What Does Davos Mean Anyway?

 I have been asked to comment on a flippity flopish move by Prime Minister Carney re Iran: first saying, hey, we love them Americans bombing Iran to, hey now, maybe we should all be a bit more restrained.   How to make sense of this?  Hmmm.  I think the first thing to consider is that the Davos Statement is not that clear and is certainly not that prescriptive in this moment.  Second, domestic politics may play a role.  Third, bad habits may have been in play.  Let's contrast the statements:

First statement:

Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security. 

Second statement:

We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order. Despite decades of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains. And now the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada.

So where to from here? With a rapidly spreading conflict and growing threats to civilian life. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerents. We condemn the strikes carried out by Iran on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East. We implore all parties, including the United States and Israel, to respect the rules of international engagement.

So, first, Carney's statement at Davos says that Canada can't always side with the US (as he likened the US-based world order to Soviet-occupied Czechoslovakia) and that Canada needs to be pragmatic, not always principled.  Okey dokey, what does that mean for this weekend?  Whatever you want, really.  The first statement complies with Davos as it is unprincipled, woot!  Second statement complies as it is more critical of the US--not consulting with allies, needed to be reminded not to do war crimes.  

On the other hand, the first statement looks sketchy as all get out because it was buying the US story immediately without waiting for any sense that the Trump administration had a plan, a justification, etc.  Supporting a bad faith actor can only go .... badly.  We should know that by now.  I was pretty outraged by the initial statement because this is a badly justified war fought badly, and Carney should have understood that.  Don't support dumb shit.*  

Second, domestic politics: supporting an attack on Iran is popular among the Iranian diaspora and among many Jewish Canadians, so why not pander to them?  Playing to ethnic groups does not always mean bad policy outcomes, but, well, disaporas rarely know best.  They tend to be more extreme than those who remained behind (leaving is a selection effect kind of thing) and become more extreme as they don't have to pay the price for what they advocate.  I used to study diasporas, so I apologize for brutally generalizing about behavior that is well, pretty general.  While Jews hate Netanyahu, they hate Iran a lot, too.  The polls in Israel are instructive on this score.  Not sure how North American Jews feel as, yes, not all Jews think the same way on things, and the schism between Israeli Jews and North American Jews has widened since October 2023.  Still, I can imagine political operatives around Carney saying quickly before people had time to think: hey, we have to support attacking this regime because our voters think it is icky (which, to be fair, it was/is).  

Third, habits and bureaucratic routines may have dominated at first.  Canada always sides with US, always has problems with Iran, so those in GAC and PM's Office went with the old scripts, not really thinking through how Davos and Trump and rank incompetence might suggest a different approach.  

Why the change in heart?  Maybe Carney noticed the other allies being a bit more circumspect.  Maybe the schoolgirls and other reckless attacks and Hegseth's repeated assurances that he will war crime had an impact.  Maybe the realization that the US is a bad faith actor run by morons who did no prep, and tying oneself to them is not great?  Maybe the realization that Elbows Up includes not siding with the US automatically?  I hope someone can get the inside scoop on why the flip flop.  The new position isn't great either, but it is better than the first one. 

Of course, this raises what Canada should have done. What a great time to distance from the US?  This would have been an opportunity to show that the heart of Davos, not being so attached to the US, is what matters and matters in a crisis.  Look at the accolades the Spanish are getting, look at the Brits initially refusing to let the US use Diego Garcia.  If Trump wants to be transactional, then be transactional.  Don't give loyalty unless you can get something for it.

* Yes, it is a bad war--the flailing for a decent justification is more than a clue.  There was no need to attack Iran this weekend.  We have lived with Iran being an obnoxious, awful regime for quite some time.  Another day, week, month, year doesn't really change anything except to the Iranians who we are not really helping (killing moderates alternatives is just about the dumbest thing since the US disbanded the Iraqi military over night).  Yes, Iran was in pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there had been diplomacy that had addressed that.  These days, the Iranians get that they can't bargain with bad faith actor Trump.  Maybe two weeks ago, but not now and not anytime soon.  So, destroying the one reasonable pathway is very dumb.  And then there is the execution of this war---no consultation with allies so people are stuck in the region.  Friendly fire incidents galore.  Dead school girls.  Allies lacking protection from the obvious Iranian reaction.

