Fascism is in Fashion

 As we get to the end of this endless campaign, lots of folks are using the F word.  No, the other one.  For instance, see Drezner and Bulwark. We have the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump's former Secretary of Homeland Security/Chief of Staff John Kelly saying it.  And now, Kamala Harris is saying it.  I used to be a skeptic, because I thought Trump was truly awful but not so coherent as to have an ideology that encompasses all of the stuff that are the ingredients for fascism.  The distinction I made before was that Trump was autocratic to his core--that rules don't apply to him or those around him, that he is above the law, that he wants whatever power he needs to do the things he wants to rule and defy institutions and rules and processes that get in the way.

Kelly said he looked up fascism and found it to apply: "It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy."

Well, yeah, this seems to fit.  My hesitance was that I thought that fascism involved a bit more than that, focusing on the reorganization of society, the incorporation of the elite capitalist class inside the government, and such.   But that was pedantry.  To be fair, again, if Trump has no attention span and no discipline can he really be Hitler?  Well, given that Hitler was prone to rages and obsessions, i guess the answer is sure.  

No, Trump hasn't written it all down a la Mein Kampf.  Indeed, I have long been suspicious about whether he read his copy of that book that he happened to keep handy (on the bedside table!).  On the other hand, folks around Trump have written it all down--Project 2025.  I haven't read all of it, just the stuff that I was mean enough to assign to my US Foreign Policy class.  And yeah, the stuff in there and the stuff that Trump has consistently talked about in this campaign definitely rhyme with Mein Kampf: massive deportation to name one.  The fear mongering, the hate aimed at immigrants, the hate aimed at trans people. This is all very, very familiar to those who study the rise of Nazism.  

So, if it goose steps like a Nazi, if it rants like a Nazi, then it is probably a Nazi.  

However, if one is not convinced by this and I have people on my facebook page commenting on my massive deportation spew that Trump is not serious, is not competent enough to execute a somewhat final solution to the immigrant problem, then one can just simply focus on one word: catastrophic.

That is, Trump, if elected, will be catastrophic for the US, for Canada, for the world.  Just a very short listicle to hit the highlights:

1. Much more political violence as his followers get pardoned and encouraged.
2. An even more stacked judiciary that ends regulation--kiss food safety, for instance, goodbye.
3. The criminalization of being a woman of age to carry a child.
4. Massive deportation--whether in full or in part, will be cruel, capricious, and destructive.
5. Politicization of the military--that Trump will be promoting only those who are more loyal to him than Hitler's generals were to Hitler (his role model on this!)
6. Huge tariffs will lead to inflation and unemployment and retard economic growth.
7. The end of civil servants as the government from top to bottom will be full of Trump toadies.
8. The end of NATO.
   

That's just a start. The key is this: whether Trump fits all the ingredients for fascism or not (and I now think he does), he is an autocrat-wannabe, and so it will be even more awful than the last time.  Trump has basically two motivations: graft and resentment.  Last time, he didn't really know what he was doing, only had a small team of arsonists, and his resentments were mostly focused on Obama. This time, he has an entire army of arsonists assembled by Heritage and others and a blueprint and he is far more resentful.  Oh, and the Republican Party is now fully his.  So, yeah, catastrophic.

Mass Deportation: What Does It Mean?

 It is awful that mass deportation is supported by lots of Americans.  Perhaps because they have no idea what it means.  Let me listicle my way through why it would be the single most destructive public policy since Reagan's supply side economics?  Nope.  Smoot-Hawley?  Maybe?  Damn, I can't think of a single policy worse than this in the past 125 years, as Jim Crow was a bunch of stuff, not one single policy.

