Sunday, April 30, 2017

Happy Spew-nniversary!!!

Eight years and counting!  Sure, I have written fewer posts over the past year, but the Semi keeps in Spewing!  Approaching 1.5 million page views, with the trend steadily increasing upwards.

Everything I said last year at this time still applies.  Except now I need to get the blog either bronze stuff or appliances...

Anyhow, I am very thankful that I started doing this eight years ago.  It is not as much as a time suck as people thought, or as I thought before I started.  Twitter is the great enemy of productivity even as it has been mighty helpful over the years.  Blogging here has led to writing elsewhere--op-eds, posts at other websites (OpenCanada, Duck of Minerva, Political Violence at a Glance, E-IR, etc).  It has helped me get out some of my research ideas far earlier than otherwise would be the case as the academic publishing process is sloooooow.  Media folks have read my stuff here, which has led to not just more media appearances but better ones as they can ask me to explain my ideas rather than just asking what I thought.  The posts have led to interesting conversations on facebook and twitter, not to mention in person when I meet with people who have read my stuff.  I still blush and stammer when I met a Spew-fan, but am glad that what used to be just random thoughts that I wanted to express have become something more than that.

I wish I could dump all the posts into a word cloud thingy to figure out what I write the most about.  It is far easier to see which posts get the most hits: the ones that refer to Harry Potter due to searches finding my posts accidentally, the ones about social media and academia, the ones about sexism in the profession, the stuff on comparative xenophobia (thanks to Max Fisher when he was at the Washington Post) and some of the NATO stuff.

I am very thankful to the people I engage within on twitter and facebook that ultimately generates posts here as well as the people I interact with at conferences, in classrooms and in hallways that help to inspire many spews. As always, I welcome ideas and suggestions as I look forward to year nine of blogging here and there.

So tempted to shout excelsior in honor of Stan Lee, but I will go with one of my favorite superheroes instead:

Friday, April 28, 2017

Reading Too Much Into Reviewing Patterns

I should not be tempting the Reviewing Gods, but I have not been asked to do as much refereeing of manuscripts for academic journals this year.  I tend to average about 18-20 or so a year plus occasional reviews of book manuscripts and a couple of tenure reviews, and I am below that rate... well until this week. I have a few reactions:
  • The slump in academic productivity has meant fewer manuscripts to be reviewed by anyone.  At the ISA meeting, it was widely shared that the various journals of the ISA were all receiving fewer manuscripts than in previous periods ... since Trump was inaugurated.  Academics have been do distracted by the daily messes made by Trump that they have not been as productive. This is not just me, but a systematic pattern revealed by journal submissions.  So, fewer submissions, fewer reviews.
  • That even thinking about this reduced reviewing load is bad.  Why?  Because I have already alerted the Reviewing Gods with my thoughts about this recently.  And, lo, I now have several requests hitting me at the same time.  Oh, at the same time as I have been notified about a request or two to which I had not realized I had agreed.
  • One of the key laws of reviewing is that the requests do come in bunches.  This can sometimes be predicted: after the winter holidays after folks have had some time to finish projects, a month into summer after people get the last bits done, and at the end of the summer after people have had a chance to complete projects.  But end of April?  Unless these are all by Canadians (Canadian academic year is shorter), then the flood is a wee bit early this year.
Anyhow, as a friend said on twitter, if you submit articles, then reviewing is just part of doing your share since your stuff has to be reviewed, too.  So, I don't mind, and I usually say yes as long as the stuff is in my lane, and as long as the pile is not so high that the new manuscript will not wait too long,  Oh, and when I am about to fly, I say yes more easily as reading manuscripts in airports and planes is not a bad way to pass the time.

So, yes, I have tempted the Reviewing Gods by writing this.  Ooops.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

The Truly Important Question

It has been revealed that Trump has a big button on his desk that leads to him receiving a Coke.  Woot for him (and for those of us on TeamStroke).  But, of course, it raises the question: what would I want if I could have one regular thing delivered to me if I had a button to push. The answer would, of course, be chocolate chip cookies. 

But if it has to be a beverage, here's my preferences (with the proviso that I wouldn't care about my weight/health in any kind of stressful job that comes with a button-activated butler):
  1. Hot chocolate.  Sugar and heat to stimulate when I am sleepy/tired/bored.
  2. Wheat beer.  Probably not good to have too often, but a good way to take a bit of the edge off.  Which brand?  Well, the White House had a beer thing going under Obama, so I'd bring that back.
  3. Vanilla milkshake.  Ok, a Baileys milkshake.
  4. Tripel.
  5. Tea with a heap of sugar.
  6. Mojito--for when I really want to be upset about US sugar protectionism.
  7. Baileys and Frangelico.
  8. Baileys (yes, I have a sweet tooth, you got a problem with that?).
  9. A nice stout with maple notes.
  10. A glass of cold water.
No, no scotch--or else I would be hammered.

Trump and Canada: So Many Reactions

The Uncertainty Engine is operating at peak efficiency despite some arguing that Trump is now becoming more mainstream, more adult, and more learned.  Please.  Not happening.  The latest target of the Uncertainty Engine is Canada.

And it puts me in a strange position.  I have long been quite critical of Supply Management--otherwise known as the Dairy Cartel. So, I should be rooting for an external force that pushes Canada to liberate the consumers of milk, dairy and eggs (eggs count in this cartel) from the yoke of the cartel.  But, instead, I am feeling, dare I say it, a but of Canadian nationalism, as I am offended at how bluntly Trump is trying to bully Canada.

Of course, for me, it is less about wearing red and white (perhaps via a jaunty tocque) and more about my confirmation bias about Trump--that I hate pretty much anything he does.  And perhaps it is because it is not just about dairy but lumber--the softwood lumber dispute is the zombie issue of US-Canadian relations as it will not die--and energy?  Yes, Trump mentioned energy.  That has everyone confused since the traditional US stance is to prefer oil from stable, less problematic places than from the Mideast.  Anyhow, how dare he?!