 Oh, and I realized as I talked to the media today: if you push Iran into a corner where the existence of the regime is at stake, why should they hold back anything?  It makes no sense to save any instruments of power for a more desperate future.  So, they launch missiles and drones in every direction, they may close the Strait of Hormuz, they may encourage terrorist attacks around the world.   

The Christian Armed Forces

 I guess it is time to post this meme again

So much has happened in the past 13 months that has been awful for American civil-military relations that I had an RA put together a list.  I have to go through it and then I am going to share it so that it can be crowdsourced and updated.  So, are civil-military relations worse now than the various other awful moments?  It is hard to judge, but this latest story suggests the descent into the abyss is, indeed, further along.

What's the story?  That the Christian nationalism that has long been present in the US military is now more vocal than in the past.  Sure, SecDef Pete Hegseth has Christian nationalist tattoos but that's no big deal, right?  Wrong.

This story, that more than 30 different commanders issued Christian nationalist statements when talking to their troops as this illegal, ill-prepared, misconceived war of aggression was launched is truly awful.  Why?

First, that the military is infested or infected with Christian nationalism is not new.  Just look at almost any picture of the US Air Force Academy and you will notice the most distinct/celebrated building is its chapel.  It is quite symbolic of the place--where stories of evangelical Christians dominating the place and persecuting cadets who did not share their religion go way back.  I was aware of this even before I visited the USAFA in 2002 or 2003 as part of an academic conference.  Indeed, the group sited in the story, that seeks to protect those who in the military from religious discrimination/hazing/persecution had, I am pretty sure, its origins in complaints about USAFA.   The academy is in the most religious, far right part of Colorado, so the community around USAFA helps to reinforce the domination of "Christians" who have a very narrow version of Christianity--that non-evangelicals don't count--that Catholics are papists, that Presbyterians don't count, and on and on.  

Second, Christian nationalists, despite their name, don't have the usual Christian values of love and community.  It is about hate and domination.  We see that in their alliance with Trump is the opposite of a devout believer in Jesus.  The Christian nationalists hope for the return of Christ so that they can go to heaven and everyone else can burn.  They have long seen Israel as a means to an end--the Jews need to run the land of Israel for Armageddon to happen.  They see Muslims as not human and worthy of a new crusade, which is not really a great foundation for the US to work with some Muslim countries against other ones.  

Third, besides being wrong for all kinds of value reasons, it is also toxic for the US military.  That the majority of the US military is not this radical version of Christian (well, maybe the Air Force is) means that this Christian nationalism is divisive, far more divisive than gays in the military or women in the Marines.  This Christian nationalism seethes with contempt for the non-believers, which is why so many complaints get sent so quickly.

Which gets to our moment.  Hegseth has done for Christian nationalism in the military what Trump did for racism in the American public--he changed the permission structure.  Now it is ok to be an officer and invoke the language of Christian nationalism as part of one's job, to inflict it upon one's subordinates, just like Trump (and Fox) made it ok to be racist in public.  Hegseth was wildly unqualified for many reasons, but his Christian nationalism made him disqualified--he should never have been confirmed by the Senate.  Why?  Because he would eventually poison the military with his toxic ideology.

So, it is bad to purge the military of senior Black and female officers and replace with yes-dudes.  But that may or may not trickle down all the way.  But empowering the Christian nationalists is probably worse as it will affect everyone and everywhere.  

What happens if reason wins and the Dems come back into power?  How will they stuff the toxic toothpaste back in the tube?  Will they have to go through the US military and remove all of the Christian nationalists?  I am in Brazil right now, and they can't simply remove all pro-Jan8th military personnel--they were the same uniforms as everyone else.  The damage that Hegseth and Trump are doing to the military, like the damage done elsewhere, will simply be very, very difficult to undo, even if the Dems can get big enough majorities to impose their will and, yes, have the guts to do what is necessary.

As always, the big tragedy here, besides the death of innocents, is that it didn't have to be this way.  I hate the term war of choice as we should use clearer, stronger language--war of aggression maybe--but Hegseth was a choice that didn't have to be made.  The larger issue of the infiltration of the US military by Christian nationalists is not really a one-person story, of course, but Hegseth empowered these haters.  And now we have the lastest awful day in US civ-mil history. 