1. Lots of places to start, but let's go with concentration camps.  That any effort to take 10-20 million people out of society and then try to deport will mean putting them someplace first.  The US does not have the prison space for this, so the second Trump admin will have to hastily set up places to jam people.  Will these places be overcrowded?  Yes.  Will they have proper health/sanitation?  No (see the DHS chapter of Project 2025 for a call to lower standards below what states might set).  Will disease, such as tuberculosis become rampant?  Yes.  I have been to concentration camps in Germany, I have seen how residential schools in Canada were implemented.  The cruelty is, indeed, the point. Overstaying one's visa or trying to get asylum or seeking a better life for your kids is not justification for a high risk of death. 
2. It will be very destructive to the economy--it will rip out of key sectors much labor that citizens aren't lining up to do.  Construction? Don't we have a housing crisis?  Agriculture?  Day care and elder care? 
   
3. They are not a drain on the government coffers, as undocumented workers tend to pay into social security and medicare but aren't eligible for these benefits.  Indeed, the best way to keep social security and medicare solvent is to have more immigrants, who tend to be younger than citizens, not fewer.
   
4. It would not reduce the, yes, rather low crime rate because undocumented immigrants and immigrants of all kinds actually commit less crime than citizens.  The anecdata of this or that bad immigrant committing crime is atypical--the numbers consistently tell the tale.  
5. Who will be swept up in the mass deportation?  Undocumented people?  Sure.  How about legal immigrants?  Yes, given the rhetoric about the Haitian immigrants who are in the US legally.  How about the children of immigrants who were born in the US?  Yes, as the Republicans want to get rid of birthright citizenship.  How about Brown and Black citizens who aren't carrying documents the day they meet up with the various deportation squads (I would call them brute squads, but the giant in Princess Bride is much kinder than ICE/Customs/militias/sheriffs/etc)?  
6. The fundamental authoritarianism of it all--that we would all have to carry passports or birth certificates every day as the forces of the state demand "papers, please," whenever they want.  This is American democracy?  No, it is not.
7. The huge amount of money that will have to be spent on it to expand law enforcement at all levels.
8. The likelihood of violence between states that don't want this to happen and the Trump administration--civil war?  Something like that.
9. And, yes, use of the military against protestors who want to stop such an abhorrent policy.
10. The racism of it all.  Pretty sure ICE and the rest will be chasing people of color and not white Canadians or Norwegians who have overstayed their visas.
11. It is completely unnecessary.  There is no real immigration crisis.  The system is overburdened, but that does not mean that there are challenges to law and order, that the economy is being harmed, that people (other than the migrants themselves) are facing much harm or threat.
    
12. It is also immoral--ethnically cleansing the US to appease Great Replacement theory types who worry that people of color will govern them as harshly as the white supremacists governed the people of color.   Also, the US agreed to the international laws on asylum--we are obligated to help people who can't go back home without facing significant risks.  The US has always applied that inconsistently, letting in Cubans but not Haitians.  But one of the lessons of World War II was to provide asylum to those facing great dangers in their homelands.  That was the right lesson to learn and it should not be unlearned now to appease white supremacists.
13. update: I forgot to mention that this will distort US foreign policy as Trump's team will have to expend a great deal of effort and leverage to find homes for 10-20 million people outside the US.
    

This is not the way to address the housing crisis. The way to deal with a housing crisis  ... to build more housing.  Unemployment is very low, so this is not a matter of immigrants, legal or otherwise, stealing jobs from American citizens.  Again, undocumented workers tend to do jobs citizens don't want to do.  I am sure I could go on, that I didn't include everything that one can.  

Reuniting? When does it feel so good?*

Pretty good crowd for a Saturday night
(not my first Billy Joel reference of the weekend)

 This weekend, I went to my 40th high school reunion, which means, yes, I am old.  I am glad I went despite the flood of campaign ads and signs in the very pivotal state that is Penis-sylvania (hey, I can't help myself thanks to Arnold Palmer and Trump's fixation).  As someone who didn't really enjoy high school that much and is not that close to those I went to school with, why did I go?  

 

 

 

 

That impending mortality is part of it.  I have lost several friends the past few years--poli sci folks, mostly--and so I wanted to make sure I got to see folks who did make a difference in my life long ago.  Sure, high school is 40 years ago, but those four years and the six before them (I lived in that school district from 3rd grade onwards) definitely shaped who I am, and I have a far sharper memory of those years than others.  Oh, and there is my FOMO.  I didn't want to miss out on whatever I might miss out on.  My FOMO was very intense in high school as I felt was in the group of kids who didn't belong to any group, but I am sure folks looked at my group and saw us having group-ness.  I was definitely not part of the party scene (well, after my brother stopped having pretty big bashes at our house when I was 12 and 13--my first bartending experience was at one of his parties).  