Well, Trump doth dare because he read one story about a poor Wisconsin farmer and because key politicians come from Wisconsin (Paul Ryan, Reince Preibus) AND because Trump likes to bluster.  Last night, Trump issued a statement saying that he will not withdraw the US from NAFTA yet.  Within hours, the threat of pulling out of NAFTA went out and then was withdrawn.  I should be happy, and mostly am. But it speaks to a larger problem:

Trump is not just an uncertainty engine, but a bluffing machine.  He issues threats and hopes that folks give in.  When they don't, he retracts and moves on. This is BAD.  I don't want US foreign policy to consist of threats, but I also don't want American adversaries to think that all US threats are empty nor do I want all US friends to think that promises to help them are meaningless.  US foreign policy critically depends on many things, but credible commitments is at the top of the list. Extended deterrence--NATO and the alliances with South Korea and Japan--depends on making threats that both allies and adversaries view as real and believable.

In poker, if you face someone who always bluffs, then the strategy is to call their bluffs almost always (as long as one has a decent hand).  Maybe being known as a bluffer in poker can work as one can win big when one actually has good cards  However, in international relations, it means not only losing a lot of the time--when one has to back down--but it means war when you actually have to follow through on a threat because they didn't think you mean it.

So, yeah, this really isn't about Canada and my new citizen nationalism.  Although, for fuck sake, picking on Canada is just silly.  NAFTA has had costs and benefits for both sides, oops, all three sides.  The US-Canada relationship is supposed to be one of those easy ones that gets ignored while focusing on tougher problems.  The US is not exploited by "smart Canadians who have outfoxed us."  And despite South Park and despite Canadian Bacon and all the rest, I doubt that most Americans will rally around the flag over a dispute with Canada.  Americans like Canada, both because of the fun myths (are they all eskimos, does everyone skate everywhere, beaver!, etc) and the reality of two countries with similar values and interests.  Even Wisconsinians are rallying to the Canadian cause, saying that the milk thing is not that big of a deal.  Trump over-reacts to pretty much everything, so the best advice to give to Canada is to keep doing what  it has been doing. Pander to Ivanka (even if she is far less relevant than she'd like to think), appeal to Trump's ego, and don't react too much.  But also don't bend too much since Trump is likely to move on to another candidate for another bluff.

The Definitive Uncertainty Engine Post

I have been referring to Trump as an Uncertainty Engine since he won the election, and I keep wanting to point to a post where I explain it.  Yet, I don't have one, so here it is.

What do I mean by Uncertainty Engine?  Trump creates doubt about everything every day with almost every utterance, tweet, and action.  He constantly changes stances so it is hard to figure out what is real and what is not.  Even stuff that is a regular theme--China as currency manipulator, NATO as obsolete--gets ditched when he gets an itch to go the other way.  He is purely transactional--the only thing that matters is the transaction of the moment, not what happened last month or last year.  Except for real grudges.

Why is Trump an Uncertainty Engine?
  • Trump does not remember what he says.  In the recent AP interview, he is reminded of something he said two minutes before.  This happens all the time.  "I didn't say that."  Actually, yes, you did.  
  • Trump has broken promises his entire life.  Twice divorced, bankruptcies multiple times, stiffing contractors repeatedly, Trump University, etc.  I have yet to hear him say: "I give you my word, my word is my bond," because perhaps he knows he would be laughed out of the room.
  • Trump does not know much and is not curious enough to read, to study, to even ask for answers from those who have them.  He doesn't ask his intel agencies about wiretapping.  He just reacts to something by speaking rather than thinking.  When asked about NATO a while back, he didn't say he didn't know, he said it was obsolete (again the AP interview).  He cannot say "I don't know", which means he ends up saying stuff based on ignorance and needs to be revised once he learns a bit more "it's complicated."
  • Trump is easily manipulable.  The challenge for his staffers is to be the last one in the room, since that seems to be the stance he goes with.  He likes to breed rivalry among his advisers, which makes him sound FDR-esque, except FDR was really smart and knew the facts of the situations and could adjudicate the competing claims.  Trump? I have no idea what works to persuade him, but it leads to heaps of leaks as people try to put stories in the press so that Trump will read them or watch them on Fox and then react in ways that support their stances.  This creates more uncertainty since the White House has many, many messages emanating out of it, making it harder for outsiders to figure out what is going on.
  • Are tweets policies?  Does Trump's late night, ill thought out utterances become policies?  Maybe.  If so, this means policies are not based on a careful vetting process.  If not, then we don't really know what is going on.  Yep, more uncertainty.
  • Trump bluffs all the time.  He constantly issues threats and then either forgets them or says that the other side did what he wanted (when they clearly didn't).  This undermines American credibility.  There are academic debates about whether credibility matters or not, but I am pretty sure that even the resolve skeptics are pretty concerned about this.  It is not good to have China thinking of the US as a paper tiger.  Not good!
For some countries, this might make sense.  But the US is a status quo power, seeking to keep the international system stable as, despite Trump's ignorant fears, the US benefits from the current order.  Creating uncertainty in the security realm or the economic realm is bad for Americans.  It might just get people killed.  Of that, I am kind of certain.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

The Tyranny of Numbers and Simplistic Politics

It is far easier for politicians to point at numbers and scream rather than ask and answer substantive questions about the state of a mission, how to achieve one's goals, how to pursue the national interest.

For example, Stephen Harper drove me slightly crazy by not considering cutting some of the numbers of troops in the Canadian Armed Forces because the mythic number  of 60000 (if I remember) stood for standing strong on Canadian defence and 59000, for instance, meant he was weak on defence.  With personnel being 50% (roughly) of the defence budget, you would think that it would have gotten consideration when thinking about economizing on defence.  But no.  And last spring the Liberals ruled out personnel cuts before the Defence Review, which seems silly given that a defence review might establish a need for spending to go elsewhere (cyber/space being the usual nominees).  But again, cutting numbers of troops = weak on defence.  Why?  Because Canadian political dynamics--yelling at question period--does not lead to any kind of discussion of substance.

