, Chief of Professional Conduct (who was on the second episode of our podcast), is to figure out how to bring back some of the people who have done wrong.  There needs to be greater accountability.  Eyre taking the blame for this decision is a good step, but they need to do better--that Dawe could be given another leadership post but not one that involved sexual misconduct issues.

I hope that when Parliament returns that the Defence Committee holds a hearing where they can ask General Eyre about this decision.  I also hope that the Prime Minister selects a new person to be Defence Minister so that we can have more confidence in the civilians who should be overseeing Eyre.  I do think that Eyre got a mighty tough hand to play, given that his two immediate predecessors are, well, disgraced.  Eyre did not get a proper handover of this job, and he has been reacting to this crisis on the fly.  From our conversation, it is clear there are changes being made, but then, so are mistakes.  The changes that need to take place are multidimensional, have to take place at all levels, and involve a lot of different actors.  It involves legal reform (the Fish report), it involves changing the culture of the CAF (our Year Ahead conference will have a session dedicated to organizational change), it involves greater exercise of civilian control, and more.  

There is still a lot I don't know and don't understand.  One of the questions a new Defence Minister will have to face is whether to keep Eyre around as CDS.  I believed before this conversation that Eyre is trying hard to do the right things and should be given more time.  I also believed before this conversation that it was not clear that chucking Eyre would solve any problems and might deepen the ones they have--that there has been so much turmoil at the top of the CAF, that it is hard to make progress in any direction.  The Vice Chief position has changed about six times over the past five years or so--and the Vice Chief is the one who is supposed to administrate the CAF.  This chat has not changed my mind, but has probably increased my bias a bit.  I can't help but feel a bit favorably to a person who lets me see inside the tent.

Reaching out to the random loud academic may be part of an information operations campaign--to make the CAF look better.  But I am not sure I am a reliable messenger, as I can be pretty critical.  This does remind me of being part of a group of academics sent to Afghanistan in late 2007--was the effort to inform us or to shape the messaging?  And, the answer, of course, is both.  That if we understood the mission better, we might be more sympathetic and at least our criticisms would be better informed.  

Anyhow, I think I understand some of the processes better, but I am still very frustrated by the state of civilian control of the military in Canada.  It is not just on the military to think about this stuff or to be blamed when things go awry.

* Lawson didn't say anything of interest that day--for an off-the-record chat, it was pretty tightly scripted.

** I have always found this to be strange.  I once was invited to give a talk to replace the Canadian Consul General to Boston during an Afghanistan event in 2011 since it fell in during the election period.  Eyre made it clear that this year's election made communicating about the withdrawal from Afghanistan quite difficult.

*** My reaction each time Trudeau and Freeland criticize the military is to remind them that they have kept around a Defence Minister who does not see oversight of the CDS as being part of his job.  So, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

20th Early Turkey Day: Happy Thanksgiving, Canadians!

 Hard to believe but this is the 20th Canadian Thanskgiving for me and Mrs. Spew.  We still don't really know how to celebrate it--do we cook the big meal on Sunday or Monday?  I forget which day is the ones Canadians tend to use as their big family gathering.  Well, for us, this is mostly moot since we tend not to go anywhere and tend not to have anyone over as we have no family in Canada.  Heaps of friends, but no family, so it is not quite the same as the annual pilgrimage (pun intended) to my family every late November (we see my wife's family over winterfest when we are not constrained by a pandemic).  But the giving of thanks is a common thing, so what are my maple-flavored, beaver-tailed thanks for this year?

I am thankful for being part of GenX-AZ-Dolly--getting the cocktail of Astrazeneca and Moderna last spring/summer. The latest news suggests Canada, either by necessity, by strategy, or by luck, got the distribution of the vaccine right.  That having a long interval between first and second may produce better results than shorter intervals and that mixing works about as well as two doses of Pfizer or Moderna.  Sure, I complained a lot about the uncertainty and the mess that was the rollout, but being fully vaccinated has made things much better, if not normal.  For that, I give thanks to Canada for getting as many contracts with as many vax producers as possible--portfolio strategies work!

I am not thankful that Canadian federalism seems to be an obstacle to doing stuff smartly during a pandemic.  While federalism helped some states protect themselves a bit from Trump's decisions, in Canada, the Trumpists are mostly at the provincial level--Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, perhaps Manitoba and Saskatchewan.  These days, federalism is an obstacle to a national vaccine certificate/passport as the provinces own the vaccine data and don't share too easily.  Grrr.

