Wackiest Media Hits, Bad Memory Edition

 Yesterday, I had a new kind of media experience: where the interviewer argued with me.  It is one thing to be on a live tv or radio program and engage in a conversation with folks and find points of disagreement.  It is another thing for a reporter to call up, asking for my opinion and then rebut.  Especially when the rebuttal focuses on events in the 1840s and 1910s.

Let me explain.  I was contacted by Alternet, which seems to be a left-wing news site to comment on US-Canadian relations which are most fraught thanks to Trump.  I presented to the interviewer my take that, yes, things are very tense, that Canadian nationalism is activated, and Canadians, like most of the world, hate Trump.

The interviewer clearly had a narrative in mind and I was not going along with it. And to be sure, almost every interviewer has a narrative, but usually they don't spend a lot of time arguing why my point of view doesn't fit.

His point of view: the experience of the Zimmermann telegram plus the politics of the 1840s plus a Trump-encouraged successful secession by Alberta or Quebec would put US and Canada on the brink of war.  Oh my.  We first disagreed over whether the Z telegram caused by itself the US entry into WWI.  Yes, I knew that this captured communication from the Germans to Mexican authorities where the former were encouraging the latter to join their side in WWI, promising to give the former Mexican lands back played a big role in finally pushing the US in the war.  But I suggested that as far as I can recall, it wasn't just that.

Anyhow, the 1840s had Presidential candidate Polk promising to take Canadian territory (before there was a Canada) in the northwest part of the continent: 54'40" or fight referred to the future border of the US.  The interviewer suggested that this was thus a continuity in US politics from then to Trump, as if the past 180 years hadn't happened.  I argued that there was not much of a constituency these days for American northward expansion--that this was not even a key issue in far right politics, unlike opposing NATO in 2016.  

The third part of the premise was also problematic--Alberta and Quebec are not going to secede.  Indeed, Trump's support of their separatism, in true everything Trump touches turns to shit form, has helped reduce support for separatism.  Indeed, I don't think Canadians would be referring to Albertan separatism as potentially treasonous without the Trump support.  The polls show pretty clearly where all of this stands.

Together, the interviewer wanted to suggest that if the US efforts to support Albertan/Quebecois secession would be equivalent to the Zimmermann telegram, with Canada being the US and the US being German in the 21st century edition.  I poo-pooed with extreme prejudice.  Canada won't enter a war with the US if Alberta or Quebec secedes--secession in Canada is peaceful with only a couple of casualties AND the extreme power disparity will deter.

I also argued that Trump's Canada fixation is his and his alone.  That those who seek to replace him as leader of the MAGA cult will fail if they focus on Canada as most Americans just don't care about Canada, not even the far right.  The surveys have shown that while Trump has increased Republican distrust of Canada, that is still only a minority of Repubicans, and is not going to be the focus of an outbidding effort in future primaries.  

And yet the guy kept wanting to rebut me.  Oy.  

 I will have to try and see if I can remember even more batshit media experiences, but this one has to be near or at the top. 

Bad Apples and the Bad Apple Picking Machine

Whenever somebody does something wrong, the easiest thing to say is that, sure, there are a few bad apples.  I am reading Allan English's book right now about the failures of the Canadian Armed Forces to change, and it pushed me to write this, something I have been thinking about for awhile.

Where do bad apples come from?  Is it just the random input that a few get in?  Kind of hard to argue when the bad apples is referring to those at the very top of the military after years of "vetting" and promotions.  

But let's take the analogy seriously.  Bad apples can happen because:

1. just bad luck
2. the apple picking machine is broken
3. the apple picking machine is working in a bad orchard
4. the apple storage/treatment/processing facility makes them rotten.   

