So It Begins: The Military and Massive Deportation

We have now entered the find out phase of the election--who will be appointed to what positions?

We might be feeling some relief that relatively sane sycophants like Marco Rubio are being named to Secretary of State.  That Kristi Noem is awful, but can she actually manage the Department of Homeland Security.

But on the other side, the truly awful are getting into key positions.  Stephen Miller, who is the most hateful and hated Trump player, will be Deputy Chief of Staff, which means he will be close to Trump all the time.  Tom Homan, who was a key player in family separation under Trump 1.0, is now back.  Listen to him:

incoming Trump "border czar" Tom Homan on Fox Business says he expects the military to be involved in his mass deportation

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.bsky.social) November 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM

Which raises the question of what roles the US military might play in massive deportation:

1. Special ops, as Homan suggests, to go after the cartels.  Which means the US is waging war inside of Mexico and perhaps against Mexico.
2. Providing the external cordons of sweeps for those that are being deported.
3. Building the concentration camps and perhaps providing some of the guards for these places until the contracts can be written to provide private prison companies with sweet deals (who will be checking which companies grease which decision-makers?)
4. Repressing protests as people start to realize the scope/scale/cruelty of the deportation.

 The US military will follow lawful but awful orders.  The special ops stuff will not face resistance, I think, as this fits into their skill set and does not deviate from the kind of missions they have done elsewhere.  Plus we have had a shit ton of pop culture tell us that special ops are great for killing drug dealers.  Building concentration camps?  Fencing and pitching tents?  Part of the day job, and won't be seen as problematic until it is too late.  

It really is about 2 and 4.  What is involved with this?  Sending MPs into push protestors around?  Easy to imagine.  Sending in regular troops to confront large groups of protestors?  I have a research assistance looking into the literature on when democratic militaries repress or refuse, so I don't know right now what will happen.  Indeed, no one knows, because it is never clear what will happen when troops are giving orders to fire upon civilians until the decision point is upon us.  

I am fully engaged in doomerism, but pretty much any massive deportation pathway leads to cruelty and death.  Whether it causes a full-scale crisis in American civil-military relations where the military either defies the civilian authorities or engages in large scale repression of the public is not clear.  But the odds are far greater than they should be.  I am waiting to see who is named Attorney General and who is named SecDef, as those are the key appointments that will signal how massive deportation will be conducted and how much the military will be dragged into and torn apart by it.

 

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce

 Such an awful week, but it ended well for me and Mrs. Spew.  For her big birthday, I splurged on tickets to see Bruce Springsteen.  I have been to less than 10 rock concerts in my life as I tend to fall asleep--watching people make music just doesn't entertain me much, but I figured Bruce would be an exception.  And I was not wrong. 

Bruce and the E Street Band put out so much energy that even in the very last row at the back of the arena, I could not help but have more energy at the end of the night than at the beginning.  And that is despite weathering one of the more severe colds I have had.  

I am not a musician (Oberlin let me in to prove they don't discriminate against those with no musical ability), so I can't speak to the musicianship of the band.  All I can say is that they have great stamina and passion as Bruce would do the count for the next song as the previous song was still echoing in the arena.  The choir occasionally took breaks, but for much of the concern, the band and especially Bruce just kept going and going.

I was surprised it took about 1.5 hours before he told his first story (and the only one) of the night.  It was about how his first bandmate from his first band died recently.  Yep, Bruce is sensing his mortality, especially with the loss of two members of the band (Clarence Clemons has been replaced by his nephew).  But he sure doesn't play like a 75 year old.  I hope I have about 25% of his passion and energy and physical fitness when I get there.

I never saw him live before, so I never thought of him as a talented guitarist, but he did some excellent work there.  The kazoo?  That I knew a
bout.  

Bruce didn't yank up a young woman to do Dancing in the Dark, but he did bring up a boy and had him sing a bit.  Nope, the kid was not a good singer, but the moment was special nonetheless.  