I am thankful that the worst media crap in the US and resulting division of the country into reality-based and conspiracy-based communities does not have quite the same volume here.  Yes, Rand Paul, Naomi Wolf, and others have been the vectors for anti-vax bullshit, but it is muted.  Fox and its ilk don't have as much purchase here, so Canadians are highly vaxxed--86.6% of Canadians over 12 have received one dose and 81% of that group are fully vaccinated.  The anti-vaxxers got disproportionate media coverage during the election, but they are few.  They did cause the Conservatives to tie themselves into knots over how to promote vaccination without mandates, which probably hurt them quite a bit.  

I am thankful that the election was short, and, yes, that the Liberals won a minority.  Minority government is annoying--the government of the day has a ready excuse not to get stuff done and does have to do some compromising to get stff done.  The Liberals haven't governed spectacularly, so I am glad they were not rewarded for failing to deliver on several key files, including the one I obsess about--defence.  As of right now, we still have a Minister of National Defence who does not know how to do the job, so when things happen, the Prime Minister blames the generals rather than himself or his agent.  On the bright side, minority government means that the government of the day does not control the agendas of the parliamentary committees, so there is a bit more room for oversight.  Woot, eh?  

I am thankful to the vax for allowing me to start hanging out with my friends again.  We had our first dinners over at friends and our first poker game over the past couple of months.  They provided much solace and entertainment (thanks, Roland!).  We had our first family visit to Ottawa in years when my sister and her beau came up, forces us to go out to cool restaurants, and even dragged me on a hike.

I am grateful I got to go to the semi-final of the Canadian Cup--the tourney for the three professional ultimate teams in Canada who could not participate in the larger ultimate league due to covid.  Speaking of which, I am thankful for the great people at the physio place that I visit entirely too often these days.  I am hoping my next ultimate season is not cut short by an injury.

I am thankful to Nigella Lawson, Sally's Baking Addiction, and the NYT Cooking section for giving me much inspiration and clear roadmaps to sweet success.  The latest was apple crumb crostata for turkeyfest 2021:

 

It remains a brutal year--far too much death and disease, far too much hate sponsored/spread by nihilists (thanks, Tucker!), and all that.  But we are edging back to normalcy.  I hope when we get to our new normal that I remember to give thanks on a regular basis for all the folks who got us through this madness--the doctors, nurses, scientists, cooks and delivery people, clerks, and all the rest.

Oh, I am also thankful that this tenure review letter is not due until next month so it is not overdue yet.  But back to it.

 Happy Thanksgiving, Canada and Canadians!  

 

 

 

A Nearly Great Day in American Civil-Military Relations

There have been few good days in American civil-military relations lately, so we ought to celebrate them when they happen.  Yesterday was a very good day.   General Mark Milley, along with SecDef Lloyd Austin and General Ken McKenzie, testified about the end stages of the Afghanistan mission.  While senior military officers and the SecDef testifying should not be all that notable, both my current research project and recent events have made this one worthy not just of a blog post but heaps of news coverage.

First, as I am currently interviewing Canadian parliamentarians about legislative oversight, I can't help but notice a big, big difference: Milley and McKenzie were asked about their advice to the President.  While I don't expect the President to do everything the senior officers advise (in fact, I don't want the President just to do what they say all the time), we can better understand the President's decisions if we know what advice he got.  It also helps us evaluate the military if they give bad advice.  It also allows us to see the different mindsets.  McKenzie said something that all decisions to depart should be conditions-based, which is not how politics works--time matters.  

This reminds me of my time in the Joint Staff twenty years ago when officers tried to ensure that organized crime as a target (a key military task) would be kept out of the various plans for the Balkans since one could never satisfy that condition of eliminating organized crime AND the objective the US military at the time was getting out of the Balkans.

In Canada, the advice the Chief of Defence Staff gives to the Prime Minister is a cabinet confidence.  We can't know the input into the PM's decisions.  Sure, we can hold the PM accountable (sort of) via question period and all that, but if we don't know the inputs, it is hard to evaluate. 

