The Bad Faith Actor Dictating Faith

 Perhaps it is unfair to call Pete Hegseth a bad faith actor since he seems to be a real believer in Christian nationalism.  But many of his arguments have been of bad faith--that the standards he applies to others he does not apply to himself. That part makes him fit in really well in the Trump Administration.  Much of the Christian Nationalism does as well, as Christian nationalism is far more about power and domination than it is about, you know, that whole Christ thing.

The latest move has been to reduce the list of faiths the Department of Defense recognizes.  This may seem strange since state is supposed to be separated from religion, but given that soldiers, sailors, aviators, and marines spend their entire daily/weekly/monthly lives in, on, near bases, their spiritual condition has long been something the US government has addressed with chaplains, chapels (the one at the US Air Force Academy would not be out of place at a Christian nationalist university.... oh wait, um, never mind), grave markers, and so on.  

But then you have to ask what counts? What fits into the bureaucracy so that each troop's spiritual needs are met?  Military chaplains are supposed to address the needs of all of the women and men in uniform, not just the Christians.  The good news is that Hegseth's reductions from 220 or so to 31 allows for some diversity: Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Judiasm, Islam, Sikhism, non-religion, "Other," 22 flavors of Christianity, and Latter Day Saints--Mormon. That last one was not listed under "Christian." Ooops. [This reminds me that just as Black Americans and Latino Americans voting for white supremacists surprise and appall me, Mormons voting for Christian nationalists should fit into the same category of voting for those who want to see you dead or gone].

One could wonder if this simplification of the coding is just a normal realignment to go along with reforms of the chaplaincy stuff in the military, but the guy at the top, Hegseth (not Jesus or God), is a Christian nationalist, complete with Christian nationalist tattoos on his body.*  These folks hate all non-Christians and have a very narrow definition of what counts as Christian.  The list is a bit generous since lots of Christian faiths are included that a Christian nationalist would abhor.  I guess this is a start?  Or Hegseth is too much of a coward to go all the way and crop Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and most of the other Christians who don't count?  

It is notable that Indigenous people's religions are dropped, as well as Unitarians and Wiccans.  Would it be a stretch say that Hegseth is trying to make military service less comfortable to non-Christians by reshaping the chaplain corps, reducing recognition of those who don't fit Hegseth's approval list?  Maybe that is too subtle for the guy who keeps firing women at the GOFO ranks (generals/admirals) and keeping people of color and women off of promotion lists.

Managing the list could be apolitical, aimed at efficiencies... in ordinary times.  Now, it is clearly an effort to define who can and should serve in a way that promotes the opposite of diversity.  Being anti-woke means being hostile to all kinds of diversity, so now more people are told they don't belong.  Not a great move if you want to maximize recruitment and retention, but if you want to build a military consisting of just white dudes who fit a narrow definition of Christian, this is a first step.

 

 

*  The Pentagon does have restrictions on tattoos, keeping out or kicking out those with Christian nationalist tattoos or Nazi tattoos because they want to keep out far right extremists.  If you think this is a subtweet of Platner, the candidate for the Maine Senate seat, you would be wrong--there is nothing sub here about it. 

The State of US-Canadian Relations, June 2026

 Lots of stuff happening the past week or two:

• Canada decides to buy a Swedish plane (no, not that one), rather than the American one. Rumors have abounded of Canada cutting its F35 buy and getting 60 Gripens instead.
• Canada finishes the contract on the HIMARS launchers
• I attended a conference on Canada diversifying its defence procurement, with former military folks mostly wanting to get "the best capability" which is code for American stuff. 
• Trump repeats the 51st state crap which gets reposted by his ambassador to Canada, the wildly unpopular Pete Hoekstra.  
• Much noise about the opening of negotiations over revising NAFTA 2.0 aka CUSMA aka USMCA (why does Mexico never go first?).
• Efforts to organize a panel for the next International Studies Association meeting fail as I can't get Canadian scholars to commit to a conference in the US.
• ISA-Canada, which is a subunit of the ISA, had its business meeting at the Canadian Political Science Association meeting, and much of the conversation was on whether to have any activites at the next meeting in the US.  A reminder--these folks like to travel and engage other scholars and yet they won't go to the US.  Kind of like not playing Sun City. 

