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

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

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

Feaver said:

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

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

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

Brooks: 

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

Saideman:

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

Lee:

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

 

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

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

Some differences in the panel:

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congress

 

The Broken Transmission Belt of Policy: Tariffs Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

Another Day in Trumpian Foreign Policy: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Maple Victory?

Bargaining with someone of bad faith is likely to go badly.  So, yeah, the US-Canada trade relations were most fraught.*  Because Trump can't keep his word (see his divorces, his bankruptcies, his many bluffs and retreats), Canadian negotiators had to be most wary.  Yet, because of the extreme leverage the US has over Canada--so many jobs in Canada are dependent, one way or another, on trade with the southern neighbor--Prime Minister Carney and his team were willing to make significant compromises.  But when the US made more demands, that blew up the deal apparently.

As I have posted here, since Trump is of bad faith, one should only negotiate over things that you are willing to do anyway.  The best example of this is: sure, put the F-35s in the deal, as Canada was (is?) still going to buy them anyway.  But don't give away much more than that, because Trump will just ask for more.  

The history here is illustrative.  Trump came into office demanding that NAFTA be revised even though it was a pretty good deal, and it reshaped markets in all three countries, making any big change very costly.  So, Mexico and Canada agreed to USMCA or CUSMA or NAFTA 2.0, which didn't really change much but gave Trump the ability to say he made a deal. Which, after all, is mostly what Trump wants--credit for making a deal, no matter what is in the deal.  Then Trump became President again** and decided to coerce Canada into another agreement, this time demanding many things that Carney couldn't really compromise on:

• Dairy access. Supply management is super annoying to me and many Canadians as it means higher prices for eggs, milk, cheese, etc, but the dairy cartel is very powerful here. So, there was no way Carney could give it up, especially for a promise by Trump to .... stop yammering at Canada for a few weeks.  
• Booze. In retaliation for all of Trump's bullshit--the tariffs and the 51st state stuff and the like--the provinces (not the federal government) decided not to buy American wine and liquor for their stores.  Since Ontario owns all of the beer and liquor stores, it happens to be the largest single purchaser of Americcan booze. Or was, until Trump pissed off Conservative premier (governor) Doug Ford.  Federal-provincial relations in Canada are complex, and, I believe the technical term is fucked.  The provinces didn't give the feds info about who got the covid vaccines even though the feds gave the provinces the vaccines.  Anyhow, Carney can't make the provinces change their stances.  However, it would have been fun to see the provinces return to the status quo ante and see most Canadians refusing to buy American booze.  
• Dropping all retaliatory tariffs while the US maintained the right to tariff anytime it felt like.  Disarming oneself while the other side maintains its weapons pointed at you is a non-starter.

Carney would have faced a big blowback had he surrendered on this agreement.  The news was already full of stories about angering compromises on taxing the big tech firms that have been trying to colonize Canada's information space and other areas.  So, yes, he has his own domestic politics that matters a lot.

But again, the core of this is this: if Carney gave in, Trump could at any point hit Canada again and again.  Trump has already been violating past agreements with Canada, so why would anyone think this one is binding?  With the Trumpers, including JD Vance shitting on Canada in the last few days, having no credibility to keep a commitment, Carney could not gamble here.

So, now we are in a trade war.  Americans will pay higher prices for Canadian goods and for goods that compete with Canadian goods (people forget that when tariffs increase the costs of importing, domestic producers will raise their prices to almost match the new prices).  Nice move before the midterms, Donnie.  

And no, Canada is not nasty for protecting its interests. Again, heaps of projection here since Canada's real sin for Trump is that it does not bend the knee.  

*  I am not a trade expert--Meredith Lilly, Jen Robson, Jeni Armstrong, and other sharp minds can speak to the trade stuff.  But I do teach US foreign policy, so I have to think about this stuff.

** One of the less fun parts of the Summer Institute this past week was being asked how Trump could win a second time given all that he did in his first term.  Oy. 

CDSN Meets NDHQ, 2026 Edition

The lighting always sucks in this part of DND,
but this is only place we can do this.

 One of the highlights of every year is the Canadian Defence and Security Network's Summer Institute.  Ripping off SWAMOS and BtG, we organize a weeklong workshop to discuss Canadian defence and security stuff with a mixed audience--roughly one third emerging scholars, one third military folks, and one third government types.  The idea is not just to have all of us discuss and learn about these issues, but to learn how the various folks in the defence and security community think about this stuff.  That the exchanges among the three groups are as important as the stuff they hear from our speakers.  It is the hardest thing we do each year as involves lots of planning, herding academic and non-academic cats, and it is a very intense week for our CDSN team.  It is also perhaps the most rewarding thing we do, as we see the lightbulbs go off and we see connections developing.  

Almost since the start, a day at Canada's defence headquarters has been on the agenda.  It started with a couple of talks and now has grown to a full day of briefings and roundtables.  I am as amazed every year with us getting high-level speakers as our participants are amazed at the quality of my cookies.  In most years, we get a chance to speak with the Deputy Minister of Defence, who as a general rule does not do that much public speaking (DM's across the government tend to not speak up that much, which in this realm, puts them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Chief of Defence Staff).  I hadn't met Christiane Fox, so it was great to meet her and get her perspective.  We also met folks from the three elements/environments (what Americans call services), getting a good idea of how the Navy, Army, and Air Force folks are thinking about this moment--about the threats facing Canada, about the injection of money as Mark Carney has pushed far more spending towards defence, and, yes, the Trumpness of it all.