It is easy to rank this concert given how few I have seen.  It was either the best concert or second best to Billy Joel in London or San Diego.  I am glad I got a chance to experience the 2.5 hours of Bruce in person.  

And, yes, I was a bit surprised by one of the encores, but it is close enough to be seasonally appropriate, but I can't seem to be able to post my video of Bruce singing Santa Claus is coming to town.
 

Looking for Upside? CDSN's Domestic Ops Rock

Niru, Manu, and some of the other participants.
The post workshop dinner is not way we do this
but it is not not why we do this.

 This has been a crushing few days, and the hits will keep on coming.  But I can take some solace from the work we have been doing over the past few years.  Three years ago, the CDSN received funding from the Department of National Defence's MINDS program to address "Global Emergencies and Canadian Resilience."  That year, the MINDS program wanted research networks that addressed, among many other challenges/priorities, global health, supply chain vulnerability, the new NATO climate security centre of excellence, and domestic emergency operations.  We are coming to the end of this three year grant, and our next MINDS network grant application will focus on other stuff as DND's priorities have shifted.

 

Our CDSN Post-Doc,
Manu Ramkumar gave a
great talk on the
Singapore case

So, this was the last of the three workshops in Toronto run by Nirupama Agrawal, a professor of disaster management at York University, on what we can learn from Canada's domestic emergency operations.  She keeps bringing together military folks who are the key connections in Ontario with Ontario emergency management people, Indigenous folks who are involved in this stuff, academics, and municipal folks who do this stuff.  I finally attended one of her workshops as she kindly did not schedule it this time as the same time as US Thanksgiving.  

I am so grateful to Niru.  She got her students involved, they did a great job of running the day.  It was held in the Royal Canadian Military Institute, where I got to stay overnight.  It is a funky place, with lots of displays, libraries, bars, and history.  See the pics below.  I did guess during my talk that there are no displays of domestic emergency ops, and I was mostly right.  There was some stuff about the Canadian Rangers, who are northerners who play multiple roles as the eyes and ears of the military in the Arctic, but not anything else.

Why does that matter?  Well, I opened my intro talk with a discussion of what the CDSN is and does, and then talked about Canadian civil-military relations.  My usual shtick that the military wants to be autonomous and has more autonomy than most democratic militaries, and that the civilians are not doing much oversight.  When it comes to domestic ops, there is a basic disjuncture--the military doesn't want to do it and it successfully gets it listed at the bottom of the priorities of every defence policy document, and the population values this stuff quite a lot.  The civilians in government do not seem to be interested in getting this preference through to the military.  

After I spoke, we had a number of speakers who have real experience in this stuff, and I learned that there is far better coordination and lessons learned among the various actors.  I still am not sure how much Ontario is really picking up its share of responsibilities on this (there is a basic temptation for the provinces to shirk since they don't have to pay the bills when the CAF does the work even though the CAF could bill them--politically impossible to do so).  The military folks there were super sharp and had good stories to tell about how things play out in such efforts.  There is definitely room for improvement as the CAF is always asked to do more than their assigned tasks when they do engage in a domestic op (hey, can you take my appliances out of my flooded basement?).  

 

 

 

WWI flag with the scars of battle

Once again, the biggest challenges are how to deal with natural disasters that affect the Indigenous communities since the history of settler-ness means these places have poor infrastructure and are vulnerable to disasters.  Yanking them out in an emergency and evacuating them may be preferable to their being killed, but it is a crappy way to live.  So, there was some discussion of some efforts to improve their capacity to protect themselves.

 

 

I am very, very pleased and proud of what Niru and her students have accomplished.  This grant is ending, but we will certainly stay in the Niru business in one way or another, and our civ-mil stuff will ponder the domestic ops of it all.  I am just very grateful for the accidental networking that led to this partnership.