I also went back because it will be the last time I am in that area for the foreseeable future.  I was visiting Philly twice a year for the past several years as my mother could no longer travel--Thanksgiving and the summer family trip were always in Philly.  So, I embraced the last chance to see the place for some time and to see some of the people I occasionally saw when I was in town.  I also had to pick up some stuff I inherited from my mother--some art, a classic chair/ottoman, some kitchen stuff.  Oh, and I got to eat a steak sandwich with my sister at a formerly dead ss shop--Jim's!   I not only drove past all three of my old schools (see below), but also my old home.  Yep, I swam deep in nostalgia.

Our reunion was in the same part of a restaurant/conference center as another school having its 50th.  So, when I first got there, I thought my schoolmates had aged faster than I expected.  I guess those next ten years are going to hit us hard.  I could recognize most folks, even those I never really hung out with.  I had a harder time recognizing the men than the women, perhaps because the men shared the same dynamics--getting heavier, losing their hair, going gray, where as the women tended to look mostly the same.  I had gone to the 25th reunion and many folks are semi-active on facebook, so the time distance was not much as it might have been.  

 

Upon hearing that I live in Canada, folks thought I might have made the longest trip.  No, I was the most foreign, but there were a couple of Californians.  I was the only professor in the crowd, which will always strike folks as amusing and ironic--that I liked to talk a lot then (and now) but that I was pretty lazy about my school work.  One person did remember that I tended to challenge the teachers, perhaps overthinking stuff. I only one one strange question about Canada--Justin Trudeau's parentage...  I had to explain the academic job market to many folks--that my winding path was not the product of any plan--I am glad how things worked out, and I am very happy where I am at.

I definitely talked to a significant number of folks last night that I hardly ever interacted with. I did shake hands with one guy who bullied me back in the day.  We didn't have much to say to each other, but he was in a group of people I was chatting with.  The guy who I got into a fight somewhere around 10th or 11th grade wasn't there as he was one of those who had passed--you can't see his picture here as it is behind those in front.  Cheryl, who was in the front here, was someone I knew decently, as she had a great sense of humor and we busted each other up from time to time.  Steve, on the left side, had one of the biggest personalities in the school.  Bruce and Jeff were guys I knew but not very well.  Buddy, who is behind Jeff on this table was a guy I was friends with in middle school, but didn't have any classes with in high school, again, if I remember correctly.  Jennifer died when we were in middle school--we had some classes together, but she was mostly a friend of some of my friends.  That display hit pretty hard.

I appeared on this display in my fave
Mr. Bill T-shirt.  Yep, we provided
our own costumes for that play.

This one display had some theater stuff that was fun to see, as I didn't do much extracurricular stuff and didn't hang out with the yearbook crew, so there aren't that many shots of me.  But I did do a one act play, Sittin, where I played a kid who sat in a tree all summer to impress a girl.  I was typecast, of course, because the story of my high school years was desperation and failure when it came to dating. Which reminds me, I forgot to ask a classmate about his sister, the one person I dated for several weeks back in 11th grade.  I had sworn that given how hard it was to ask people out that if any girl asked me out, I would say yes.  And I was glad to do so as we had fun for awhile.  

One of the big surprises was that more than a few of my classmates, including those I hardly ever talked to reported that they read my stuff here, which surprised me.  No, I am not surprised that my dad literally printed out every page of my blog (and of my rate my prof page), but I never really thought that those folks way back would be following me here.  It was really quite touching to hear that.  And, of course, now I am really self-conscious as I write these words.