 

Kitzbuhel Rocks

 I am on my way home for a brief layover to pack and do errands before heading to Brazil for the next case study for the Defense Agency project, and I wish I could have stayed longer.  Kitzbuhel was a pretty cool place to ski when it was snowing wet flakes and with limited visibility.  It was a terrific place when the clouds entirely departed.  Yesterday, we got th
e bluest day possible, rivaling some sweet blue sky days I have had elsewhere.  The snow was spring-ish as the temps were rising.  I have limited spring snow experience, and now I have much more.

The key to this great day of skiing was realizing that all of the bumps (no designed moguls here, but lots of traffic through melting snow made for many bumps) were easy to navigate as I could go around or through.  My sister noticed I became more and more aggressive as the day went along, pushing through the bumps, trying as much as possible to stay in rhythm, using the bumps t
o change direction.  

This part of the Alps are beautiful as it turns out.  The setup was good, with lots of lifts, although the chair/gondola balance was not as skewed towards gondolas at Saalbach.  Still, mostly very comfy, leather, heated seats (we didn't need the heat at all).  There were occasional lift lines that were not nearly as bad as they looked, so maximum wait was 10 minutes.  My sister hired a guide who took us all over the right side of the place--we only took the big gondola to the distant mountain once just to see it--we didn't have enough time or energy to ski there. 

The terrain was quite good--mostly wide slopes with some decent steepish parts.  Too many traverses.  The ridges were fantastic--great views and not windy.  The only big challenge of the day was the traffic.  I don't think I have been surrounded by as many skiers as I was yesterday.  So, most of my thinking yesterday was not about technique but tactics--when to stop and when to start and on which side to avoid the many bodies. 

I enjoyed the very short slalom course that was built for kids (I banged my helmet trying to enter the course area) and got smoked by a teenager who left the gate before I was set:

 I could have worn one less layer--but I have no real spring skiing style experience.  So, I was pretty warm.  

Our guide showed us the famous Hannankahm race course, and we did a very tiny piece of it.  

  

Now that I am on the way home, I now have to figure out where Saalbach and Kitzbuhel rank.  I definitely enjoyed them more than my previous Austrian experience at Zurs and Lech.  I think, putting aside having more fun since I had a ski buddy on this trip, Zermatt and S/K compete.  Both had amazing views,varying terrain, great chalets on the slopes, and lots of good slopes for my ability.  S/K were easier to navigate with better signage and better design.  I think I liked the terrain at Saalbach better, but I would have to do more at Kitzbuhel to be sure.  One more day would have really helped with the comparative analysis.

In terms of ski towns, Zermatt was better but not much better than K and both are better than Saalbach.  Zermatt benefits in part by its proximity to Italy--Italian food is much better than Austrian, athough I enjoyed several apfelstrudels and one wonderful Kaiserschmarrm.  

I guess the big test is where would I want to go back the soonest, and the answer is Hokkaido.  But if Japan is out, then probably Kitzbuhel for more exploration and to address my completion fixation/FOMO, then Saalbach and then Zermatt, but recency bias is a hell of a thing. 

One last thing--this is a very bad year for avalanches in Europe and North America.  The a-alert level was 4 on a 5 point scale, so people couldn't go off piste.  We did see some spots were mini, controlled avalanches occurred. 

 The only danger I faced were the crowds, who I mostly avoided, and a slipping ski buddy on the lifts, and that, well, was a closer thing.  While I am tired, I only have a slightly sprained finger and am ready for two weeks of asking interesting folks a bunch of pesky questions.  But first: two flights home and a heap of laundry.

 

 

 

 

 

Austrian Alps 2: Electric Bugaloo

 This week, I am getting my second chance to enjoy Austrian skiing.  Two years ago, I had a good time at Zurs and Lech despite meh snow.  That trip was a short hop from where I was staying in Berlin.  Last year, I made a similar hop from Berlin to Zermatt in Switzerland. This year, I am joining my sister, her guy, his daughter, and some of their friends in two ski areas--Saalbach-Hinterglemm and Kitzbühel.  Today was moving day from the former to the latter.  