 And now a few random shots from our tour of RCMI:

An original copy of the letter
Ike sent the troops on the eve of D-Day

 

Display of women at war
featuring future CDS
Jennie Carignan

Display of Carignan's A-stan gear

 

 

Mea Culpa 2: Return of the Cruel

 Once again, I got the election wrong, spectacularly so.  Was confirmation bias the key?  Partly but mostly too much and too little comparative analysis.

Too much: yes, people were pissed at inflation, but it is down now and this government did better than any other at getting their country to a soft landing quickly.  Also, best wage growth for middle and lower class folks in decades.  But, nope, Americans don't think comparatively.  They were pissed about inflation and not elated about the low unemployment.  That Biden avoided a recession got no rewards.

Too little: turns out every democracy in 2024 had the incumbents losing and by big numbers.  Harris's loss was smaller than all, which might give her some due and undue credit.  US institutions and polarization limit how much she could possibly lose. 

Which gets us to the real puzzle of the election: why didn't Democrats turn out? Harris got something like 14 million votes less than Biden.  Trump got fewer votes than 2020.  All Harris really needed was to get something like 5-6 million less than Biden.  Perhaps I was deceived by the reports of my friends doing get out the vote stuff and by the fact that the Harris campaign did a lot of GOTV stuff and Trump's was run by Musk (who sucks at everything besides getting attention).  So, why did Harris not get as many votes as one might have expected:

• Incumbency.  The thing I got most wrong in my prediction post is that I thought she successfully flipped the script and positioned herself as the change candidate and Trump as the incumbent. Nope, nope, nope.
• Abortion/Dobbs didn't have the same magic on turnout this time as 2022.  Why?  I am guessing that it was partly due to the referenda that were supposed to generate turnout.  Instead, people didn't understand that these referenda would not actually protect their states from an anti-abortion government--they thought they got their umbrellas via these referenda so they could go out in the rain.  
• Racism and sexism.  Men of all kinds voted against Harris.  That a second woman lost to a clearly disqualified/unqualified man requires some consideration.  Trump won his gamble that his racism would not be problematic to men who didn't want a woman in the White House.
• No one cares about VPs.  Walz was fun, but only helped in Minnesota, JD Vance was awful but no one cared even though he has the best chance of any recent VP of becoming President.  
• Our pop culture heroes don't matter.  Beyonce, Taylor, Lebron don't move the needle.  
• The aforementioned split tickets--NC should have dragged down the GOP, but perhaps what happened was that queasy Dems knew that the Dem gov candidate would win and then didn't show up to vote for Harris.

The flip side is how could people vote for a convicted felon who also happened to be an insurrectionist.  Turns out Jan 6th didn't move the needle. Last year's inflation (and yes, prices haven't dropped, but they don't without some suffering) matters more than the threat to democracy.  What matters more to Trump voters are change, rejecting the status quo, resentment, fear, and ignorance.  Seeing a young woman say that Trump wouldn't ban abortion was just appalling.  That people don't understand what mass deportation really means is partly on the Dems but mostly on the media but also on the voters themselves.  They don't care about that or the cruelty directed at transpeople.  Yes, we only have two real choices, but showing displeasure at the status quo meant voting for the cruel and the corrupt.  That should have made a difference, but it didn't so that says much about a good hunk of the American electorate.

Which leads to this: that so many future targets of mass deportation voted for the party of mass deportation is just horrifying and appalling.  That Latino men might think they are immune because they are citizens, because they were here before the Anglos, because their families immigrated legally, whatever is even worse wishful thinking than I induldged in before Tuesday.  Empowering racist cops and sheriffs (and maybe militias?) to enforce mass deportation means lots of false positives--that people who are not undocumented migrants--will get swept up and sent to places that don't have due process and assume that those incarcerated don't have full citizenship rights.  Sure, people will learn to carry birth certificates and passports just to leave the house (papers, please!), but asshole cops and sheriffs can just take the docs and toss them aside and deny they have done so.  The people who will be enforcing the mass deportation sweeps are going to be the worst people, and they will have immunity (see Project 2025).  The camps don't have to be set up by super competent people.  They will have crappy sanitation and they will overcrowded and they won't be safe in summer (no AC) or in winter (no heating, little shelter).  And people will die due to reckless disregard (this is how concentration camps work) while the US govt spends a tremendous amount of its political capital and leverage forcing countries to accept the 10 million.  