  I am sure more has happened, but this gives you an idea of where things are at.  Best summarized thusly:

 Re defence, it would seem to be contradictory to buy American stuff at this time given the threats from the US.  The Carney folks are in a difficult spot.  Someone in the audience of the diversify conference that Elbridge Colby cited Carney's Davos speech and asked whether Canadian resistance is causing American coercion.  And I wanted task about time travel since Davos is after all the 51st state stuff.  As I keep saying, if someone is going to punch you in the face whether you accede to their demands or not, you might as well do what you want, not what they want.  Which is what the AWACS/HIMARS decisions illsutrate--when Canada can get good but perhaps not the best stuff elsewhere, it will--the Swedish/Canadian AWACS plane.  When it can't build it at home or partner with a non-American actor, then, yes, it will buy it--HIMARS.  A colleague pointed out the very instructive language in the announcement that had never appeared before, I believe:

This is Carney playing to the Canadian audience explaining why we are buying American in this case.  Pretty sure previous Canadian governments didn't have to do this.  And it won't be the last time, as much in the contracting pipeline is American.

Re the F35/Gripen conversation, damned if I know what is going to happen.  I firmly believe the F35 is the best choice as a mixed fleet of planes (or subs) would be incredibly expensive.  While it might be cool now to hop to 3.5 or 4% of GDP spent on defense, in the long run, future governments will not be as enthused, and the public will not be as supportive (the nationalism will fade some after Trump leaves the scene).  So, the military will have to pay quite a bit to keep one set of planes or subs in the air and at sea, and won't be able to afford the costs of two sets of spare parts, two sets of training systems, and two sets of everything.  So, perhaps don't mess this up now?  Sure, it won't go over well with the Canadian public.

Re the Ambassador: declaring any ambassador persona non grata is a huge deal, almost akin to starting a war.  Doing that to an American ambassador would shake everything up in a big, big way.  Carney has been a mixture of caution and risk-taking in his handling of the US relationship.  He won't do this.  But he could summon the ambassador and demarche him for getting too involved in Canadian domestic politics--the Alberta separatist stuff and the like. It wouldn't change American behavior, but it would play well in Canada and draw a line or two.

The conference stuff is a signifier, as less engaged, less knowledgeable Canadians will have stronger opinions and a greater willingness to thumb their noses at the US.  We have already seen how much it has affected tourism and trade, and that will leave a mark for quite a while.

Which gets us to the trade agreement.  Trump, Hoekstra, Colby, and the rest want to impose their will on everyone including Canada.  Carney won't submit but he will bend, but the fundamental problem in all of this is that Trump won't take yes for an answer.  He got a revision of NAFTA last time.  Yet he asks for more.  What will satisfy him?  What compromise, what concession will end the coercion, the torment?  The answer is: nothing. There is no satisfying him.  You can distract, you defer, you can buy time.  But he will come back again and again demanding more and more.  

So, the answer again is: do what is in Canada's best interest, which sometimes means cooperation but not always.  I will disagree with Carney on much stuff (gutting environmental regulation, firing lots of govt people, etc), but he has been mostly right on the mix of cooperation and resistance.  No need to punch Trump in the face with PNG-ing Hoekstra, but definitely a need to buy defence stuff from elsewhere.  I do trust Carney not to sell us out.  And that might seem minimal, but given how so many relatively powerful actors (Harvard, rich law firms, etc) have given in, holding the line on some things but not everything would be better than most.