I have been thinking lately of #3 as the demise of twitter has also been on my mind.  Sure, it is run by the world's richest Nazi, but governments and other organizations can't seem to quit it.  This summer, when pushed, a government official said that they use twitter for recruiting.  And that was the most horrifying thing I heard.  Because who is on twitter now?  Bots (some silenced thanks to our Ukrainian friends), Nazis, and those who are comfortable hanging out in a Nazi bar.  So, if one uses twitter as a platform for recruiting, it is more likely these days that some of those recruited will be far right assholes than if one looked elsewhere for recruits.  It is just a math thing at this point.

I will say that while most of the blame is usually focused on bad luck, the CAF and similar orgs will think about recruiting--that far right people are eager to serve to learn skills they can use in the race war they are hoping to make happen.  So, except for the US Secretary of Defense, Nazi tattoos can be disqualifying.  The one that seems to be overlooked the most is #4--that there is something about the organization that radicalizes people.  We know that prison can do that, but I'd like for the various militaries to think seriously that maybe some folks enter their organizations and then become radicalized.  

Anyhow, this weekend of awesome apple pie and apple crisp (we cut up too many apples for just one deep dish pie recipe) has had me thinking of picking and processing my fave fruit.  Enjoy this apple season--go to the right orchards and be choosy and then take care of them when you get home.  Bad apples do a lot of damage so let's be careful out there. 

Retired Military Chief Launches Book: The Town Shows Up

Last night, my girlfriend and I attended the book launch of Gen. (ret) Wayne Eyre.  It was a very interesting night.  The actual speechifying was short, as Eyre identified and thanked a bunch of people in the room who were part of his career journey.  Eyre was known as the accidental CDS as he became the chief when his predecessor lost his position due to a credible accusation of sexual misconduct (that McDonald thought he was exonerated after the investigators said everyone was too drunk that night to prosecute demonstrated that McDonald was ill-suited for the job).  Taking the position with little preparation for the job, no handover by his predecessor, was immensely challenging, and I look forward to reading his take on that moment.  

I first met Eyre at an event at Queens University--the annual Kingston International Security Conference.  He was fresh off his tour in Korea and was just starting to be Army Chief.  Since then, I had many formal and informal meetings with him, including his appearing on the BattleRhythm podcast, interviewing him for my current project about Canada sans US, a phone call where he wanted to correct me about something I said on a different podcast episode (I was wrong because the government had not yet released its new policy, so my podcast became a venue for that announcement), standing next to him at the NATO summit in DC when Canada announced a lot more defence spending, and other events in Ottawa.  

I was not shy in these conversations about raising questions about his handling of the post, but to be clear, I have a heap of respect for how he served in that job.  The moment and the times were both quite challenging.  The sudden promotion, being CDS when a series of senior officers were disgraced, serving as chief as the world became much more threatening.  One of his most impressive characteristics was to be able to admit mistakes and course-correct as he went along.  He was thoughtful about the conflicting responsibilities he faced--to be an advocate for the Canadian Armed Forces but to respect civilian leadership and keep the CAF out of partisan politics.  Over the course of his tour, he became more outspoken about defence spending, which I found to be problematic.  

The book has already made a big splash as Eyre commented on his experiences with Justin Trudeau. Both in his comments to me as he signed my copy of the book and to the crowd, he indicated that the stories took things out of context.  For me, I am wondering how much of a violation of civ-mil norms it was, given that the document Eyre supervised as Chief of the Defence Staff about the responsibilities of the military profession, Fighting Spirit, includes retired officers (see text to the right).  I hope to find the time in the next few days to read the CDS chapters of his book so that I can evaluate this for myself.  

Despite the occasional disagreement with Eyre, I have immense respect for him. I have met all but one CDS since I started doing Canadian defence stuff in the mid 2000's--I have had amazing access here--Henault, Hillier, Natynczyk, Lawson, Vance, Eyre, and now Carignan.  Given the challenges, his very impressive learning curve, and his serious efforts to grapple with the conflicting imperatives of civil-military relations, I have come to see him as the best CDS during my time in Canada. I may or may not maintain that opinion after reading his book.  I lost a bit of respect for Robert Gates after reading his memoir, so we shall see.    