People didn't take Trump seriously last time, but he did do a heap of bad that has been memory holed. His big campaign promises of banning Muslims and building a wall happened even if it was a shitty wall. I fully expect a weaponized Department of Justice and mass deportation to happen.  And both will be so very destructive including to those that voted for Trump.

Yes, I am angry.  Not just at myself for my wishful thinking and confirmation bias, but at the Democrats who didn't show up and let this happen and to the Trump voters who cared more about imaginary fears of an immigration crisis, who didn't care about a competent government doing much to improve things despite a Congress blocking its way, and who didn't mind either the cruelty aimed at trans people or the corruption and bullying of Trump and his people.

So, no, I am not sleeping well.  I am not sure how long this nightmare will last.  Our best hope is that we have a real election in 2 years which changes Congress so that it stop some of the worst excesses and that the GOP gets tossed in 4 since the pattern of the last three elections is tossing out whichever incumbent.  But that aforementioned weaponization of DoJ might mean that political opponents get arrested so that elections become farces.  That is how competitive autocracy works. 

Third time's a Charm? Prediction time

 

I made a big prediction in 2016 and got it wrong.  Of course, I couldn't anticipate that Comey would tip the scale at the end, but I underestimated Republicans selling out their souls for some power.  So, should I avoid making a prediction now?  Should I put up a pessimistic one to be safe?  Nope, it is time to be ruthlessly optimistic again.  Plus I was right in 2020.  50% is a great batting average or a great 3 point percentage.

So, I shall list my reasons for optimism before putting up my prediction:

1. At the top of the list: the Republicans have under-performed in every election since 2016.  Really.  Yes, they got seats in the mid-term in 2022 but less than they should have.  Why?  Because the reality of Trump really sucks and the further spinning of the GOP from the mainstream to the far right is actually, yes, not so popular.  
   
2. I almost had this first: Dobbs.  I think Dobbs and then the passion for far right legislation--severe abortion bans, anti-IVF proposals, even anti-birth control stuff--will energize women voters far more than the potential of such stuff eight and four years ago.   Plus so many states literally have abortion on the ballot via referenda including key states like Arizona, Nevada, and Florida,   I am tempted to list the corruption and arrogance of the Supreme Court separately, but I will just leave it here.  
3. Many factors above and below: no Democratic complacency.  The near panic about Trump winning should drive turnout.
   
4. Efforts to pander to Black and Latino misogynists have been undercut by the Haitian immigrant crap of a few weeks ago and of the Madison Square Garden fiasco.  The polls always exaggerated how many Black men were going to swing towards Trump.  Yes, misogynists are going to vote for Trump, but that was pretty baked in before Biden dropped out--Trump is THE candidate for  women-haters.  MSG may have put Florida in play as Puerto Ricans will turn out against Trump in a big way.
   
5. Kamala Harris has run an amazing campaign.  She is the change candidate despite being the incumbent VP.  That takes some terrific political acumen, discipline, a great team, and, yes, Trump exhaustion.  She is also, yes, a far better candidate than either Trump or Biden--smart, attractive, dynamic, younger, with a great story about who she is.
   
6. Tim Walz.  His debate performance wasn't great, but he is fantastic in interviews and at rallies.  
7. JD Vance.  Just a repellent asshole who has negative charisma.  Because so much has happened in the past couple of months, we forget how much he turned people off.  And he still does.  I almost think he puts Ohio in play for the Presidential level as the entire state has regret about electing him to be their Senator.
8. Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Lebron, Bad Bunny, and all of the rest of the elites of our culture are on the same side.  Folks may discount this stuff, but it matters at the margins.  Who does Trump have?  Hulk Hogan.
   