Finally, one last note on civil-military relations: the RCAF probably wanted the American plane, so that is a loss for them and evidence of some civilian control of the armed forces.  But the CAF is getting a lot of money and equipment very fast, so I hope they get neither cocky nor whiny, and instead plan on getting
enough stuff now that can be sustained during leaner times.  Because there will be leaner times. And, no, this does not change my basic stance about Canadian civil-military relations--there is oversight and control over procurement, perhaps too much, but it ain't the same in most other realms of civ-mil stuff.   More on that down the road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowdsourcing Civ-Mil Violations

I am looking for help: with the help of a fantastic RA, Alireza Mamdouhi, I have created a googlesheet to crowdsource a list of violations of American Civil-Military Relations norms by the Trump Administration.  My inspiration was hearing about a panel on US civ-mil during the Trump era that concluded that it ain't so bad.  Um, yeah, it is.  Because so much has happened over the past 16 months, it is easy to lose track.  So, here's the list. And here's our start at a codebook.  Please comment to add crises, to raise questions about our coding, to help us come up with category coding.   

 This is my first effort at this kind of thing, so any help would be most appreciated. Peter Lucier of the Chamberlain Network has already jumped in so expect revisions to the columns (more columns with more specific coding)

For specialists in civ-mil, if you want editing privileges, let me know.  

Again, the idea here is to document the many ways in which the Trump Administration is undermining the norms that buttress civilian control of the US military and keep it out of politics.

 

When Modesty Is Not a Virtue: Learned Defence Expertise is Real

 I read a terrific piece by my partner in crime (I am sure some members of some legislatures will consider our latest book* criminal due to our discussion of their, um, lack of relevance),  Phil Lagassé, but took a heap of umbrage at his footnote:

 I dislike the term ‘expert’ when it comes to academics who study topics such as mine (defence policy or machinery of government), where practitioners are usually more knowledgeable.

 The funny thing is that Phil contradicts himself in the piece as he considers himself a defence politics specialist and not a generalist (see below for his invocation of Seva Gutinsky's piece and my reaction to that).  Apart from this, why was my chain yanked?

Because one of the fundamental problems in civil-military relations around the world is that most armed forces consider themselves to have a monopoly of expertise on military stuff and that Sam Huntington's flawed book then encourages them to consider all civilians amateurs.  Amateur is the antonym for professional, right?  Scholars, such as Risa Brooks and Sharan Grewal , have shown not only that this attitude exists but that it likely causes contempt for civilians and for civilian oversight. Not great.

To be clear, in Phil's piece, his expertise discussion is referring as much to those civilians working in the Department of National Defence as much as he is referring to the uniformed.  Still, any admission that academics are not experts on this stuff is problematic.  The military and adjacent folks already tend to denigrate the work we do: have you served? is political science really a science?  

Why? Partly it is about identity and ego, but much of it has to do with different notions of expertise. Military folks tend to think that one mostly gains expertise through exercising and experience, not through study and analysis.  Academics tend to think that expertise comes through rigorous analysis.  Both sides are right and wrong.  There are many ways to learn things and develop sharper understandings of something, relying on one source leaves one less well-informed.  As always, portfolio approaches make the most sense.

To be fair to the military types, when H's book came out nearly 70 years ago, there was not that much civilian expertise on military matters.   But since then, thanks to the Cold War, arms races, various wars, academics have gotten serious about military matters and so have other experts.   Defense agencies have grown in size and scope and relevance (well, not everywhere as Phil, Ora, and I are finding out for our next book--see my Chile and Brazil posts of late), for awhile defense was an important beat for journalists in some places (the US has a military journalist association!), think tanks in a few countries developed squads of experts, and so on.

There are now plenty of civilians who have knowledge and understanding of defense.  The coverage of the Ukraine war provides ample illustration (see Seva's piece for several of exemplars). And we need civilian expertise because experience is not always the best teacher.  There are often multiple lessons to learn from an experience, say Vietnam, which lessons are the right ones?  One of the ironies of Phil's post is that distinction between generalists and specialists also applies to military folks--some officers have wide-ranging careers with much joint service and much exposure to the civilian side, and  others hardly ever leave their specific niche.  

A quick word on Seva's piece since this post is already long enough: he is talking about who makes the best predictions (no one?)--that expertise, as Phil discusses, can limit the imagination.  For me, prediction is always fraught (I was in the Russia will invade and win decisively box of Seva's piece), as I have gotten much wrong.  