I am my sister's ski buddy since her boyfriend likes to go off-piste or hang on the black diamonds (although in Europe, that is simply black with blues being easy and red being intermediate).  So, the two of us did a pretty good job of exploring the place.  The lift system (more in a second) connects many peaks, so there is much terrain to cover.  The first day we did zones D and E by ourselves.   The second day we had a guide, who had to change things on the fly as some of the upper lifts were closed due to the winds, so we did some of C, B, D, and G.  The third day, we had a lunch planned far away, so we got to it by going up B, across A through I to L and then back via H, G, and D.  We mostly missed F and L.  So, I guess I need to come back to satisfy my FOMO/completion fixation.  We did red runs the first day, mostly blue the second, and more blues on the third.  The conditions tended to make all of this a bit more challenging with flat light much of the time, limited visibility some of the time, and very uneven snow.   

Overall, it was a blast.  The slopes tended to be quite wide so one can choose one's own adventure, which was handy as some of the spots had a heap of traffic.  Susan has gotten better so we skied pretty quickly.  I skied much better the third day--the snow at the top was fantastic and the visibility was great, so I could get into rhythm and keep a decent form.  The chalets all had very different designs but pretty similar Austrian food for the most part.  We took hot chocolate rest stops on days 1 and 3.  

The lifts, well, damn.  There were probably more gondolas than chairlifts, and nearly all of both had heated leather seats, and the chairs all had bubbles--plastic shields--to keep us out of the wind, snow, and, yes some rain.  This complex of trails had better signs than pretty much any other place I have ever skied and definitely better than my two previous Euro ski trips.

The surroundings were pretty, but didn't match Zermatt or Whistler, but much better than Zurs/Lech.  With the sun finally coming out yesterday afternoon, it was much easier to appreciate the area. 

Hinterglemm is a small town--with a string of towns along this valley.  It was easy to navigate, but there was not much there.  Short walks to the lifts on either side, which made the start and the end of the day great.  My sister's guy did excellent research and found excellent places to eat.  The places on the slopes were also good, but Austrian food would not finish in my top ten--too heavy.  However, the striudel was consistently terrific. 

The most important measure of a place is whether I want to come back, and I do.  I have two days to ski in Kitzbühel.  I am familiar with the name of this place due to its role in downhill skiing, but no other knowledge than that.  We will have a guide showing us the highlights tomorrow.  

Susan is the best ski buddy.  And, yes, I continue 
to wear the spikes so that she can follow me easily.
We did run into a woman who had a similar helmet
cover.

 

 

There Is No Department of War

 While waiting for a delayed flight (some kind of emergency messed up Newark tonight), I got miffed at a smart piece on the state of US-European relations.  In the second paragraph, it makes reference to the US Department of War.  There is no Department of War.  Just because Trump or Hegseth say something does not make it so.  As an agency created by Congress--twas a big deal merging Dept of War (yes, that is what it was called way back when as it was the Army's department) and Dept of Navy with a great book on aspects of its creation and consequences by Amy Zegart--can only be renamed with legislation.  Despite what he may think, Trump can't legislate.

The Department of War fits into the same category as Gulf of America--just more expensive and dumber.  It is more expensive because, yes, these insecure overcompensating actors have spent a heap of money on new letterhead, signs, and the like.  Can't have a stupid, counterproductive branding exercise without a heap of branding.

Why is it stupid?  Hegseth's justification is that the military is for warfighting, not for defense.  Besides the annoying belligerence and, again, faux alpha males peacocking, it is also just wrong.  These guys are not overcompensating for having small penii, they are overcompensating for being the bully/cowards that they are.  The US military can and does war, but it also defends.  Indeed, the most successful exercise of American power since the end of World War II has been the power of the US armed forces deterring aggression and, yes, limiting nuclear proliferation.

On the former, note that no country has conventionally attacked an American ally (a real ally with a treaty and everything, not countries that are referred to as a non-NATO ally--Pakistan doesn't count).  South Korea was attacked only after the US mistakenly left it outside of the security perimeter it had established.  West Europe remained free despite the Soviet military having far more strength in Europe.  Indeed, Putin refuses to hit NATO countries even as they funnel large amounts of weapons to Ukraine, even as Putin seems to have Trump on a leash.  Defending other countries via the threat of awesome American military power has been great for the US.  The postwar prosperity was built partly on this foundation.  The US fought two bloody wars, belatedly, before it provided security guarantees to Europe.  Since then?  None.  So, defending others is good for the US. And note, yes, no country has attacked the US conventionally either.  