Second, and more obviously, it was a very good day for civil-military relations as Milley made it clear to Senator Tom Cotton (more on that in a minute) that Milley sees his job as giving advice to the President, and, as long as he receives legal orders, Milley's job is to then obey even if the President doesn't follow his advice:

Gen Milley stuff Tom Cotton in a locker today, after Cotton asks him why he didn’t resign over Afghanistan. This is one of the best answers I’ve ever heard a military officer give before Congress. pic.twitter.com/NAqbloa29w

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 28, 2021

Milley made it clear that civilian control of the military is foundational, not something that can be challenged because the President does something he doesn't like.  This is not what Cotton wanted to hear (unless he was mostly setting up a Fox newsbite).

Milley also made it clear he was not acting outside of the chain of command when he told the Chinese military not to sweat things too much--that the US had no intentions to engage in a conflict during Trump's tantrum filled last days. 

Milley clearly has spent much time thinking about civilian control and the norms of civil-military relations since his mistakes in June 2020 during the protests in DC.  He is far from perfect, and his conversations with Bob Woodward could have been either sharper or non-existent.

The only real problem was that Tom Cotton exists.  That he has ridden his military experience to suggest he is an expert and that he is, alas, seen as a candidate for President or SecDef (his name was mentioned when Trump was looking for a SecDef).  Cotton is a fascist wannabe who has a Senate seat--which is not good for American governance.  

On the other hand, I was glad that Elizabeth Warren asked whether things would have been different if the US had left a year later.  I would have liked to have a question asked of McKenzie, who pushed the "2,500 could have stayed longer": ""General, say we kept 2,500 in Afghanistan despite our commitment to leave, do you think the Taliban would have just accepted that?" 

So, not a perfect day, but far better than what we have been used to.  If only these Senators grilled the officers and SecDef when Trump had made the Doha deal last year.

Once Again, Canada Needs A New Defence Minister

 I talked to Amanda Connolly of Global News about the speculation regarding the next Defence Minister, and she asked what would keeping Sajjan around signal.  She only used part of my quote, so here's the longer version.

It would signal:

1. The so-called Feminist government does not care about the situation of women in the CAF since Sajjan didn't pay attention to how the Deschamps Report was or was not implemented.
2. The abuse of power crisis in the CAF (this whole thing has been as much about abusing power as it has been about sexual misconduct and, yes, the two are inextricably linked) would be exacerbated since the message would be that the MND not only tolerated the abuse of power but abused power himself (by not using his authorities).
3. The Liberal government doesn't care about defence as it would be keeping a person in that position who does not know what the job entails and does not seem to be that interested in doing it.

Who should the next MND be?  I don't know.  Here are my guidelines:

• Not a former senior military officer.  I used to say not general/admiral, but Sajjan indicates perhaps that Lieutenant Colonel may be too high up--too connected, too long in the service so the mindset is pretty fixed.  
• Someone who has some experience running a department.  Defence is one of the toughest departments to run.  Learning on the job may mean getting played by folks in the building.  

Does it need to be a woman?  Not absolutely, but it would be a good idea.  It has been a very long time (nearly 30 years) since there was a woman in that spot--Kim Campbell--and she was the only.  It would have substantial as well as symbolic impact. [Update: see this article featuring smart women who know gender and the military stuff on the challenges of appointing a woman to clean up a man's mess]  However, there are other groups that have been historically excluded, and the CAF has problems with recruiting and retaining not just women but Indigeous people, visible minorities, and LGBTQ2S+.  

I don't know the Liberal bench well enough to say who would be best.  I just know who would be worst--keeping the status quo.

What I Still Don't Get (Ok, I kind of do)

 Exactly a year ago, I posted this, which enumerated much of what was going wrong with the pandemic response.  I didn't get why bars/restaurants being open was more important than figuring out schools and other parts of the economy. I didn't get why testing was so poor.  I didn't get why schools weren't prepared for the fall.  I didn't get why people couldn't wear masks over their noses.  A year later, there are lots of things that remain similar except I am not so confused.

• I get why some places have been so slow to develop vaccine mandates.
• I get why Ontario continues to screw up the schools.
• I get why Ontario's testing is just as screwed as last year, and they have given up on tracing.   
  