But prediction and diagnosis are two different beasts.  Those who have done much rigorous analysis are good at doing .... rigorous analysis and can dissect what has happened quite well.  Academics, at least in the areas near mine, do a great job of explaining, even if they are not great at prediction.  Why?  Well, the future is always in motion, it has not been written yet, and we will emphasize important factors but some smaller contingent stuff, for the want of a nail yada yada, may affect outcomes.

It was harder to predict that Trump would attack Iran, given his TACO-ing in the past, but it was easier to predict that the war would go poorly both because of the target and the attackers.

Anyhow, the point here is that there are lots of ways to get smart about something, and the smartest way to get smart about something is to rely not on just one pathway but as many as one can.

And, yes, I am pretty proud of not referring to the military folks as solitary trees trying to understand their forest.

*  Our book is now a finalist for Best Comparative Politics Book by the Canadian Political Science Association.  And this is pretty funny for this post since most comparativists would not consider Phil or me to be comparativists.  Especially me.  But that is a post for another day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Public Commentary at a Dangerous Time

 Yesterday was a pretty special day.  Carleton's Faculty (equivalent to College of) of Public and Global Affairs held its annual award ceremony.  My school, NPSIA, had two profs recognized: Lama Mourad for teaching excellence and myself for Public Commentary.  I joked that hers was a quality award and mine was a quantity award--she did great and I did a lot.  

Lama is a terrific
teacher

It was great to see Lama get recognized, as she teaches some very tough stuff, especially at this time--refugees, migration, and Mideast stuff--when her own family is very much in harm's way.  Plus it doesn't hurt her slam dunk tenure case as well.  I also assured another winner, someone from the Public Policy program, that her tenure case is bulletproof as well as it is a mighty bad look to give someone an outstanding research excellence award and then deny tenure.   

James simply rocks

A fun bit is that my award followed that of James Milner, who received one for Community Outreach.  I keep following James, as he applied successfully for a partnership grant about eight years ago, so he gave me much help in applying for the grant that created the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  Last year, his second stage project was successful, so I again leaned on him and then followed him in the application process.  So, one again, I follow in his footsteps. 

My application for the award focused on my, um, extensive portfolio of stuff--doing podcasts, heaps of tv/radio/newspaper interviews, blogging here, blueskying (I didn't mention threads as my stuff there is mostly not about politics/IR), and my new reels of Guns and Butter. 

We each had a minute or so to speak.  I first noted that the Associate Dean mispronounced my name, which I noted as being most apt given how often my name or title is messed up by tv/radio folks.  I then thanked the committee.  Most of my minute or two was focused on the moment: that universities are under attack because we generate and disseminate knowledge when actors want to spread mis and disinformation.  I asserted without any evidence that most universities provide awards for staff excellence, research excellence, and teaching excellence but not so much for public engagement.  Indeed, I said that if I had stayed put in west Texas, I would have been fired by now for my public engagement.  

Dean Mary Francoli giving 
me the award

I urged the folks in the room to do what our title suggests--to profess.  To share what we have learned and to fill the information space with our knowledge.  Because there are bad faith actors who are quite willing to fill that space with lies and disinformation.  It was pretty well received, I think.

With so little time and thrown off by the name thing, I didn't think Melissa Jennings, our podcast producer and director of operations, or the rest of the CDSN team which help so much in my efforts to engage the public about what the CDSN has been doing.  So, thanks!

It was an honor and a small, temporary bump in my paycheck that will pay for a post-divorce couch or chesterfield (a word I have never used until now, but a Canadian term for such furniture).  It was my second time,* as I received a similar honor ten years ago.  One of the reasons I have been so happy in this fourth and final job of my career is that they recognize and reward this stuff and also facilitate it.  The other thing that happened yesterday was a meeting staffers from all over campus who were there to help me figure out how I can best rely on them for the new big grant that creates a global and comparative Civil-Military Relations Network.  