I was kind of surprised at how many people I knew at the event, although my girlfriend was not.  She gets that the defence community in Canada is pretty small.  So, she got to be introduced to the foreign minister/former defence minister Anita Anand, Senator Rebecca Patterson, Army Chief Mike Wright, former Ambassador Women, Peace, and Security (and cookie fan) Jacqueline O'Neill, and many others, and we had a delightful conversation with Jennifer Eyre, whom I met at a previous event. That Eyre got such great turnout, including the best Minister of National Defence of the past 20 years, says much about Eyre and how he treated the people around him.

Along the way, I learned about some new policy changes that may or may not improve civilian control of the military--something I will be looking into in the days ahead.  More on that sometime soon, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carney, the NYT, and an American Attack

 I was traveling when this story broke, so I did some media, but haven't addressed it here.  What was Mark Carney thinking when he discussed how he had to consider the "extreme tail" possibility of a US military attack against Canada?  

Carney was being honest--it is the responsibility of a leader to think a bit about all of the possibilities even very unlikely ones if they have the potential to be devastating.  So, of course, as it has been reported, folks at Canada's Department of National Defence have had to think a bit about what an American attack would look like (more on that below).  As retired LGen Leslie put it, the military plans, it is what they do.  The US had plans in the 1920s for attacking Canada in case of a conflict with the UK.  But leaders aren't always honest, so why answer the question.   He could have demurred or deflected.

Carney is very deliberate in his messaging.  His Davos speech got picked up widely as it was clear in many ways (and not clear in many others) but mostly it said that Canada was not going to be pushed around by Trump and that Canada was not going to operate as if the situation was normal.  It was a very costly signal--that he and everyone else knew that saying this stuff would antagonize Trump who is incredibly thin-skinned.  Sending that signal to the Canadian public has paid dividends as his popularity has been boosted by his anti-Trump stances (giving him cover to do all kinds of unpopular things domestically--he is the most right-wing Liberal politician in recent history and it is not close).  Sending that signal to Europe and Asia made it clear that Canada is ready to do some business even if it upsets Trump.  Sending that signal to the US was part of the larger bargaining process as well.  

Stepping away from the bargaining table took that speech and tripled down on it--it was not just a costly signal but a costly act, as the trade war has intensified.  Again, it sends signals far and wide, that Canada's stance is for real.  

Yet Americans haven't taken seriously the 51st state bullshit.  By speaking out about how Canada has had to contemplate an American attack in an American newspaper, he tells Americans that Canadians are taking this quite seriously.  In addition, as the economic pain of various sectors of the American economy increases due to the trade war, this also helps to remind Americans who to blame.  Oh, and Carney had this interview in late September.  Too early to be an October surprise for the midterms but definitely midterm adjacent.  Is this an attempt to tell Americans that they should try to restrain Trump via voting Dem in the midterms?  Again, Carney is deliberate, so he is aware that saying this at this time would be read this way even if this message is not his intent.   

So, yeah, I think Carney is putting his thumb on the scale of the American election.  Given how the Trump administration has tried to encourage separatism in Quebec and Alberta (and actually hurting their respective causes since he is so incredibly toxic in Canada), this move is very much quite fair.  Of course, Trump won't see it that way since he thinks Canada should just roll over.  He keeps saying Canada is nasty... for protecting itself.  

On the whole attack thing, I am not privy to what the DND/CAF people have been gaming out, but I would guess that the extreme tail risks would include:

• hybrid attacks a la the Russians--jamming, cutting cables, drone overflights, etc.
• threat of and then actual use of air power. 
• use of special forces to try to seize Carney just as the US seized Venezuela's president and, yes, what Putin tried to do in 2022 in Ukraine.
• deployment of airborne to seize Ottawa airport as part of an effort to land troops in the capital. 
• symbolic or not so symbolic deployment of forces from Fort Lewis in Washington and Fort Drum in New York.  