Why am I talking about this now?  Because I am anticipating a new numbers thing: that when the battle for Mosul is over, the question will turn to what is Canada doing in the counter-ISIS war?  Given that the Special Operations folks will be done with their main mission, it might make sense to bring them home.  But the government may fear that ending that part of the mission will give the Conservatives something to yell about: "hey, Trudeau is weak on defence because we will have fewer SOF in Iraq!!"  And the sad thing is that the Liberals would be right.  Because  that is exactly what the Conservatives will do.  Instead of asking: what are the next steps?  How do we help (Canada can't do anything alone) to defeat the ISIS menace?  What would helping in Syria look like?  What are the risks?  Where else should we go?  Is the SOF overtaxed?  Maybe they should be given some space and time to re-charge since Special means small, which then also means being exhausted?

But Canada won't have that discussion because  it is easier to focus on numbers even if they don't really mean much.  Because anything else would require work (knowing stuff, asking hard questions) and would require respect for the Canadian public, who might just comprehend something more than: tis, tisn't

Thursday, April 20, 2017

What Next? Thinking About The Implications of Will's Way Out

It has been about 24 hours since we learned that Will Moore killed himself (it feels strange and awful to type that out), and there are lots of reactions.  Mostly, people are offering and receiving support, and they are sharing their memories of Will.  But there are already people wondering about what this means for the profession--defined as conflict studies, as political science or as academia--especially as it is the second suicide in the past month of prominent scholars in this area of research.

Is it too soon?  Of course it is.  But this is what we as academics do--overthink stuff as much as we can.  I just had a conversation with someone about this, and it raised some concerns.

First, and, foremost, suicide can be contagious.  That when one person chooses to "punch out," it affects others via inspiration, imitation, or depression or whatever. The thing to think about right now is to offer help to those who need it, with, of course, the problem being that we do not know who needs it.

Second, efforts to try to tie this to Will's work--that he focused mostly on repression and dissent--are probably missing the point.  While Phil Schrodt points out that collecting data on this stuff can be awful, it is pretty clear from Will's note that this was a lifetime dynamic and not driven by what he studied.  It is tempting to say that conflict studies is more likely to have depressed, suicidal scholars, but all we have now are a data point (updated: previous version suggested other suicide was conflict scholar but that was wrong).  My guess is that conflict scholars, political scientists, and academics all do not have suicide rates higher than the national average.  It might depend on what one does, if one does field work, where one does field work, what conditions.  I'd think a conflict studies background might be more relevant under some conditions rather than others. Again, I am not an expert, but I am guessing that confirmation bias is playing a role here.  We notice the suicides in our field but not in others, and we certainly don't notice the people who don't kill themselves. Still, we need to look around and make sure that folks in this field have access to resources.

The profession is hard on people--the stress of getting through a graduate program, the stress of getting a job, the pressure to publish to get tenure, the lifelong repetition of rejection from journals, presses, grant-giving agencies, etc.  But Will has been very successful in the profession--tenured with a new job with colleagues that were very eager to have him there, lots of publications and citations, and all the rest.  It can be isolating, but Will's way of working, with multiple teams of co-authors and by creating all kinds of workshops, was far less isolating than the experiences of many.   So, sure, the profession can be hard, especially on those who are young, who are in isolated jobs (imagine the city or suburban dweller whose first job is at a school in the middle of nowhere in a department of three or four people who have no overlapping research interests).  We should probably find ways to improve people's sense of connection and not just worry about the folks in the higher publish or perish places.

Third, there will be those that will say that Will explained well his decision, and it was for him to make.  I get that to a degree, but it was a damned inconsiderate thing to do when he did it.  In the middle of the semester so his classes are affected, and, more importantly, his students have been impacted.  The idea that it was ok to kill himself now that his kids are adults, well, that just pisses me off since I have an adult child.  And, yes, now I have a project that may be difficult to complete since we lost the guy who was carrying much of the methods load.  But that last thing does not matter so much to me.  Anyhow, while everyone is quite sad about Will, there is probably some anger there as well, and that, too, is natural.

Of course, the primary emotion is going to be guilt--that we should have known, should have done something, should have reached out.  Again, for Will, this does not really apply, as he had an incredibly deep and wide network of friends who cared about him.  That he didn't feel that connectedness is a tragedy, but he was connected.  Sure, it is easier to observe in the aftermath, but Will was appreciated and loved while he was alive.  The notes I have seen online, the times I witnessed him being surrounded by herds of people, all provide some evidence that Will knew but could not feel the love that surrounded him.

So, we can and should think about the meaning of Will's life and of his death, but I am cautious about overreacting.  We definitely need to provide more support for each other, that there is need for more academic kindness, and we can do better in a variety of ways. But there are limits on what we can do, and our discipline and our profession are not so special.  Plus lots of the stressors are way out of our control.

What to do about all of this?  Damned if I know.  I will just let my friends, my students, and my family know that they just need to tell me how I can help them, and I will try.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Grieving the Departure of Will Moore

Will Moore decided to punch out, as he put it.  He left behind devastated friends, co-authors and students as well as family. I have been trying to put into words how I feel today.

Will was upstaged by his suit
I have known Will since I was a visiting assistant professor long ago.  He and I were part of several workshops aimed at producing an edited volume--the finest one of my career.  His feedback on my work then and his intense desire to produce excellent work were both very helpful as I was just getting going.  Since then, we would chat at most conferences, and recently we started a project together with Johanna Birnir as we desperately needed his methods muscles.  Over the years, I found Will to be quite funny, although he bombed when he tried to be funny at the recent ISA Online Media Caucus reception (Will preferred folks to be honest, so ...).

Fake GOP Pollster at Burning Man
My favorite Will story is when he went to Burning Man, where he fit in politically, one year dressed up as a GOP pollster.  He had guts when it came to stunts like that as he was curious about the reactions, and he got many reactions. (Thanks to Sara Mitchell for the pic).

Will was fierce in his pursuit of understanding.  His focus was mostly on the denial of human rights, a topic that could be stressful to study.  His passion for justice carried over into how he acted within the profession.  Will was very protective as he mentored several generations of students.  He would call out injustices in the profession, even if his friends were guilty of only the most mild of offenses.  I felt his sting during the network mess of a couple of years ago, where Will pointed out that it was easy for me to say given my privilege.  I was not too comfortable with that, but I respected Will's honesty and dedication to improving the profession.  Along with Christian Davenport, Will created a variety of efforts, including the conflict consortium to give students a chance to get feedback. He recently asked me to participate in one of these sessions, but I could not since I would be on the road at the time.