 The only regret I had was that one of our teachers showed up--a guy who barely let me into his AP English class and only after writing an essay on Ethan Frome right before junior year (I still hate that book).  Yes, I did summer homework to get into that class.  I was glad I did, as I did learn a lot from him, and the other folks in the class were the sharpest kids in school, so I learned a lot from them and had fun.  And we did it all again the next year in a class called Humanities, for those who took AP English in 11th grade.  I did want to report to him that the guy who barely made it into his class and was a solid B/B+ student has managed to make writing a large part of his career--five books (the latest one is all but processed and published) and counting plus writing here as well.  That and I wanted to say hi to his wife who was, um, much younger--someone who had been to least a few of my brother's parties.  I was glad to have said hi to my fave history teacher at my 25th--he passed shortly afterwards, so I was glad to have thanked him for his enthusiasm and support for my interest in international relations. 

It was just a very sweet evening even though I didn't bring any cookies.  There was no ice cream, bice cream or otherwise.  [The cake was ok, I didn't try the cookies]. I was most amused that one classmate joked about being annoyed at all of my bice cream pics--that it encouraged bad habits.  Wait until she sees the months long baking for this year's cookie-fest.  Despite the AC varying in intensity, it was a night full of warmth and good feelings.  I am already looking forward to ten years from now.

 

 

 

It was simply LM Middle School back in my day.

Red Lion, now a library, and formerly a very,
very old school for 3rd and 4th grade. 
Tis where I started at Lower Moreland.
The heaters in it made me sick on a regular
basis.

 

 

 

Ye olde LM High School. 

 

* I once titled a paper on irredentism after this song.  Alas, editors hate fun titles.

Here Be Dragons: Driving Into The Swing State in October

 I just came back from my high school reunion in suburban Philly, and, oh my, I feel sorry for those living in a swing state, especially this one.  Just so many ads on the radio and on tv, so many hateful Trump signs.

The juxtaposition of Harris and Trump ads, as well as those for and against the Senate candidates, is striking.  Harris's ads vary from positive to negative, while Trump's are pure venom with one exception.  The exception is the laughable sign on the highway that Trump has, is, and will fight for all Americans.  Unless he defines American narrowly, this was pure bs, especially after the stuff came out about his unwillingness to fund relief efforts in California after a natural disaster there until his staff showed how many Republicans there were in these places.

The Harris ads generally had more policy bite to them--about minimum wage, protecting social security, tax credits for new parents and homeowners.  The main negative one I heard several times was suggesting that if one is driving an Astin Martin or another expensive vehicle, Harris isn't for them, and then there was a snide driveby about cybertrucks.  

The Trump ads were pure xenophobia and fear mongering about the border with a few hitting Harris on changing positions and taking her quotes out of context.  Just heaps and heaps of stuff about "illegals" and border crisis.  I get that this works among the GOP in Pennsylvania who, last I checked, are not affected by stuff on the border, but hate knows no boundaries.

I did see more Trump signs than Harris, and the Trump fans had to have the biggest and most numerous signs on their lawns while Harris fans tended have just one moderately sized sign.  And, yes, the bigger houses with the bigger lawns were the ones that tended to have Trump signs because you now this is all really about economic frustration... sure.  

Of course, this could be my confirmation bias kicking in.  All I know is that my desire to embrace nostalgia by listening to the same rock station I listened to 40-45 years ago (WMMR!) was squashed by the flood of campaign ads.  Again, for me, this was just a quick dip into this swing state.  I don't recall more than one or two billboards in NY.  But PA, oh my.  Perhaps the proliferation of pot dispensaries is easing the pain of the residents of this swing state.

A General Reluctance: Who Should be Speaking Out

 Last night, I got into a number of similar conversations about whether it is a good thing to have the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley out in front, criticizing Trump as a danger to American democracy and a danger to the world.  Many pro-Harris folks were most upset when I took the standard stand of civil-military relations scholars (not all agree, of course) that the military folks, retired or active, should not be taking a partisan stand.  Many of us make a distinction between the military as a political actor and the military as a partisan actor.  For those who are not on bluesky or who had better things to do on a Friday night, let me go through some of this.