9. Trump's ground game sucks. We know this.  Elon Musk "helping" is not a help.  Folks vastly overrate Musk's skills at anything, and he certainly does.
10. The GOP helped to kill its base via its anti-vax stances.  We have good stats showing that more Republicans died in the pandemic... for a reason.
11. The fucking fundamentals.  In 2016, the Dems had been in power for eight years and the economy was ok.  In 2024, the Dems have been in power for four years and people aren't tired of them yet.  Not like they are tired of, yes, Trudeau, or, yes Trump.  Oh, and the economy is one of low unemployment and low inflation.  Folks may blame Biden for the bout with inflation--things are more expensive now but the rate is no longer zooming up--but the economy is actually pretty great at the aggregate level, especially when compared with all of the other democracies.
12. There are so many shitty Republican candidates that will drag down the vote in a variety of states: Arizona as Kari Lake, NC with Mark Robinson, and so on.  This might be repeating #1.
    
13. The electorate keeps changing.  Yes, the Republicans keep courting the conservative immigrants via religious appeals and such, but their hate of immigrants matters quite a bit.  Sure, it is a grand American tradition to close the door behind you a la Musk, but the electorate is less white than it once was.  Not because of any Great Replacement plan or dynamic, but because the US remains an attractive place to live despite what the GOP is doing to it.
14. The national security stuff.  Yes, I overestimated it eight years ago, but since then Trump has stolen secret docs and kept them at his golf club and so on.  Which leads to
15. There were Never Trumpers in 2016, but the Republicans for Harris seems to be much more of a thing.
16. Because of January 6th.  That should have ended Trump's political career.  It didn't, but it does move the needle.  It should be at the top of the list, and it is a sad recognition that it is not...
    
17. The polls?  Seems to be the case that they are converging on a close race because they don't want to get it wrong.  I also think #1 matters here.
    
18. The early numbers are mostly encouraging--about turning out, about women turning out, about swing states.
19. Speaking of early reactions, Trump's social media stuff in PA is suggestive--that their internal polling suggests the state is lost.  
20. Will enough voters remember that Trump fucked up the pandemic?  I hope so.
21. Trump is frickin old. Biden got pushed out because he was seen as too old.  Trump has lost his mojo and is low energy.  He really has run the shittiest campaign this time.  Small crowds that leave early, fewer rallies. And people are just tired of him and tired about talking about him.  Time to move on.  Some would say we are not going back. 

 

 

 

I still think Nevada will go Dem, but I am not as confident.  Between the abortion referendum and Kari Lake sucking so much, Arizona is going Dem again.  NC?  Always tempts us, but this time they have a horrific Gov candidate that will help push the state over the top.   

Senate?  I haven't followed this as much--the map is brutal this time as these are the folks who won in 2018, Trump's midterm.  So, more Dem seats.  WV is lost, Montana is probably as well.  I am not worried much about Arizona.  I think the Independent wins in Nebraska.  I'd love to see Cruz and Scott lose in Texas and Florida.  Not likely but not out of the realm of the possible.  Oy.

The House?  Since I think Harris is going to do quite well in the general election, I think the Dems pick up the House.

 PS I didn't mention the Arab American vote because it is not a cause for optimism.  I have no idea how they will break at the end.  All I do know is that Trump would be far more awful for that community in the US and would not be any better and probably worse on Gaza/Palestine than Harris.  But these folks are rightly angry about the US arming Israel's disproportionate response to Oct 7.  Oh, and the Jewish vote?  Probably not moving radically in one direction or another despite the GOP being the party of far right anti-semitism, which is far more dangerous than left-wing, students protesting Israel.

 

 

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.