On the latter, defending other countries via American deterrence--the tripwire of American troops whose deaths could trigger a nuclear response--has also reassured countries so they don't develop their own nuclear weapons.  Again, this is the US military providing defense that ultimately improves US security.  

And that gets at it--security is not just about fighting.  Critically, it is about not fighting.  It is about defending via deterrence.  So, the Department of Defense is aptly named and good branding.  Now, the US military has been used offensively in a number of ways over the decades, but a lot of that didn't go very well--Vietnam (quibble with that and I will bring up Cambodia and Laos) and Iraq to name two.  So, perhaps stick with what works?

Most fundamentally, autocrats like to create reality from, well, bullshit.  They call a gulf by a different name and demand obedience.  Same with this--don't obey the mad ravings of the autocrat.  If Trump wants to call it the Dept of War, then serious analysts will call it the Department of Defense until Congress changes it.  Many of Trump's executive orders have no basis in law or reality, so let's not give them any legitimacy or support.  And it is a really simple decision rule--call things by their legal names. 

 

A Baking Digression: Brown Butter is Like Poker

B

BB Snickerdoodles

One of the great revelations for me the past few years is brown butter.  I have stopped looking for snickerdoodle recipes as the brown butter one I use, thanks to Sally, is terrific.*  The cookies are aleays great (underbaking a bit is key) and demanded by my favorite baking role model in Ottawa.  The fun of baking and cooking is that some dishes feel like alchemy--that the various ingredients mix and become something far greater than its parts.  One non-brown butter example is a gnocchi, mozzarella, basil, cherry tomato recipe that is just magical and super easy and quick. BB is a magical elixer that makes any baked good pop in a big way.  Yet it can be tricky: it is like Texas Hold Em.

How so, long layover Steve?  The classic phrase for this particular form of poker is that you can learn it quickly, but it takes a lifetime to master.  The thing about browning butter is that it goes through several stages from melted butter to yellow foam to the foam covering browning beneath it to .... burned butter.  So, the hard part is figuring when to take the butter off of the stove and pour into a heat-safe container so that it stops heating.  

BB Chocolate Chip w
caramel bits via
Betterbaker

One reason it is hard is that the fizzing foam makes it hard to see how much browning is going on, and it is one of those things where things are going great and almost done to way too done.  So far, I have only overbrowned one batch of butter, but I think most of the time, I only partially get to the joy that is a full bowl of richly brown butter.  So, an amazing baker who often helps out with Guns and Butter is now taking an entire block of costco butter and browning it so that she has a supply of it.  She has become a BB evangelist.  And I guess I am as well.

Next time you want to make a baked good, see if you can find a BB version of it.  Join the quest for the perfect brown butter.  Even though I feel as if I haven't mastered it, the BB cookies I have made are terrific. 

 

BB Cinnamon Rols

  * Her bb snickerdoodle recipe is not available online--it is in the front of her Cookie addiction book.  But in her newer book and online, there's this, which is easy and terrific https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/marshmallow-crispy-cookies/ 

Why Do Civ-Mil Folks Yammer about the Norms?

 I read and then blueskied about this post by a former general, Mark Hertling, about the Trump Regime politicizing the military.  In the course of my skeets, I realized that folks may not get why we civil-military relations scholars talk so much about civ-mil norms.  So, a quick civ-mil norm explainer since my flight is delayed.*

First, when we speak of norms, we are basically talking about standards of appropriate behavior.  That such standards exist and that they serve us well when respected.  

Second, we need norms because laws and policies are inadequate.  The relationship between civilian officials and military officers is dynamic, chock full of gray areas, and there is a great need for some trust and respect.   But to have trust and respect, people need to have relatively clear ideas of what is good behavior--what is respectful, what is appropriate.  We cannot simply legislate civil=military behavior as it violate people's rights.  Saying that retired officers cannot speak, for instance, would violate their first amendment rights. Expecting them to speak responsibly is a norm thing.  