Before I get started, a caveat: while I have been studying civil-military relations for about half of my career now, my focus has been on the analytical questions--why civilians manage the military in a particular way, why there is less oversight than expected--and not the normative questions of should or should not.  However, as I teach it and as I talk about it within the civ-mil community, the normative questions of what proper civil-military relations, how best for civilians to control the military, always come up.  So, here I am.

Ok, to the issue at hand, folks were arguing that the threat of another Trump administration is so catastrophic that we shouldn't let concerns about norms about appropriate behavior constrain Milley or his ilk from speaking out.  We need to defend democracy as much as we can, they say.  That it is the duty of military officers, retired and sworn, to do this.  While I concur that Trump 2.0 would be catastrophic, my basic take is that the armed forces in a democracy have not just one duty at play here but two--to defend the political system and to stay out of partisan politics.  We need to take quite seriously what happens when the military becomes a partisan actor, putting its weight on the scales of an election.

There are lots of ways to talk through this so let me just hit on a few.  Again, the juxtaposition is not between the threat to democracy and some vague norms about the proper role of the military but between one way democracy dies and another.  Democratic backsliding can be caused by an awful autocratic-minded corrupt politician seeking to get into power, but it can also be caused by the military helping to determine elections.  In 2000, when it was Gore v Bush in a contested election, few, if any, folks were looking to the military to settle the situation.  

What do we mean by the military becoming a partisan actor?  And what is the impact?  To be clear, the whole idea that the military is not political is an old and dumb idea--as any government agency, any actor making decisions that affect the public and the national interest, whatever it does has political ramifications.  As Risa Brooks argues in her 2020 International Security piece, our generals and admirals need to be aware of the politics of their actions and inactions and of the situations the military may be thrust into at home and abroad. Advocating for a particular strategy or against a particular deployment is political, and yes, military leaders should in private advocate for what they think is in the best interest of their country (see Eliot Cohen).  

What is partisan?  Doing stuff that favors one set of parties or politicians at the expense of another. Advocating publicly for a position, say, gays should not serve in the military or the military should only intervene in certain circumstances, cross the line into partisanship especially when one party has a distinct position from another.  Colin Powell was actually very crappy, despite all of the respect he had accumulated, in terms of keeping the military out of partisan politics as he wrote op-eds on both of those issues while Chairman, constraining the Clinton Administration.  Advocating for specific politicians is even more clearly partisan--it is the definition.  And we have seen it with retired officers supporting Trump and Clinton on the convention stage in 2016.  We have seen it in Canada with retired LTG Michel Maisonneuve taking the Conservative Party convention's stage last year (Canada's civ-mil norms are not as clear but they should be).  

Why should we care? If the senior leadership of the military takes partisan stances, politicians will notice, the public will notice, and their subordinates will notice.  Politicians will then be suspicious of generals who are seen as being on the wrong side, so their advice will be denigrated or ignored, which then means the civilian leadership will make worse decisions about all things military.  They may try to suss out who is on their party's side, leading to the selection of generals and admirals based on political affiliation, not on merit.  That is how authoritarian regimes do it much of the time, leading to defeat (see Talmadge, among others).  If the public notices, that will affect who joins the military.  The US military's personnel is not entirely Conservative--it is more diverse than people think.  In many ways, the US military is one of most diverse group of employees.  Certainly, the Pentagon was the most diverse place I worked.  But that would change, as potential recruits will see joining the military as a partisan choice, not as an act of national service.  What happens to unit cohesion in the military if the officers are seen as partisan?

It is bad for the military to be a partisan actor to be seen as a partisan actor.  It is also bad for democracy, as political outcomes are supposed to be shaped by voters, not the group with the guns.  I won't get into that because I think it is pretty obvious.

People pushed back in all kinds of ways.  Hey, Milley is retired and he has a right to free speech.  He has a right but he has a responsibility not to speak.  Why?  It is well known that retired officers are seen as speaking for the active military who can't speak for themselves.   Some Chairmen have pushed hard against retired officers speaking out--Dempsey and Mullen were most outspoken about this. Yes, Mullen ultimately spoke out against Trump.  Here's a good piece about the reasons why GOFOs do this despite understanding the norms.  Anyhow, being a former senior officer comes with responsibilities that go on past one's time in uniform because they will always be seen as being in uniform.  James Mattis is still referred to as General Mattis even though he served as Secretary of Defence.  I'd want him to speak out against Trump as Secretary Mattis, not as General Mattis, but we probably don't have to worry about that.  