Happy to share the spotlight 
with NPSIA hotshot Lama Mourad

I did start with a joke about my being an attention hound, which, of course, is true.  But the urgency of this moment has given me greater focus and purpose for doing stuff that suits me well--talking and writing about this international relations, civil-military relations stuff to any audience that will listen to me, see me, and/or read me.

And, yes, I am incredibly thankful to Carleton for supporting me in all of this, and to Canada for providing an environment where I don't worry much about getting fired.  The move twenty four years ago may have led to a temporary cut in salary, but it has been the best investment of my life and keeps paying dividends.

*  Only now as I write this post and look back at the award I received ten years ago (I do prefer the plastic monolith to the framed certificate) that I wore the same jacket, the same one I wore when I graduated Oberlin nearly forty years ago.  Tis a bit tighter, of course, but I guess it will always be my happy day blazer. 

Chile 2: Deja Dos

The llamas were greedy
but sweet.

 On my way home from a week plus of research and tourism in Chile.  One of the things I forgot from last time is how far away Santiago is: six hours from Panama City, which is about the same from Newark.  So, a long last flight here and a long first flight home on an airline that is only loosely associated with the one with which I have status.  So, some minor hiccups but no real challenges.  The research was confusing and the food was awesome.  

First, the work stuff: I was in Santiago and Valparisio to interview former military and ministry of defense folks to assess the dynamics of the relationship between MoD and military.  This is part of a larger project that took me to South Korea, Germany, Finland, Sweden, and Brazil and Phil to lots of places.  My plan to study autocratic cases in the Mideast met with the reality of the region--one's research plans are often derailed by the occasional war.  I was in Chile eight years ago for the book on legislatures and armed forces, so I knew a bit about what I was getting into--a country with a mostly autonomous military, a constitution written in the waning days of autocracy, and weak legislative oversight.  

My fixer was better connected this time so I had plenty of interviews with people who had retired from the highest positions in the military and MOD.   I got about sixteen interviews in six days--which is not too shabby.  As in my other cases, there was not a single clear outcome that will be easy to write about, but a complex mix of views and realities that will make case study writing challenging. Since my last visit in 2018, there were a couple of failed attempts to revise the constitution, deployments of the army to deal with the border in the north and a conflict with a first nation group in the south, and massive unrest in 2019.  So, heaps of interesting context.  Chile will be on the weaker end of the spectrum when it comes to MoD oversight, but will have heaps of company (cough, cough, Canada). 

really sweet boutique vineyard 

Second, on the tourism side, I stayed near where I did last time, but was more squarely in the middle of the Lastarria district--heaps of restaurants, gelato shops, booths of folks selling various crafts.  I don't remember it being this lively last time, and I certainly don't remember this much security.  The empanadas seem to have gotten bigger as well.  The weather, except for one day, was spectacular.

 

 

 

Inca lake at Portillo ski resort
had an amazing reflection
of the mountains

 A big difference that last time I was alone and was here during their ski season.  This time was different as  I traveled with my girlfriend, so we signed up for some weekend tours. The first was to the coast--Vina Del Mar and Valparisio and a vineyard--and the second was to the Andes.  The former featured many, many, many murals and a terrific tour guide (a history prof!).  The latter featured llamas, switchbacks, and the most beautiful mountain lake.  

Nearly home.  I will just add a few notes for the pics below.  No more transcontinental travel until the end of June.  It has been a wild few months.

Valparisio had many, many amazing murals

Much easier to get closer to one of
these in Valparisio than go to Easter Island

Great sunset from top of tallest building in S. America

No skiing but still did a gondola over the big park

The Independent Republic of Pisco lives
on. Viva la Revolucion!!!
We enjoyed their pisco sour variants.

Anti-Trans Claims Are Utter Crap

 The truly amazing thing of the time in which we live is that we have so much information, yet people buy the bullshit mis and disinformation.  People are making incredible (as in unbelievable) claims, and people are buying them, doing so much harm.