For instance, the piece linked above is by a retired general who is commenting on contemporary US civ-mil relations.  I tend to get uncomfortable about retired senior military officers speaking up as they can be seen as speaking for the active military, whether the active military wants them to or not, and thus gets the military a bit more involved in politics.  In this case, I don't mind so much because Hertling is explaining how officer promotion works, and what the impact of inteference in promotion would do to the army.  

It is political, of course, as all things involving the military are inherently political, and, yes, it is also partisan.  But it is partisan because the government itself is engaged in an effort to politicize promotion, a very partisan move to benefit the Trump Regime and the Republican Party, and not an effort to improve American national security.  To fight such partisan efforts may make one appear to be partisan, but to stay silent may make one appear complicit.

See, this stuff is hard to legislate.  Good civil-military relations requires both sides to have an idea of what is appropriate and what is not.  Interfering in promotions because the SecDef doesn't like one specific colonel who did his job very well but for someone the SecDef doesn't like is really problematic.  Congress can't really stop this by making a new law.  It could hold hearins that might clarify the norms and how the administration is violating them.  Two problems for that right now: the majority in the House and Senate don't care about their constitutional role AND the Trump regime revels in being inappropriate, so no education about norms will limit their behavior.  As I keep saying, a man who will lech after his daughter in public really has no shame or sense of appropriateness.

The question then becomes where do these norms come from and how do folks learn what they ought to do?  The norms generally come from past behavior--the prior restraint from Washington to Marshall to Ike help to set the model for how best to behave.  The historians and political scientists and philosophers and the like outside, and yes, inside professional military education programs, help to clarify the norms and convey them to the next generation.  

There have been lively discussions about where the lines are--when is it necessary, if ever, to resign if the civilians don't follow one's advice, should one speak out in public, when should civilians fire military officers, how best to engage in a respectful but unequal dialogue so that the military folks convey the info and recommendations as clearly as they can without publicly boxing in the politicians, and so on.  I have been told by senior Canadian military leaders about their conversations with their bosses and how they try to socialize them about what is expected.

If the next generation of the CDSN is funded, the Civil-Military Relations Network will be building a list of civ-mil norm questions for helping to foster better conversations so that both sides can navigate the gray areas.  In principal-agent parlance, all delegation relies on some level of trust--the more distrust, the less delegation, the more oversight, the more friction.  More trust can produce more delegation with adequate but not intense oversight, which can lead to flexibility and adaptation.  

To be clear, this government revels in being inappropriate and transgressive and wants to erode all institutions.  If we ever get out of this, we will need to remind folks of how one ought to behave so that the civilians listen to the military and then chose the best course of action for the country and that the military then obeys those orders. 

Doing research in this area always makes me think of Oprah and therapists--lots of talk about relationships and trust.  Because when one's life is on the line, you want to trust not just the buddy next to you to fire when you need them to do so, but also for the rest  of the actors to show up when needed and that the orders make sense and won't waste lives.   

 

*And, yes, I am not an expert on the normative side of civ-mil relations--I study what countries are doing nd why they do it when it comes to oversight.  But teaching civ-mil means reading much of the normative stuff and talking about it.

What Is History For? Not That!

The other day, I was at a dinner with a number of folks, and the conversation turned to how to build Canadian resilience to the US/Trump and how to foster greater unity and Canadian nationalism.  It was a perfectly fine conversation, but then it went there.  One of the participants claimed that all of history today is grievance history--focusing on the groups that were harmed along the way.  The idea, I think, was that historians should focus more on what... what makes Canada great?  

This, of course, misconceives the job description of historians.*  The job of historians is not to be cheerleaders for the country.  Their job, as far as I can tell, is to understand the past--what has happened, why it has happened.  That's it.  What do they focus on?  Mostly that depends on the curiosity of individual historians, but, of course, there are systemic dynamics: what gets funding, what kinds of stuff department desire in the next generation of job candidates (as if there are tenure track positions for historians these days), and so forth.  