Folks argue that we need the military to take a stand since that will get more attention than anyone else.  We have overvalorized the military enough--that it is the most respected institution in most democracies and quite so in the US.  It is clear that one reason why is because it stays out of partisan politics--most of the other institutions are more directly implicated in the divisiveness of partisan politics.  People don't seem to care that getting involved will do damage to this (some damage has already been done--see the work by Burbach, Feaver, and Robinson to name a few).  My point here is partly--we are already breaking our democracy by putting the military before the civilians, let's not do it further.  I actually don't mind if the military loses a chunk of its popularity since I don't think it is healthy for democracy to have the most authoritarian institution be seen as the epitome of the good.

Is having the military enter partisan politics worth it?  On the one side, folks will say, hell, yes, Trump is that awful (and, yes, I agree again, he is very awful).  On the other side, one could wonder if it will move the need enough to sell out the soul of the military.  That is, will Milley speaking out move many voters that wouldn't be moved by having lots and lots of Republican civilian national security folks speak out?  I am skeptical enough of Milley's influence (he is not a household name like Powell) that I just don't think it is worth the sacrifice.  

Folks will argue that the egg has been broken, no putting it back together again as Milley has stepped across that line several times--leaking to Woodward while he was still Chairman, his retirement speech is now featured in Harris ads, and now yet more conversations with Woodward (He might be a really bad person to be the one doing all of this since it could be perceived he is doing this to redeem himself for walking beside Trump at Lafayette Park during the George Floyd protests).  The reality is that most people are not really paying that much attention to this, but if he or someone like him started doing the rounds in the media, it would do a great deal of damage.  

And the key is: once you rip a norm to tatters, it is hard to undo the damage.  The US military has been staying out of partisan politics for the most part for a long time with norm violations along the way.  To actively put its thumb on the scale now can't be undone.  If Harris wins, that damage will haunt her administration and the succeeding ones.

And if Trump wins, I'd like for the military to have stayed out of politics so that when it is asked to something truly awful, such as participate in mass deportation, either its leaders resist at that moment or it is then seen as shocking and awful that the military is becoming a partisan tool.  I would rather that any political capital the military has be saved for when it is directly involved in something that could be its business--the deployment of force.  No, that does not mean I have 100% confidence the military will resist at that moment, but I would want it to have as much heft as possible at that moment if it came to that.

That's a lot to write on a Saturday morning when I have student grant applications to review and you have much to do instead of reading this.  But feel free to comment. 

 

Participant-Observer Methodology Strikes Again: Appearing before Canada's Defence Committee

 Today, I got stretched pretty good, as I was asked to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.  The focus was supposed to be the Baltics/Ukraine security situation, but I ended up helping to, um, expand the conversation.  I was on with two sharp people who are far more knowledgeable about Ukraine and Baltic security stuff, so I made that clear at the top of my initial statement.

Because dropbox no longer lets one share files easily, I will just summarize my opening statement: lots of uncertainty, much hinging on the US election (which had the effect of derailing the conversation a bit, I think), that Canada is contributing to NATO via the mission in Latvia, that it is no longer doing the air patrolling stuff, that my civ-mil hat is causing me to ponder how is Zelensky managing his military and how likely is it for the Russian military to mutiny.

The committee was smart to keep the regional questions aimed at my colleagues.  Marta Kepe of RAND spoke about hybrid warfare and other unconventional threats facing the Baltics.  Arel was quite critical of the lack of political will on the part of the west in general in not supporting Ukraine earlier and letting its fear of escalation inhibit support now.  I found myself agreeing with them on pretty much everything they said except for that political will stuff.  The Q&A ran for nearly 2 hours with each MP getting somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes to ask questions (the MPs from the NPQ and Block got 1 minute each--smaller parties get less time).  