 If you had a kid with symptoms today (I don't—knock wood—just keep checking this in anticipatory horror) right now you could not get a testing appointment in Ottawa until Wednesday afternoon. Minimum four days out of school. Same demand as this time last year. pic.twitter.com/iMrAPmyZUm

— Shannon Proudfoot (@sproudfoot) September 20, 2021

 It turns out that there is a common answer to much of this: governance matters, and when one is governed by people who hate government, you get bad governance.  Jason Kenney and Doug Ford have stood out in Canada as the worst of the #incompetentmurderclowns.  I do think for Kenney it is probably more about pandering to the right wing of his party.  Ford?  I think it is less about ideology and more about laziness, hostility to experts, and to government.  I mean, Ontario has not spent the $2.7billion (in Canada, billion is a shit-ton of money) it got from the feds for pandemic response.  Ford wouldn't want to spend it on hiring contact tracers, on improving accessibility to vaccines, certainly not on sick pay for hourly workers, and not even on improving ventilation schools.  That testing still sucks is now deliberate negligence.  Last year, it could be written off as stupidity or the challenges of pandemic realities.  But we have had plenty of reports of unused tests.  It is not about supply chain problems, but that Ford simply doesn't want to do stuff.  

My friends who have kids are outraged, and they should be.  Delta is more dangerous to kids, and thanks to vaccination of adults, kids are now a primary vector of the pandemic.  So, there should have been much more effort to create better conditions for the kids.  Nope, not here and I guess not in Alberta.  

As I keep saying, it didn't have to be this way.  Yet, I fear that there are enough resentful voters who will keep voting for people who are hostile to government.  Why?  Because they want their services but they resent when government helps "others."  It certainly is not really about freedom since better responses earlier would have meant we would have more latitude now.  

Oh, and like my friend with kids, I am outraged.

 

 

Not Too Late To Make This Election More American

The final days of the 2021 election were bad for Canadian civil-military relations.  Sure, there has been a crisis since the winter due to the scandals surrounding retired Chief of Defence Staff General Jon Vance and his replacement Admiral Art McDonald, but things could and did get worse.  Two retired military officers endorsed the Conservative Party the weekend before the election: retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and retired General Rick Hillier.  Why is this problematic?  They are retired, so aren't they free to do what they want?  The short answer is: it implicates the Canadian military in electoral politics.

This mostly matters for the most senior retired officers and not for retired corporals or retired Captains or Majors.  Why?  Because those who have served at the highest levels are often seen as speaking for the active military folks.  So, whether they admit or not, retired Norman and retired Hillier are implying with their endorsements that the Canadian Armed Forces prefer the Conservative Party to govern Canada.  One could infer that they prefer the CPC since they are less likely to revise the existing pattern of civil-military relations where the CAF regulates itself with great autonomy.  One could infer that they prefer a divided governing party that might be easier to manipulate.  Not sure why they would want the CPC if they do not want spending cuts since the CPC talks a big game about deficits.  

One can infer a lot, but the big inference is that the military is taking a side in the partisan battles in Canada.  Yes, we understand that the military is always a political actor, as it can often make decisions or influence the decisions of others that affect collective outcomes.  But being a partisan actor is inherently problematic.  That distinction--political vs partisan--is what is at stake here  (Risa Brooks is my guide on this.  In modern democracy, we do not expect and we don't want the armed forces to be tipping the scales in favor of one party or another.  

And, alas, yes, this is Canada picking up a very unfortunate American trend. Remember the dueling generals in 2016 US presidential election at the two parties’ nominating conventions with retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn (yes, that guy) chanting lock up Hillary Clinton and the Democrats putting retired General John Allen on the stage?  Over the past couple of decades, we started with a few and then a cascade of senior officers endorsing one party's candidate or the other's.  Other American officers, particularly retired and active Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tried to encourage officers to stay outside of politics, but they were not heeded. 

One can argue that these retired senior officers are just private citizens, but they are clearly trading off of their former ranks and military connections.  Norman's endorsement was not a subtle indicator that he thinks that one party is better for the military and deserves the military's endorsement.  What will be the impact of this?  The public will start to see the military as partisan, and trust in it will vary depending on who is in power.    In the US, the military remains popular, but it is less trusted by Republicans when the Democrats are in power, and it is less trusted by Democrats when the Republicans are in power (I think I remember it from here and here). 

Conservatives can point to either Andrew Leslie who served in the Liberal Party or Romeo Dallaire who became a Senator (not sure how that counts given that Senators don't run for office, but I get it), forgetting that they also had Gordon O'Connor run for the CPC and then serve as a less than stellar Minister of National Defence. It may be better for these retired officers to run for office, because then they get to be seen as politicians and get asked tough questions, rather than just wearing their old rank and being seen as above the fray.