The idea that all historians are doing niche stuff focusing on the historical plight of women, of ethnic groups, of Indigenous people is mostly confirmation bias run amok.  That is, folks notice the history focused on those who have mostly been left out of the histories, and they don't notice the standard historical work focused on the Canadian government, the men (yes, conventional histories focus on the dudes) who led the country, and so forth.  It is apparently the case that there are few spots in history departments for military historians and diplomatic historians.  Still, there is all kinds of history being done, but folks tend to focus on the stuff that they see as strange.  Well, there's a reason for that--historically excluded groups tend to be excluded from the histories, so when they are the focus, that is new and different.  And folks tend to get freaked out by that which is different.

So, part of this is that history as a field is trying to catch up and cover the history that has been mostly omitted (one way to do original research is to study that which is understudied).  And that will mean bad news--that is, the history of excluded groups is going to be a history of exclusion and discrimination.  Which might not make white straight men feel good--that the folks who held the monopoly of power may not feel great about being reminded how they ruled.  Too bad, so sad.  Again, the job of historians is to figure out what happened, and that often means discussing bad stuff.

This tendency to think that historians should be telling Canadians stuff that makes them feel good is not that different from how many of our government partners think that the job of academia is to help them tell their story.  Nope, our job is to foster better understanding, which is not always a good news story.  

 *  I am not an historian, and historians probably dislike much of my work for not going back far enough or for not relying more on primary documents.  But when I see an academic field near mine be wildly mischaracterized/understand, I spew.   

Is It a Civil War? Not Yet

 Things are truly awful in the US, so is this the time to get pedantic?  Well, maybe.  I posted on bluesky that I was more worried about events in Minnesota than in/re Greenland.

 

In the ensuing discussion, I got some pushback--that the US is already in a civil war and any suggestion that it isn't means that I am minimizing what is going on here.  This is giving me flashbacks to the Jan 6 is a coup or not a coup arguments.  In the aftermath, I argued that the events of January 6th were an insurrection and, yes, an autogolpe (self-coup) and not a coup d'etat.  The latter has two dynamics that were not present that day--the involvement of significant elements of the coercive arms of the state (military, secret police, etc) and an effort to change who is in power.  I argued that this put the attention in the wrong places as the focus should have been on the White House and Congress, not the military.

This time?  Why is this not a civil war?  Again, two key ingredients are not yet present with one more important than the other.  First and not quite as important: scale.  Thus far, the violence is quite limited even as it is appalling and awful.  Civil wars are large scale things, and, yes, we social scientists usually use numbers to distinguish between categories of events.  For inter-state wars, we tend to use 1000 battle deaths.  For civil wars, we use all kinds of numbers, but even if we set it as low as 25, I am not sure we are there yet.  Second, and most importantly, civil wars are two-way affairs (or more so, as we saw in Bosnia and Syria and elsewhere), and the violence in the US has been an entirely one-sided thing--the state is engaging in much violence against protestors, but the other side of this, the anti-Trump, anti-ICE forces are not using any significant violence against the government's forces .... thus far.  

Which makes what is happening in Minnesota, Chicago, Portland, Washington, DC, and elsewhere state repression (you can call it state terrorism). And that is truly awful and part of the US becoming an autocracy (although democracies repress as well).  Again, this is important for both social science reasons and accountability reasons.  For political scientists, it allows us to compare this to similar events in the American history and around the world (Tianamen Square?) to note key dynamics and make predictions and policy recommendations.  For accountability, calling it a civil war suggests there are two sides that may have some responsibility here.  And, damn it, we know that this is being entirely driven by Trump and his regime.  The violence is very one-sided, with all of the responsibility for the bloodshed in the hands of Trump, ICE/DHS, and the Republicans (as they hold power in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court).  

Does this mean this is not serious, that I am minimizing the event?  I sure as hell don't think so--when the power of the state is being used to kill and kidnap and deport without any due process, so very capriciously and so much by one ethnic group aimed at others, it is very, very serious indeed.

If people want to use "civil war" for rhetorical purposes, go right ahead.  It is not my job to tell people how they should resist these abuses of power, this persecution, and, yes, these massacres (are massacres a scale thing? I am not sure).  I am not going to tone police folks, but I am also not going to change how I talk about this stuff online.  I seek to analyze, to explain, to compare, and to contrast.  And being consistent with the usual scholarly use of terms is helpful in those efforts.