There are probably other possibilities, bu there are the ones that come to my mind.  Canada is vulnerable to all of this, and any of these would impose much pain on Canada.  But none of them would be painless for the US, and several of them might just risk a major crisis in US civil-military relations.  It is one think to hit boats in the Caribbean or strike a long time antagonist (via air and sea power only) like Iran.  It is another thing to attack an ally that fought and bled alongside Americans in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Trump and Hegseth are not smart enough to realize that one could issue an order that might be too far, but that would be one "center of gravity" that the Canadians would be targeting--how to get the American military to refuse orders to attack Canada.  Something to think about.  Maybe write about some other day.

I don't think Trump will use military force against Canada--it is extremely unlikely.  But Trump creates uncertainty about everything, and he has done plenty of incredibly dumb, self-destructive stuff.  So, one cannot simply rely on reason and cost/benefit calculations to deter Trump from doing dumb stuff.  Which means, yes, Canadian officials have to think about it.  They certainly watched the coercion aimed against Greenland.  They also watched Trump back down and take a deal that didn't change a damned thing.  

Anyhow, let's hope he gets distracted by some other squirrel. 

 

What Is and Is Not Sovereignty

 This is some basic stuff, but I see enough stuff in the media, social and otherwise, getting this stuff wrong.  Indeed, I was on a radio program yesterday, and it was a call-in show where, yes, some of the callers didn't quite understand what is going on with Canada and the EU.

Back in the day, when I was deciding what to do my dissertation on, I noticed that the traditional definition of sovereignty focused on two things--government and territory--that a state was sovereign if it could claim a hunk of territory and that it had its own government.  I raised questions about why countries interfered more with the government part of that than the territory part until I read more and realized that the international politics of secession was not what people claimed.

Anyway, the key here is mostly the government part--that a sovereignty country is one that has agency--that it can make its own decisions.  That does not mean that such a country is not impacted by other countries, but that the country in question can choose which side of a tradeoff is less problematic.  It also means that delegating to an other institution is a choice and a choice that can be undone.  

My fave example is NATO: Article V can only be invoked if all countries agree, and, even then, no country is forced to do anything.  Each decides exactly how they want to participate.

These days, much talk of a sovereign Canada.  Most of this is about reducing dependency on the US, but one aspect of this stuff does touch on the heart of sovereignty.  In multiple trade discussions, Trump wanted to have a veto on Canada's arrangements with other countries.  That would be reducing Canadian sovereignty, not just raising the costs of one action versus another, but of reducing the ability of Canada to make its own decisions.  

That Canada has rejected this is "nasty" according to Trump, but it is very fundamental.  

International relations is chock full of difficult decisions, and, yes, countries will put pressure on other countries to do what they want.  The very definition of power is to get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  But the weaker players can still make decisions and then pay the price of resisting.  Canada just did, and, ironically, has gained more stature and more influence.  Carney is lionized in Europe for bucking Trump.  The Davos speech was a start but just talk, costly talk for it did antagonize an always sensitive Trump, but the rejection of the trade deal was a real policy decision.  This deal with the EU, whatever Associate Membership will eventually mean, is symbolic for the moment, but it is also a policy decision--to agree to do something that Trump did not want Canada to do.  

There will be costs, but there will also be benefits.  It was and is up to the Prime Minister of Canada to decide how to weigh them, as Canada remains sovereign.  Even if it is hardly independent economically or militarily. 

Considering the State of American Civil-Military Relations: APSA 2026 Edition

Yesterday, I was on an APSA roundtable with the sharpest minds on US civil-military relations (I did feel like playing the old Sesame street song): Peter Feaver, Heidi Urben, Risa Brooks, Carrie Lee, with Lindsay Cohn serving as moderator (she chimed in during the Q&A).  We all know each other as civ-mil is a great community of very generous scholars.  As a johnny-come-lately (I switched from doing the IR of ethnic conflict to civ-mil after my 2nd book/time in the Pentagon), I greatly appreciate this community.  To be sure, my switch nearly 20 years ago, but I forever felt behind.  Anyhow, I wanted to sum up what these folks said as the consensus was bleak--American civil-military relations is in deep crisis, and whatever problems there were before pale in comparison to what the Trump govt is doing these days.  