For the longest time, retired Canadian senior military officers, for the most part, did not engage in election endorsements.  They had self-restraint, but apparently restraint is gone.  The parties would do well to agree not to solicit these kinds of endorsements for the good of the military and for the good of the country, but, well, we are not naive.  So, we just must realize that we are now on this slippery slope, and it does not lead to a good place.  We can ask the media to ask pesky questions, like "Hey, retired Vice Admiral Norman, are you doing this out of spite?"  "Hey, retired General Rick Hillier, do you think the Conservative Party of Canada will handle the pandemic as poorly as the Conservative government of Doug Ford handled the Ontario pandemic for which you were so well paid?"

Because here's the thing: if you want to entry the political fray, expect return fire.  Don't expect that your old uniform is going to protect you from tough questions because partisans are fair game in ways that nonpartisan retired military officers are not. 

 

Twenty Years Later: Let's Kill Green Lantern

For the 20th anniversary of 9/11, our team at CDSN/CSIDS organized an event and created a video.  The event brought together those with perspectives on the international dynamics after 9/11 with those having expertise on the ramifications in Canada: the Asia Foundation's Tabasum Akseerformer Ambassadors Sabine Nolke and Kerry Buck, and Imam Navaid Aziz who is a leader of Canada's Muslim community.  We taped it:

We also put together a video asking those who served in decision-making posts that day as well the perspectives of today's experts:

We still have much to learn from the past 20 years, but if there is one thing I want folks to learn is this: Green Lantern is not a thing.  Huh?  Green Lantern is the DC superhero whose ring allows him to create a green version of whatever he wants--he can wish anything into being.  What we should have learned from the experience in Afghanistan and the other interventions of the past 20 years is some damned humility about what can be done in the world.  

Yet we haven't.  Yesterday, a person with whom I appeared on TV a few years ago reposted the link, arguing that we should have confronted Pakistan more assertively as it supported the Taliban.  

Our leaders should have confronted Pakistan’s backing of terror networks in Afghanistan from the very beginning. Here’s a discussion I had with @RosieBarton and @smsaideman in 2017. #SanctionPakistan https://t.co/izhEIyx0Rn

— Shuvaloy Majumdar (@shuvmajumdar) September 10, 2021

Sure, I agree that Pakistan was/is supporting the Taliban, but in that video, I noted that there was little the US and its allies could do about it.  Why? Nearly all of the supplies for the troops in Afghanistan--ammunition, water, fuel, food, etc--flowed through Pakistan.  Plus much of the air support flew over Pakistan.  The alternatives were Russia and Iran ultimately... not great.  So, the US had minimal leverage over Pakistan.  The irony here is that the Taliban's victory and the American withdrawal from Afghanistan dramatically reduces Pakistan's leverage.

A tangent about leverage: I was on a TV program this week, and there were five panelists, so I didn't get much of a chance to speak.  But I wish I had made a simple and obvious point--that the US and its allies had a lot of leverage in 2002 and damned little in 2021 vis-a-vis the Taliban.  So, that affected the kinds of deals one could make.  

Anyhow, onto a more local bout of Green Lanterning.  I watched a CGAI event that presented Canadian decision-makers of the time--Richard Fadden and Eugene Lang--and the CDSN's Andrea Charron talking about the legacy of 9/11 as well.  One recurring theme, especially by Lang, was that Canada has chosen to be dependent for its security on the US.  Sure, the US is not as reliable as it used to be (thanks to Trump and the GOP), but WHAT ALTERNATIVE IS THERE?  Lang kept saying, we could chose to be less so, and my basic question is how?  Spending double on the military wouldn't do it.  Triple?  It may suck sometimes, but there is no getting away from basic facts--that the US is the only country bordering Canada, that it is way more powerful on every measure, and that collaborating with it is the only choice.  Canada could choose to do less operations abroad, but it can't choose not to rely on the US for its own defence against China and Russia. 

So, how about some humility?  That is the one of the most important lessons of the past 20 years.  We have less influence over events than we think, that force is not as effective as we would like (good for breaking, bad for building), that cooperation is hard but necessary, and that we can't wish things into being.  It is not so much that there is no "political will" but that there are real constraints that can't be wished away--domestic ones and international ones.  