Will was quite flawed, of course.  His own suicide note reflects on the reality that his criticism could be withering.  He was not someone that you would want to be writing tenure letters for you as he might love your work but say enough critical stuff that it would not help your case, and he was aware of that. He was not always an easy colleague to get along with, as he expected everyone to share the intensity of his passion and he was usually pretty convinced about the rightness of his cause even when perhaps things were not so clear.  He had admitted a few years ago that he was on the autism spectrum, but only his suicide note reveals what that really meant in terms of disconnection.  I could only see part of that--that he lacked filters that most of us have.  And he paid a price for that, no doubt.  I just didn't realize how much of a price.

I guess this is not that atypical in that most (all?) were surprised.  Friends had interacted with Will the past few weeks and did not detect anything different (although some noticed changes over the past few years).  He was clearly working on projects that indicated that he would be around longer than he was.  It is not clear why it happened now as his note only indicates that his kids are now old enough for him to contemplate

He was very Will in how he went about, not just setting up a blog post to be published after he killed himself but also setting up an email to go out to his co-authors describing very briefly and very bluntly what he was doing and that we could either keep his name or drop it from the publications that will eventually come out of our co-authorship with him.  Of course, he will remain on our article, if it ever sees the light of day.

I have known depressed people, but he is the first friend of mine to commit suicide.  I am sure other folks are feeling this far more intensely than I am, as I didn't see him often--just a couple of times a year.  His students, current and former, must be in significant pain just as those he had longer co-authoring relationships as well as those with whom he went to grad school. I have been rambling here, as I find writing to be therapeutic.  All I do know is that his friends and students should lean on each other.  I am easily reached for those who want to chat.

Perhaps we can learn from this and other similar stories of how difficult depression can be.  For a series of tweets that explain it well, start with the one below and go from there. 

And feel free to share your memories of Will in the comment section.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Another Bad Day in US Civil-Military Relations

Sure, it is early but why not go ahead and label today another bad day in US civil-military relations.  The two stories animating this regard former General John Kelly saying dumb things and a trial balloon about the US potentially shooting down NK missiles being tested.

First, some folks are surprised that Kelly doth suck:

In addition to saying dumb stuff about pot, he was also saying dumb stuff about TSA: that while folks binge Madmen, TSA is making sure that folks don't carry guns onto planes.  Was this an intended shot at Sebastian Gorka, the Nazi in the White House, or was it just a coincidence?  Hmmm. 

Anyhow, this led to a conversation on twittter were those who study comparative politics noted that ex-generals often suck at governing in democracies, with heaps of evidence from Africa, Latin America, Asia.... you get the idea. 

We didn't really know much about Kelly before he took the post except he was a general, and people kind of assumed that if you rise that high, maybe you are not incompetent and maybe you are not one of the anarchists who want to burn things down like the rest of Trump's appointees.  And so Kelly becomes perhaps the poster boy for the tyranny of low expectations.  That the media didn't do much work to try to figure out what Kelly stood for, that the Senate did not push him that hard because the rest of the appointees appeared to be so much worse.  So, we now have a Secretary of Homeland Security who may join Sessions (the worst of them all) in reversing the trend on medical marijuana, who certainly has supported the immigration bans developed by Trump, and enabled ICE and other law enforcement in the US to exceed their instructions.  In sum, Kelly is awful.  And this is what you get when you appoint recently retired generals.

The second story scares me more.  That the US is contemplating shooting down North Korean missiles when they are being tested.  This is something that previous administrations have rejected for being too risky, but is being considered again.  Why? Probably because there are few civilians anywhere in the interagency to scream: hey, military dudes, the military options all suck, so cool it!  Trying to shoot down a missile could cause North Korea to escalate, as the article mentions. It could fail and thus undermine whatever deterrence American anti-missile systems have around the world.  Yes, this is an idea being floated, so what?  Is it going to happen?  The problem is that we have no faith right now that either Mattis will caution against such a risky effort or that Trump would not seize on this to prove his manhood.  Again, it comes down to two things here: Trump is an Uncertainty Engine and there are no civilians with wider perspectives involved.  Mattis is proving that he is still far more general than civilian, despite being the acclaimed warrior monk, and Tillerson is nowhere to be seen.  Oh yeah, and Pence is reminding the South Koreans that US alliances now are protection rackets.

Where are those folks who used to worry about civil-military tensions under Obama?  And I am afraid that we have not seen anything yet.  Still haven't hit 100 days and I have lost track of the civ-mil problems of the Trump administration. 

Monday, April 17, 2017

The Adults Meme Should Die, Killed by Fire ... Or Dumb Tweets

Lots of stuff written about how the adults are now in charge of US foreign policy.  I scoffed and I scoff again.  Why?  First, because Trump is still at the top, and he remains a lazy, ignorant, and awful human being.  Expect him to listen to reason?  Only when the last person to talk to him is reasonable and even then?  Not so sure.  That Trump congratulated Erdogan on his seizure of power today is appalling and shows that even if his NSC process has been fixed, the output is still rotten to the core.

Second, how about our reasonable VP?  I had argued that Pence would better than Trump because at least he would not want to start any wars willy nilly.  Well, after his visit to South Korea and subsequent tweets, I recant.

How can you try to reassure a country that you are 100% behind them and then in the next viritual breath whine about a trade relationship that has actually worked out just fine for the two countries?  I don't care that Pence is doing Trump's bidding--he could have done this in a way that is not so thoroughly insulting.  So, strike Pence from the cast of the adults.

Third, so the American "armada" that was supposed to head to the Sea of Japan didn't?  Fine bluff, huh?  Well, it would be ok if it were not part of a larger pattern of making threats have nothing behind them.  No, I don't want this administration to follow through its threats, I just don't want it to make threats that are blatantly empty.  We are soon going to get tests of all the scholarly work out there on credibility and resolve, and it is unlikely to be pretty.  China referring to the US as a paper tiger is NOT GOOD.  It may lead China to over-step and then Trump might overreact.