Of all of this, the most angering, the most infuriating for me has to be the anti-trans bullshit promoted by the Republican Party, JK Rowling, the New York Times, and others.  First, trans people are a tiny group, hardly a threat to the culture or to anyone.  But their size makes them a handy target--they seem alien because most people do not know a trans person.  Traditional homophobia does not play as well as it used to because more and more people know gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, so those seeking to amplify hate have to find targets elsewhere.  Second, they were a group already facing marginalization and violence before these organizations and individuals began broadcasting trans hate.  Trans kids have long had a high suicide rate.  So, this is the epitome of punching down, which is appalling.  

Before getting to the three most popular and wrongest claims/fears, I should note that the trans panic has an impact--it has shaped attitudes, making the public more supportive of anti-trans laws.  It has helped abet efforts to silence research into all kinds of gender research, not just trans-related stuff.  And, yes, it has given Republicans (and so-called reactionary centrists*) a chance to make Democrats seem strange for protecting a tiny alien group.  Has it tilted elections?  No idea, but of all of the policy issues, this is the one where the public is closer to the GOP.  On pretty much every other issue, the Dems are squarely in the center of the American electorate.  No wonder the Republicans like to create fear against trans people.  A most rancid but pretty damned obvious form of distraction sauce.

First, kids are not being mutilated.  Kids getting any trans-related treatments are doing so after much effort by their parents/guardians, and the treatments for kids are reversible, such as puberty blockers.  The total of adults getting surgery is something like 200 a year, which is hardly justification for a panic, and kids are not getting such surgeries.  All this concern about kids being fooled into being trans is fake, the psychological harm that trans kids face from parents, churches, and others who try to deny them their true identity is quite real.  Oh, and the parties that do the most to "protect" kids from transitioning are the same ones that deny all kinds of benefits and care, such as medicaid, school lunches, and the like.  So, let's just admit they are a Bad Faith crowd.

Second, men are not transitioning to get a leg up in women's sports.  It simply is not a reality.  The number of trans women in women's sports is microscopic, hardly worth the trouble of regulating.  And guess what? There is little evidence to suggest trans women have physical advantages over people who were identified as female at birth.  The whole idea is rather preposterous--that men will sacrifice their sexuality in order to compete in women's sports.  Given the hate and ostracism facing trans people, who is going to do this?  There are significant consequences to becoming trans--most negative given the state of things--so who is signing up for just a competitive advantage?  No one.  If you can find one person or even a dozen, I would be surprised, but that would still not justify the policies aimed at "protecting women's sports."  The party of pedophilia wants to inspect the genitals of girl athletes?  That seems to be far more problematic and damaging to girls and women than the one in a million trans girl winning a trophy.  

Third, all this fear of trans women in bathrooms.  What is the rate of sexual assault committed by trans women?  Yep, it is not really happening.   On the flipside, trans kids are facing greater violence in bathrooms. Sure, fear men in women's bathrooms, but trans women are women.  Once you understand that, the fear should dissipate.  Unless, of course, the fear is politically motivated.

That some feminists--TERFS--are anti-trans is horrific since they are finding common cause with misogynists, racists, anti-semites, Islamaphobes, and other haters.  These hates usually ride together, so joining awful folks because they support your own prejudice is doing great harm to all kinds of causes, including your own.  Yes, JK Rowling is a shitty feminist.  While folks can identify heaps of racism and misogyny in her books,** her amplification of hate the past ten years is an utter betrayal of the central message of the books--that love defeats hate, that tolerance is superior to prejudice.  I can't help but ask JK: "Think, and try for some remorse."

We live in difficult times.  I hate that we have powerful actors making them more difficult than they need to be, and that these folks are either useful idiots or conscious allies of the truly awful actors who are doing so much damage to democracy and to human dignity.  

If you happen to have some beliefs that line up with one of these three myths, do some work, read a bit up on it, and realize you have been played.  We have nothing to fear of trans people but fear itself.  

 

* I will save my reactionary centrist post for another day.  

** I overlooked that stuff for many reasons including the central message.  Alas, I can't anymore.  I have given away my HP books and will buy no more swag.  I will keep my Gryffindor bathrobe because it is a really terrific bathrobe because I am cheap.