I took good but not great notes so I may be getting the views of the panelists wrong--blame me, not them. 

Feaver said:

• this is our moment--that our work and our voices are very relevant now
• what was implicit is now explicit--our understanding of norms of civ-mil depend on assumptions that are now being violated
• the dubious actions of the Trump government are officially legal (more on that below), which presents real challenges
• Chairman Caine made a speech that was a bit out of context but still had the wrong tone---that should just advise the civilians on whether something can be done, not whether it should be done--that there might be consequences (say, bombing Iran?)
• Trump/Hegseth are an overcorrection to the failure to criticize civ-mil under the Dems
• this is a low information environment, produced both deliberately and via incompetence and Congressional failure to do their role

Urben focused on tangible actions to repair US civ-mil, mostly by civilians--building or rebuilding:

• repeal the various authorizations to use military force that allow presidents to use the military in questionable ways without Congressional blessing
• narrow the criteria for domestic deployment so that the insurrection act does not give a government a relatively easy pathway to using troops at home against protestors 
• Congress should constrain executive action, more scrutiny through oversight powers, withhold $, investigate the military advise that has been provided on things like the boat strikes
• Reinstate those admirals and generals Hegseth has fired with backpay (if good enough for those who refused vaccines....), stop doing voice votes for approvals of promotion lists.  [apparently 10% of GOFOs have been fired]
• Create a commission to reinvigorate the military profession. 
• damage too deep for military to do it--restoring Judge Advocate General role, greater protections o senior JAGS, rebuilding institutions that prevent civilian harm, strengthening investigative procedures, improve Professional Military Education, go back to non-awful base names
• work on recruiting and retaining women and minorities

Brooks: 

• biggest concern how homeland security missions undermine civil-military relations/civilian control
• JTF West Hemisphere striking small boats/counternarc missions
• Deployments to city streets
• Northcom 's ops JTF South border 
• effects
• hurts society relations with military--military becomes unpopular
• morale tensions in units
• changes in military's understanding of its appropriate missions.  Hegseth views border as greater threat than China

Saideman:

• The old discussions of whether x moment was a crisis in civ-mil are quant as we now know what a real crisis looks like
• The focus of principal-agent theory will turn to the principals.. 
• I discussed how my effort to develop a list of the incidents where Trump/Hegseth violated the norms of civ-mil led to an effort by four (at least) distinct groups coming together
• Who is doing oversight now?  Not Congress?  OSD (SecDef and his people) are overseeing pushups and gender/race of promotions but not usage of missiles, not rotation of aircraft carriers, etc.  American exceptionalism in how it did oversight over the armed forces is gone.
• that civ-mil crisis in US is going to cause civ-mil crises elsewhere as allied militaries will still focus on working with US military as that becomes toxic in the domestic politics of most democracies.

Lee:

•  blatant norm breaking first time since civil war with President thinking about using military to mess with elections, American military engaging in war crimes (summary executions in Caribbean), tis a 5 alarm emergency
• long term, generational harm with massive selection effect--GOFOs leaving at rapid pace, responding to extraordinarily rapid changes in incentive structures.  
• rapid deprofessionalization, compliance with unlawful orders that violate law of armed confict
• officer corp wants to return to normal, to snap back, but we need a full reckoning
• norms need to be legislated by bipartisan action
• criminal prosecution needed for mil and civs

 

A few general points from this roundtable and conversations this week:

• the whole idea that troops can disobey patently unlawful orders is problematic as the lawyers will generally say something is lawful or questionable but not patently lawful AND the law does not say that patently unlawful is the standard
• lawyer shopping--you can always find a lawyer who says something is ok
• one reason ICE is expanded and military is not doing domestic stuff much is that the military does retain some sense of profession, of professional ethics.  ICE people are not professionals in any sense

Some differences in the panel:

• can you legislate norms?
• what will military think of Dems when they return
• can a future Dem administration cut the military budget?