So, please, if you see anyone, hear anyone, read anyone saying that the adults are in charge and we should not be worried, either yell at them or walk away, but DO NOT BELIEVE THEM.  We have no real evidence that this administration is mature in anyway.  It might have some reasonable people running about, but the messages that are being sent are dangerous ones, that the welcoming of autocracy is awful, the insulting of allies is so unnecessary and so damaging (our friends have domestic politics and pride, really), and that the reckless use of threats is going to get people killed.

Yes, it could be worse--the US could have started new wars rather than just escalating in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia.  But it has been less than a hundred days, and the inferences we can draw about the causes of US foreign policy and its likely direction are downright scary.  Adults? My ass.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

When Perception is Reality

This figure being circulated by twitter should not surprise:
Who Germans consider trustworthy:

Note the impact of elections: way up when Obama is elected, way down when Trump is elected and a bit shaky when Snowden revealed that the US spied on Merkel.  Looks like the Germans have pretty clear grasp of things.  Is Trump reliable?  No, he's an uncertainty engine.  He views Germany not as a friend but as a competitor and as a currency manipulator (despite not really having its own currency).  Will Trump stand by Europe if Russia were to engage in aggression (well, more aggression)?  Maybe, but maybe not.  And since Trump also lies about everything, why should there be any trust?

I am sure Germany is not alone in this.  Where are the Republicans who complained that Obama hurt the US reputation in the world (which was precisely backwards given how opinion of the US bounced back after GWB's Iraq fiasco)?  The right picture for that is:

Friday, April 14, 2017

Is Our President Learning?

Outstanding! Trump is changing his mind, so everything is going to be ok, right? Um, maybe?  Watching Trump's reversals on NATO, China, Export-Import Bank and other stuff is a real test of my confirmation bias and of others' wishful thinking.

It could be the case that Trump, as lazy as he is, needs ten minute lectures from foreign leaders (thanks, Xi!?) to figure out that stuff is really complicated.  Health care is complicated, dealing with North Korea is complicated, tax reform is complicated, NATO has someone become un-obsolete.*
* Honest question: once something is obsolete, can it become not obsolete?  Seems to stretch the concept of obsolete to the breaking point, but maybe I am wrong.
“Obviously, most presidents aren’t nuclear scientists,” she said. “What is important is that the White House provide a disciplined process for the experts to present their views, which are often differing. The president’s role as the chief executive and decision maker is to listen to, question and probe the expert recommendations, then apply informed judgment to the decision.” (from NYT link above, thanks Peter Baker)

Is this what is happening?  Does this describe how McMaster's process is working?  That Trump is probing the experts?  Or it could be that Trump just listens to ever talked to him most recently.  Perhaps Trump is so unfixed in most of his ideas (his racism is far more grounded/foundational than his beliefs about particular places, just as his notion of fairness--exploitation--is pretty firm) about policies that he listens to the most recent person. 

The question is: how do we test these competing theories of Trumpian policy reversal?  As others have hinted, my guess is that when he runs into something tough, a policy failure, that has been advocated by the moderates,** he will turn on them and find an alternative voice.
** We are so desperate for reasonable people that folks who would otherwise be seen as hard right or hawkish or whatever are viewed as moderates because they are not Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, or Stephanie Mercer (ok, her name is Rebecah, but I had to play with the #notallSteves theme).
 For me, I am pretty convinced that Trump is not learning but reacting.  Nothing I have seen thus far convinces me that he develops improved understandings that lead to new ideas, more thoughtful consideration and all the rest.  And I worry greatly that he is easily played by advisers and by foreign leaders.  Maybe Putin will want to meet with him soon to un-do Xi's persuasion. 

Oh, and I worry about process still.  For instance, the big-ass bomb (I prefer that nomenclature to MOAB) seems to indicate that Trump has delegated a heap of authority to those in the military, "my military" he calls it.  This may be an excellent way to avoid the usual civilian-military tensions that are inherent in democratic control over the armed forces.... by ceding control of the armed forces to the military.  Not a fan, am I. But that is a topic for another blog post.

So, the key is to watch Trump and figure out if any of these lessons stick for more than just a little while.  Otherwise, they are like the typical magical spell which have short lifespans and then, poof, NATO is obsolete again.  Again, my confirmation bias is probably showing, but I am still ruthlessly pessimistic about Trump as President, and the tweets about North Korea are confirming that my confirmation bias may not be a bad way to go.  I actually do hope I am wrong.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Favorite National Security Podcast: Bombshell

I only listen to one* national security/IR podcast on a regular basis: Bombshell.  Why? Well, Erin Simpson might hurt me if I didn't.  Ok, maybe not but you can never be sure.  Seriously, these three woman provide sharp perspectives on US foreign policy/national security issues based on real experience in the policy world and with no b.s.  The three women are:
  • Erin Simpson, who used to run Caerus, a DC consulting firm and previously served as a consultant to ISAF, and now runs Archer Avenue Consulting.  I met her long ago when I was a Council on Foreign Relations International Fellow and she was a Term member.  We re-met via twitterfight club and having lots of common friends in the twitter universe.  She is very critical of my clothing choices, and we used to compete about who is more narcissistic before Trump came along.
  • Loren DeJonge Schulman  is Deputy Director of Studies and the Leon E. Panetta Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.  She served as Senior Advisor to National Security Adviser Susan Rice.  Before that she was Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for International Security Affairs. I have only met her on twitter, but really appreciate the insights she has had about how the NSC works.  I might have ended up on the NSC in 2001 if Condoleezza Rice was more cooperative with CFR, so Loren's insights on NSC are glimpses into what might have been.
  • Radha Iyengar works at RAND as a senior economist and previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff to the DepSec of Energy.  She previously worked on the NSC on Defense, Personnel, Readiness and Partnerships and as policy adviser to ASD of Special Ops and Low Intensity Conflict.  She also prof-ed at LSE.
Each week, the women go through a series of segments and have one guest.  The guests thus far have always been women, and, I assume, always will be (the title of the podcast is Bombshells, duh).  Which is great since despite general underrepresentation in government, there are plenty of super-sharp women who have significant experience, expertise and insights, and these women tend not to get as much media attention as the men.