In the comic books, if I recall correctly (I was never a reader of Green Lantern), the adversary of GL is anything yellow, and, yes, this is a reference to cowardice.  But it is not cowardice to recognize that one does not have Green Lantern's powers.  Indeed, it may be far more courageous to recognize the limits of one's own abilities.  

So, I will conclude with an Ultimate analogy.  I think, when I played best, it was because I was pretty good at recognizing the limits of myself and my teammates--that I would not throw high throws to my teammates who could not catch the disk over their heads, that I would not throw very far in front of my teammates who were not so fast, that I wouldn't throw hammers to teammates that had problems catching that hard to read throw (and for other reasons), that I no longer try to throw it as long as I used to as I cannot (aging sucks).  It is no accident I have been using the following image for years:

A man has got to know his limitations (and women, too)

 

Professional Ultimate: Damn, They Are Good

Elliot and anticipated a fun game,
woman behind us?  Not so much    

Last night, a friend and I went to see the semi-final game of the Canadian part of the American Ultimate Disk League playoffs.  The pandemic has meant that the three Canadian teams played each other all summer long--no trips across the border.

I have been to a few games, and I have been watching lots of clips of professional ultimate via the AULD's instagram account, so I knew what to expect.  Most of the rules are the same, with the exceptions of having referees, violations or fouls producing changes in yards on the field or possession, and double-teaming.  Only that last one really would be a major change, as one can only be single-teamed in all other levels of ultimate.  To be surrounded by two adversaries cutting off almost all throwing lanes would be a challenge to any ultimate player.  I imagine they have to practice this.  The opponents--the Toronto Rush--set up sideline plays on purpose to double-team a thrower.  It did put much pressure, but the turnovers the Ottawa Outlaws committed were mostly their own mistakes.

And, yes, that is a hint--the good guys lost 24-22, and that score is a bit deceptive as they were behind by four points for most of the game.  For the entire first half, the Rush didn't turnover the disk, which made it impossible to catch up after a few Outlaw turnovers.  The Outlaws mostly turned it over with bad throwing decisions plus a couple of contested catches that, well, weren't caught.  

As the highlights on instagram indicated, there are plenty of layouts on defense with some very successful bids.  There were probably not as many long throws (hucks) as expected.  There were more scoobers (backhand upside down throws) than in any game I have ever played in.  Speed still kills, as TO had one or two guys who consistently could go deep and get not just open but wide open.  

 The referreeing had some interesting impacts.  On one play, the referees blew the whistle while the disk was in the air, and it would have been a score, except the throwing team, the Rush, had called timeout apparently.  So, they negated their own score.  Plus what was incidental contact was often called, leading to the offense getting the disk on the endzone line, akin to a football receiver getting pass interference.  The picture to the right is a foul that was not so incidental as the Outlaw player tripped and then tripped up the Rush offensive player while the disk was just about to reach them.

The crowd was quite lively.  We were near a group of young women who knew the players quite well, it seems.  Kind of like sitting next to the wives/girlfriends section of a baseball game.  The age range of the crowd was quite good from kids to teens to younger adults to old grandmasters like ourselves.  Some even brought big faces of some of the players as you can almost see here.  The announcer was pretty good and amusing, although he never used the word "huck" to describe a long pass.  Instead, he said "bomb" which is not the way ultimate players refer to such plays.  Maybe too easy for the kids to hear something else instead of huck?

Unlike all other sports, I can imagine myself playing.  I was never good enough as these guys, but in the old days, I used to occasionally play with and against folks who ended up on the Montreal professional team.  As I watch, I can see what throws I would want to make (fewer upside ones) and hopefully make good choices.  But I would never get open as all of these guys could shut me down, and, of course, I would be a tremendous liability on defense.  The game is similar enough to what I am used to.  The big difference, besides the athleticism, is that they do much of the time (but surprisingly not all the time) get spaced out really well so that the cutting lanes are open and that their are almost always good cuts.  

It was a great way to spend an evening, watching what this sport I have loved for so long is becoming even as I start to have serious doubts about how much longer I can keep playing.  This summer of injuries was most frustrating.  The question for the winter is whether I can make it through most or all of the season without needing serious physical therapy.  If I can't, that will be the end of my ultimate career.   If I can, I will keep playing.  To be continued.