The big question is what can we as civil-military scholars do?  We need to inform the public and the legislators about what is happening and what is at risk.  We need to make it clear that the consequences of bad civil-military relations will ultimately have electoral consequences (lost wars, excessive casualties, use of military in our streets).  Our community has not been silent, but it also hasn't been that influential. Much work left to do, but listening to these folks taught me a lot.

We received great questions, but I have to run and explore Boston.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congress

 

The Broken Transmission Belt of Policy: Tariffs Edition

Since Trump returned to power, I have been talking a lot about the broken transmission belt of policy.*  In ordinary times, if a person, firm, or association had a problem, they could complain to their Congressperson or Senator, and that person would put heat on the President to reverse the policy or stop it before the policy took effect.  That is the transmission belt of policy--taking the preferences and concerns of individual and collective interests and connecting them to the actors making the big decisions.

Since Trump came back, that belt has been broken. Very little of what Trump does is popular, much of it is annoying or worse to many voters, firms, and sectors.  But Republican Congresspeople and Senators have largely been unresponsive--they have not pushed for legislative changes and they have not pressured Trump that much.

Why?  Because they range from cowards to co-conspirators.  Mostly, the former.  Trump has two things going for him that help cement his control over the party: a) he is quite willing to throw any member of his party under the proverbial bus and his followers go along with it with Musk's money as a big hammer; and b) MAGA violence is a real threat to Republicans who stray.  My fave example is Joni Ernst, who initially opposed Pete Hegseth's nomination for SecDef since he stood against what she stood for--women serving in combat and fighting sexual assault against women who serve. She folded quickly.

I return to this topic today because the trade war for Canada is terrible for many American companies and sectors.  For instance, Canada is the most important provider of potash to American farmers--85%.  The trade war will have several impacts on Americans and American firms:

• the price of various goods will go up as taxing Canadian imports, yes, increases the prices Americans pay for Canadian goods.  
• the price of various goods will go up as taxing Canadian imports, yes, increases the prices of Canadian goods so American companies that compete with Canadian imports will raise their prices as they face less competition.
• American firms will become less competitive as key inputs for their products will get more expensive--American cars, agriculture, etc. all rely on Canadian inputs.
• American firms that export to Canada will lose business as taxes on their goods--tariffs placed by Canada in relatiation--get more expensive.

In ordinary times, these kinds of folks are important political actors, offsetting those firms who benefit from a protected market--this is the stuff Helen Milner wrote so persuasively long ago. Globalization of production made it less politically attractive to be protectionist.  What has happened?  Trump doesn't care, as he has largely been immune from the impacts of his policies.  Well, his popularity isn't immune, but the GOP whine rather than legislate.  Party discipline, caused by fear and greed, has broken the transmission belt.  I still wonder about the tech firms who seem so important and rely so heavily on foreign markets, but I guess the combo of being too big to regulate or fail and being run by eugenicists and other awful people means they don't care.

Does this mean that things will change if the Dems win back both houses?  I am not so sure, as the transmission belt of policy works if the executive respects the legislature and the Constitution.  Right now, we have Trump's minions defying the very basic rules of the system--not spending money that Congress has allocated.  I am not sure they will stop when the Dems hold some power.  

So, maybe it is not just cowardice and greed that block the transmission belt, but the end of the rule of law?

Anyhow, we shall see if Trump tacos on this, as the trade war is really bad for Americans.  To be clear, the trade war is really bad for Canada, but Carney is only getting more popular as Trump has thoroughly inflamed Canadian nationalism.  Canada is united.  The US?  Not so much. 

 

 

 

 

 

* I thought I had written a post about the broken transmission belt of policy, but I can't seem to find it.