The podcast is quite clever in moving along the segments quickly without any one of them being rushed but with me wanting more of each. They discuss:
  • the booze they are drinking (here I am just a padawan, and they are masters).  
  • things that are still things. Latest issue was the unmasking stuff.  They provide much clarity quickly on this stuff, clearing away the b.s. 
  • the guest with a heap of intro icebreaking questions (best meal while traveling, book they re-read the most, what fan club have you belonged to, twitter crush, favorite museum, favorite statistical distribution) and then talk about the current issue that this woman has much insight on.
  • fashion advice for Jared Kushner (ok, not a regular segment).
  • a pop culture segment, so this week they talked about favorite spy novels.
 The Syria discussion emphasized something that Americans take for granted--the US has limited skin in the game and thus limited leverage.  This is a common problem that American foreign policy just has not grokked.  

Erin, Loren and Radha are just very smart, funny, and insightful.  They use their experiences to get folks inside the policy process. Even though I had a year in DC and spent plenty of time at the meetings that are several layers below the PC's and the DC's, there is much I didn't see or experience.  These podcasts get you inside those rooms and also provide perspectives we don't hear enough because journalists and other media types tend to go the top of the rolodex where the boys are. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is biweekly so far, so it will not fill up your ipod unlike some other podcasts that proliferate so much that I have given up on following the subsequent franchisees (that would be Crooked Media's spinoffs).

*  Why don't I listen to more than this one national security podcast?  Because I don't want to be thinking about my business whenever I am listening to a podcast--which is when I am driving, cooking, doing the dishes, errands around the house, etc.  I listen to sports and entertainment stuff most of the time with Doug Loves Movies, The Moth, some Ringer and some ESPN, and Sepinwall's new one--TV Avalanche. 

Worst Secretary of State

After reading that Rex Tillerson is going to meet with Putin after saying he wasn't, and after saying yesterday that the US wanted regime change in Syria shortly before SecDef Mattis and Trump both denied that was a goal, I had to ponder this:

It is a twitter poll.  But you can comment below with your own candidate.  Sure, Tillerson has only has a few months in office, but Mike Flynn seized the crown of worst National Security Adviser Ever (easier since position didn't exist before 1947) from Condoleezza Rice.  Well, being a Russian agent made that easy.  Oh, and being crazy.

So, Tillerson is an amateur.  We knew that.  He has little help since he has not been able to fill in the four layers under him: DepSecState, UnderSecState, AssistantSecState, DeputyAssistantSecState.  Yet he also shows little self-awareness, not much of a learning curve and a hostility to many of the basic parts of the job.  So, is he the worst?  If not, who was worse than Tillerson?

Monday, April 10, 2017

Strange Day in Identity

The basic idea, stolen from social psychology (and applied to ethnic conflict by Donald Horowitz and others), is that we end up investing our self-esteem in any group in which we are a member.  Today has been a strange day because, well, I am a United Frequent Flyer.

I started out with Continental since Cleveland was a hub and I went to school in Ohio.  As the miles accumulated there and at United due to various flights of old, I benefited when the two merged even if the merger was craptastic for customer service.  And then I moved to Canada, where I had a choice: stick with United since Air Canada was a partner in Star Alliance or move to Air Canada. I heard bad things about AC's ticketing when using miles, so I stuck with United.  The past few years of amazing research and other opportunities means I have good status and heaps of miles.  Changing would be problematic--which is by design.

I have always been aware that United is not a great airline, but was ok with it anyway since my Delta friends hate Delta and my American friends hate American, and, oops, we are plum near out of US airlines. 

And then the events of this weekend happened--a passenger was literally dragged out kicking and screaming because the United folks screwed up and then couldn't convince anyone to change plans for $800 and a free hotel stay.  Wow.

So, how do I feel? I feel bad for the guy, I feel outraged, and I feel bad.  That the team I associated myself with turns out to suck worse than I thought.  Hurts my self-esteem.  If I continue to fly with United (and I will since I have much sunk cost--miles and status [yes, I am aware of sunk cost fallacy]), will I feel kind of bad as I am hanging out with the loser airline that literally hurts his passengers?  Yep.

At least I can still laugh:

Saturday, April 8, 2017

The Doctrine Doctrine

One of the things that drives me crazy is when pundits insist on suggesting that a President or other leader has a doctrine where none exists.  What is a doctrine?  According to google, which got it from somewhere: stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.  The classic is the Monroe Doctrine: stay out of our hemisphere, you pesky Europeans! The Truman Doctrine, US would support anti-communist forces, is about as clear as it gets.  Obama didn't have one since "Don't do stupid shit" is not really much of a clear principle, although it is better than what Trump has got.  What is the Trump Doctrine?  I hesitate to link to the classic Raiders clip because Indiana Jones was far smarter, diligent, creative and attentive than Trump.  Making it up as he goes along would seem like an improvement over reacting to whatever I see on TV or what the last person told me is NOT A DOCTRINE.  Anyhow, Dan Nexon says it better than I so I storified his epic rant.

Friday, April 7, 2017

The Uncertainty Engine Strikes

The missile strike against the airfield in Syria raises far more questions than it answers (for an excellent initial take, see here).  As I think about it, I have to be honest that my confirmation bias might be at work: that anything Trump does is wrong in my mind.  Would I have approved of Hillary Clinton doing the same thing?  Not so sure as I have become quite skeptical about the use of force, so let's run through the situation itself before we get to the Trumpness of it all.

Hitting an airfield that was the source of the chemical weapons used against Syrians seems kind of proportionate.  However, it does not change Syria's ability to use these weapons since the actual weapons themselves were not targeted--that hitting them might expose more Syrians to them.  Nor did the personnel responsible for the chemical weapons attack get harmed.  Nor is the airfield out of commission for very long.  So, the material impact is probably modest.  The symbolic impact?

Unless this is part of a larger campaign against Assad, and thus far we have conflicting signals (Tillerson says no, Trump hints yes), then it is purely symbolic.  Will Assad be dissuaded from further chemical weapons attacks?  Maybe.  It depends in part on why he used them this week.  Perhaps he thought he had a green light from the statements last week by Tillerson and Trump.  If so, then now he knows what is beyond the pale (awful that it takes a missile strike rather than the usual restraints on the use of chemical weapons), so mission accomplished.