The first question to me was by Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant asked about very specific drone capabilities and why don't we have more systems to combat higher level air threats.  My response focused on the fact that our allies have anti-aircraft capabilities to help us, and that the drone procurement thing is happening.  I forget when I mentioned that there had been opposition to weaponized drones a while back because of concerns about their being used to assassinate individuals, but that the Ukraine war has shown us of the importance on a conventional battlefield.

The second question to be was by Christine Normandin of the Bloc, who is one of the Vice Chairs of the committee--wouldn't Poland paying more than 2% of its GDP on defense insure that Trump would still respond to an attack on Poland?  Nope, that Trump couldn't be counted on for anything like that given his hostility to NATO and his positive attitude towards Russia/Putin.

The next question to me was from the NDP's Lindsay Mathyssen about the links between the far right and Russia, and I, well, really went to town on that one--mentioning their joint interest in eroding trust in democratic institutions, their weaponization of all kinds of hate (transphobia, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia) to divide democracies, and their joint fondness for autocracy.  I didn't mention DeSantis by name, but I did link Orban to all of this.  This got picked up by some far right media folks so here's the video of that sequence.

Conservative Don Stewart pushed again on drones--whether it would be right to train our troops on them before shipping them out to our troops in Latvia and why we don't have so many.  I mentioned the procurement challenges, here or later, including the fact that with everybody wanting to buy drones, there is a supply problem.

Liberal Emmanuella Lambropoulous asked a question of Arel that she then directed to me--why support Ukraine?  In addition to the stuff Arel mentioned, I pointed out that our inflation was partly caused by the commodity shock of Russia invading Ukraine's grain growing area.  I also mentioned our commitment to NATO, and this is a war that directly implicates NATO.

Normandin asked again about Trump, and I forgot if I said much different from the first time.

Liberal Marcus Powlowski asked about a reference I mad to Russian soldiers mutinying.  I said that what we know from civ-mil is not that we can pinpoint when one might happen, but the reckless disregard for the welfare of Russian troops might lead to units munitying.  He asked for evidence, and I had none except stories of individual soldiers attacking superior officers.  That time was not necessarily on Russia's side.

Conservative Vice Chair James Bezan asked about whether we should have sent some of the LAVs to Ukraine earlier, and I basically said yes.  

Liberal Chad Collins asked a long question about disinformation, which followed up from my previous answer about democratic institutions and the far right.  Either here or before, I pointed out that across the democracies, a key for preventing the rise of the far right is for right-wing parties to oppose them. 

My notes deteriorate from there.  We were asked about Ukraine and membership in NATO--I pointed out that won't happen until the war is over, as admitting a member mid-war is essentially NATO declaring war.  I was then asked if Ukraine could become a member if Trump was President, and I reminded folks that NATO operates by consensus, and Trump, having been impeached the first time for trying to extort Ukraine, would probably not support membership for Ukraine.

One can find the video online to get the whole hearing--the other two folks were super sharp and I learned much for them.

Did I tell the parliamentarians that my next book, with Phil and Dave, compares defence committees around world and found that the Canadian version was deliberately irrelevant?  No.  I will save that for the book launch.  I was very conscious that all parties were trying to play me and the others into giving them the soundbites that they wanted.  Perhaps I am biased, but the Conservatives seemed the most consistent, focusing on a particular message--that the Liberals are responsible for the CAF being under-equipped--which is not wrong, but I didn't want to get pinned down to say this was a uniquely Liberal problem--the Conservatives helped to get us here as well.  I probably gave the Liberals and the NDP the soundbites they wanted, but I did sense that there was a bit more genuine interest in the stuff and a bit less ruthless focus on point scoring.  As I said, I might be more aware of the stuff on the right than on the left.

I was asked by someone later whether this was stressful or whether I was frustrated.   Nope, this was fun--talking about this stuff is what I like to do, and talking to a committee that is, um, sort of responsible for this stuff is still cool even if I am a critic of how it does its business.