But remember, Assad has been killing civilians, including kids, and targeting hospitals for years.  Unless something builds upon the strike, Assad can go ahead and keep on killing.  His government has killed far more Syrians than ISIS, and has generated far more refugees.  So, unless he goes, the current crisis both in Syria and in Europe continues.

What next?  That is where the uncertainty engine that is Trump operates.  We don't know what is next.  My guess is that this is it for now, but who knows. And it is precisely that uncertainty that is problematic. Canadian media are asking what is Trudeau going to do, but how can we expect Canada or any other American partner to announce their next steps when we have no idea what Trump will do.

To be clear, the US is already at war in Syria--with Marine artillery and Rangers and Special Operations Forces on the ground and bombing ISIS from above.  But this step is now putting the US in a war-ish situation with Syria.  Whether it is war or not depends on the next steps.  And, yes, if the US goes to war against Syria, then those assets on the ground face far greater risks, the planes in the skies would now face Syrian anti-air defenses, and everything gets more complicated with Russians in harm's way.

Which is why the Obama Administration was reluctant to use force against Syria--the "then what" question matters a great deal.  The urge to do something is understandable, and perhaps this strike will stop Assad from using chemical weapons for a while.  But Syria will remain a killing field.  Let's be clear about that.

So, bombing Assad's forces, kind of, feels good, but unless it is part of a broader strategy, it will not mean that much.  But as everyone grapples with the uncertainty, lots of awkward questions and vague answers are to be expected. 

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Too Much News, Too Many Hottakes

So much going on, so many opinions.  What to say about all of this?  Just a few quick hits (and probable misses):
  • I remain ambivalent about the use of force in Syria. Bombing Assad would make us feel good.  What would it do?  Well, it could kill some Russians, and that would be a problem.  Could it weaken Assad enough that he tips over?  Probably not.  Would it deny him the ability to kill yet more kids?  Probably not.  
  • What about the sudden twists by Tillerson and Trump who are hinting at regime change today after pretty much endorsing the regime before that?  I say: wait another hour or two.  No idea if this will last.  
  • At least Trump's consulting Mattis about the use of force, so phew, right?  Well, since Mattis pretty much played Trump into the awful Yemen raid, count me among the Mattis skeptics.  I know Mattis is smart and well-read, but I still don't know if he is wise.  The Yemen raid raises big flags.
  • Speaking of Trump advisers, what about the Kushner vs. Bannon war?  Oh, on TeamIncompetent vs TeamEvil, I prefer the former.  Sure, both sides are incompetent and evil, but Bannon has been the worst influence on Trump, seeking to burn down everything and hoping for a war with China.  That Bannon is no longer a perm member of the NSC does not mean much since he can get invited, and, whether he attends meetings or not, he still has Trump's ear. Kushner?  I have no idea what he stands for, except he has no experience and now has a massive portfolio.  
  • Which reminds me of the average authoritarian regime, where the leader depends only on the family, including sons-in-law.  Not a good look.
  • But, hey, Trump's popularity is at its lowest ever! Woot?  Somewhat, but then I worry (and I am not alone) that Trump will think that a foreign war will be a good thing to lift his spirits and his popularity.  Maybe he saw Wag the Dog, maybe not. Diversionary wars are an old idea and much studied, and I would never doubt that Trump would do something stupid to distract the media and the public. Squirrel!
  • What will happen at the China summit?  Well, if the talking points are decent, then we might have an indicator that McMaster's maneuvers are not just impacting process but maybe even policy.  Of course, expect Trump to go off script, but still, we might detect some glimmers of better stances.  Of course, if so, the Chinese will have whiplash since Tillerson pretty much okayed their entire strategy last week by using their language.  Tillerson is a freaking amateur who is way out of his depth and rarely has the self-awareness to lean on the experts.  I am not a fan.
 So, lots going on, some silver linings and hopeful trends.  But keep in mind, we have nearly four years of Trump left whether he is being advised by Bannon or not down the road.  And more Trump is more bad.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Ranking Cuisines

It has been a while since I randomly ranked something, so I am inspired by both Tom Ricks's ranking of cuisines and my recent travel to rank cuisines.  My key criteria here are tasty and variety.

  1. Italian--so very close with #2, but tie breaker goes to inspiration for American pizza and steak sandwiches
  2. Chinese
  3. Japanese--despite the fact that I am not a fan of sushi, I found Japanese cuisine to have tremendous variety and tasty stuff across a wide spectrum.  All of the variations of Yakitori alone would put Japan in the top ten .
  4. Mexican
  5. French
  6. Indonesian--I have it so rarely that I value it more than the others below.
  7. Vietnamese
  8. Spanish--more tapas, more better.
  9. Indian--I got some pushback for putting this further down my list.  Naan, by itself, could elevate Indian food.  But I have realized that besides samosas, bhaji and a few other appetizers, I am not a huge fan.
  10. Greek American.  Had to revise as once a friend mentioned barbecue, that and fried chicken and other stuff, and American made the list despite being so great mostly because it steals from everyone else (and often improves like pizza).
Honorable Mention: Middle Eastern/Turkish (I need more exposure, but conditions in Turkey are unlikely to let that happen any time soon), German (underrated, plus that whole beer thing), Ethiopian (have only had it a few times but very interesting/tasty), Korean, Thai.

My trip to Brazil next month may shake things up a bit. 

Monday, April 3, 2017

The NATO Ultimatum Game

So, the US via SecState wannabe Rex Tillerson has offered NATO members an ultimatum--come up with spending plans to get to 2% of GDP spent on their own defense (no, Donnie, not dues owed to the US) or else.  Or else what?  No idea.

How should the other members of the alliance react?
  1. Come up with an elaborate schedule and then not meet it.  Paul Musgrave suggested this after his talk at NPSIA today--that one of the things European countries do best is come up with various goals and then not reach them.  The upside is that Trump has a short attention span and no expertise (and does not listen to experts) so he may not detect that the Europeans are not doing what they promised. The downside is that Trump may listen to someone on Fox who does do a bit of homework and then he will rant some.
  2. Spend more in the next year, as you were planning, and let Trump take credit for decisions made prior to his Presidency. 
  3. Start counting stuff as defense spending that you previously did not, which each year counting a bit more.  Such as border security, veteran's benefits, whatever.  Game the numbers until Trump is gone.  
  4. Tell Trump/Tillerson to fuck off and see what happens.  Trump can't pull out of the NATO treaty without Congress, but he can pull US forces out of Europe....
I'd like to see #3 because I hate it when friends threaten friends.  But I'd bet on one.  The reality is that most allies can't dramatically increase their defense budgets for a few key reasons. Canada demonstrates what happens when one does not have enough bureaucrats who are good at procurement--projects get delayed.  So, Canada can't spend the money it had allocated to this stuff.  A more fundamental reason is that countries have domestic politics and competing priorities.  The German foreign minister, who is of a different party than Merkel, has already said hells no to getting to 2% quickly.  This makes #1 unlikely for many countries since lying to the US would still suggest a commitment that some parties are unwilling to make.

Are there other options?

Alliance Ignorance

Picking on Trump for not knowing history is probably a waste of time because he does not care about being accurate or right or true.  But I could not help myself when I saw him say stupid stuff about alliances.
My response:

This tweet got a heap of attention, with much support and a few history pedants (who remind me of a few negative teaching evals in a pile of positive ones--they stick out and itch).  I challenged Trump to name examples where alliances did not work out for the US.  To be clear, alliances can fail in three pretty important ways:
  1. the allies don't show up when expected or needed
  2. an ally sucks you into a war you didn't want to fight
  3. allies shirk much of the burden so that one is drained.
A quick dance through US history shows that none of these really applied much.
  • The US won the American Revolution thanks to its alliance with France.  
  • The War of 1812 was one where the US opportunistically jumped into a war while Britain was fighting with France, but there was no expectation that the US would be operating as part of an alliance.  
  • No allies were expected or needed in the various wars of the 1800s that added territory (Mexican-American War, War against Spain).  
  • WWI? The US entered late, helping to tip the balance somewhat after the other countries did most of the heavy lifting of draining Germany and attrit-ing it to the edge of collapse.  
  • World War II?  I got much pushback on my tweet since I didn't include the Pacific War, where the US did carry much of the fight, but even then the Aussies did a lot of fighting before the Americans arrived and then British/Indians stopped the Japanese in the west. Oh, and yes, the nuclear bombs mattered, but so did Soviet entry in August 1945.   Turns out many Americans don't know that the Soviet armed forces bled the Germans far, far, far more than the Americans. And anyone mentioning D-Day forgets that 3/5s of the beaches were invaded by non-Americans (the Brits had two, the Canadians one, plus a smattering of French, Polish and others were mixed in).
  • While the US was the key player in the cold war, alliances with European countries and Canada (NATO) and with Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Philippines) played a major role in containing the Soviet Union.  Allies did fight alongside the US in Korea.  
  • Vietnam is one of the few wars where our allies did not show up in a major way, and can you blame them?  Not a wise war, and even then the Australians, South Koreans and some others showed up.
  • The Gulf War of 1991 was a very multilateral effort even if the US had the preponderance of troops.
  • Afghanistan? First and only time Article V of the NATO treaty was invoked--when the US was attacked on 9/11.  All of NATO showed up in Afghanistan although unevenly
  • Iraq? Even this misguided war involved a number of allies--most prominently the UK at significant cost.
At no point was the US attacked and then left hanging by allies who did not keep their commitment.  One could blame Vietnam on the French sucking the US in, but the US had plenty of discretion and choose repeatedly to get deeper and deeper.  The only war I can think of that American allies got the US involved?  The Libyan campaign.  Not a major war by any measure.
Burden-sharing? Yes, any alliance will have some burden-sharing problems, but as Trump forgets, when the US carries much of the burden, it also then has much of the leadership of the effort.  And, at no point did the US engage in any effort that was made "unsustainable" due to allied shirking.  Shirking has been a political, not a military, problem, as it can raise a sense of unfairness.

In sum, it is hard to think of an alliance that did not work out well for the US.... with one possible exception.  The US did not get the peace it wanted after World War I because the allies, since they paid a far higher cost, demanded a higher price from Germany, which ultimately came back to haunt them.  The key point here is that alliances have worked out very well for the US, yet Trump seems to want to shred them.  For what reason? Because the US spends more on defense and others spend less?  This might be a credible complaint if Trump were not so interested in increasing the US defense budget.

NATO and the other alliances have been key contributors to peace and prosperity for seventy plus years.  They still serve vital purposes today in furthering American interests.  Yet, Trump's deliberate ignorance may lead to policies that undo much of what has been done.  And what Trump does now will be hard to undo.  Sad.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Now We Are Talking Attacks on Academic Freedom

The only real surprise about Viktor Orban's attack on Central European University is that it has taken him this long.  Orban has been creeping/dragging Hungary towards autocracy for years now, way ahead of Trump and way ahead of Erdogan.  Central European University was founded and funded by George Soros, the bete noire and then some of all anti-semitic conspiracy theories.  So, opposing CEU plays to that crowd, but the university is a threat to Orban more because it is where folks engage in and train critical thinking. Just as Erdogan targeted Turkey's universities in a big way, Orban is targeting the most prominent university in Hungary.

The legislation aimed against CEU is being opposed around the world.  I signed this letter, although my name is not on the list for some reason. The APSA has put out a statement, as has the ASN.  Other folks are also making statements.  However, I am not optimistic as Orban has a majority in his legislature, and having the world arrayed against him is probably a bonus for him.  Justifies his autocracy, his fear-mongering.  The real threat to Hungary is the EU, but it is hard for that institution to sanction members.  My friends who understand the EU can explain better than I can, but neither NATO nor the EU were built in ways to punish members.  Conditionality--setting conditions for good behavior--only applies to applicants, if at all.  So, while I have not given up all hope, I will keep an eye out for jobs for my friends who work there, because, I am afraid, they are going to need them.