I kept asking the same question because I have a book chapter I need to write--what can the Canadian Armed Forces do without any American assistance.  And the answers, as one of the participants pointed out, illustrated a civ-mil divide that Phil Lagassé pointed out a while back: the military sees the moment as rhetoric and wants to continue business as usual and the civilians are identifying a fundamental break and want to operative differently.  Oh my.  Good for the chapter, bad for Canadian civil-military relations.

I must run off to our fourth day of the Institute, where one of our panels is, indeed, on civ-mil.  

 

More Threat Deflation: Hypersonic Missile Edition

 I keep hearing about the threat of hypersonic missiles, and I keep wondering how this changes things?

 My bias: I am a big believer in mutual assured destruction and a big skeptic of strategic missile defense.

Yes, countries are developing missiles that go much faster.   Does this dramatically increase the threat to North America?  I don't believe it does.  The US has not yet developed a reliable, near 100% system for defending itself against ballistic missiles, so the impact of such hypersonics is ... to hasten our deaths in a nuclear war.  We would die faster.

I have heard some folks say that Canada might get hit by Russian or Chinese hypersonics equipped with conventional warheads during a Taiwan or Baltic scenario to discourage our participation.  Let me point out some of the problems with this:

•  the most obvious is: why should either country care that much about Canadian participation in such a conflict?
• any missiles being flung at Canadian cities (which are almost all near the US) would be seen as an attack on the US.  How confident can Chinese or Russian leaders be that the U.S. would not respond upon launch with a nuclear response?  Remember, a key to nuclear deterrence is that you only need a small risk of the worst thing happening to do deter.  So, can Xi or Putin or whoever be 100% the US wouldn't fire back? 

One of the basics of the nuclear era is that offense is easier/cheaper than defense, so any effort to build up defenses will be a waste of money in an offense/defense arms race.  We are seeing this now with drones versus counter-drone technology--that the US has used up most of its anti-missile missiles and Iran has plenty more cheap drones to send at American ships and other targets.  Maybe there will be a breakthrough for a cheaper way to knock down drones.  And, of course, a few conventional drones leaking through is not a huge deal.  A few nuclear hypersonic missiles will absolutely ruin your day.

So, yes, we should not be pleased that missiles are getting faster, but it does not change the fundamental reality that has existed since the 1960s--mutual assured destruction deters nuclear war.  Does it deter conventional war?  Absolutely in Europe--Putin has not engaged in any conventional attacks despite much temptation.  Does it work in South Asia?  Kind of, sort of.  Yes, India and Pakistan have engaged in conflict, but thus far, none has escalated very far.  The two countries fought several major wars before they each had nuclear weapons. 

Anyhow, I keep seeing all kinds of threats being inflated, but the world is scary enough without exaggerating some of them.  The reality is that climate change and far right subversion of democracy are realities that are hurting people every day, and, no, the military can't help us with those.  So, let's focus on the real threats that are doing real damage, and stop fantasizing about the other stuff. 

 

Holy Round Numbers, Batman!

Not to worry, Robin, for we have multiple Bat-cakes to meet the occasion.  This week, I am celebrating 60 years of ... me.  I have always used birthdays and anniversaries to justify lots of movies, restaurants, and, this year, cakes.  This is an especially round number marking so many things:=

• Leaving middle age for whatever the next thing is: late middle age? 
• Time to start getting discounts.  My girlfriend and I went to a move while on the Saideman family vacation last week (Portland and the Oregon shore were terrific), and we received, unprompted, senior discounts for The Odyssey.  And, to be sure, that was entirely due to my appearance as she is not only five years or so younger, but has nary a gray hair (It seems like it was only a few years ago, younger conference goers were making bets about whether my entirely black hair at the time was real given my entirely white beard).  
• The halfway point--not that I will make it to 120--but that I have been a father for exactly half of my life.  Glad I got to spend time with my daughter last week.
• I am four years past ultimate frisbee, and I still haven't found a suitable replacement.  The recent vacation taught me that my elbow is not a barrier to kayaking, like I thought. So, that plus yoga/pilates may be in my future.
• Tis the second birthday post-separation and first since it was finalized with me living on my own for the last four months.  
• Retirement is now six years ago--close enough to occupy my thinking, far enough way that I have still much left to do as a professor.
• I long ago was considered a senior scholar, but now I am a very senior scholar.  All of my mentors have retired as have a few friends.  
• I survived my fifties although a few friends did not.  

The last point might suggest that I am morose or sad.  While I feel bad about these losses, I do not think I have been happier.  I still love my job as it continues to evolve--learning to teach US foreign policy when the government is autocratic, teaching larger seminars due to budget cuts, shifting research topics a bit less dramatically as I am now firmly ensconced for the duration in civil-military relations, shifting from the CDSN to the CMRN as our second partnership grant is far more comparative and international and more focused on civil-military relations.  I made radical changes to my personal life because I wanted to be happier, and I was successful.  My girlfriend has just been fantastic and even survived a week with a heap of Saidemans quite well.  

The world, of course, sucks mightily with Trump and populists and autocrats dominating our attention and making horrific public policy.  I remain a doomer at this time--I don't think a Dem sweep of the midterms (I will not jinx with a prediction)--will change as much as people hope.  But compartmentalization is a thing that we have gotten good at, so I will focus today on baking: a second cake as I made the rum cake last night and a heap of pitas.  The BBQ is, well, rained out, but I will see how well my home can host a significant sized gathering.

I have to get back to party prep.  Time to cry (cutting onions).   

American Civil-Military Relations Basics: Partisan and Political

 A couple of weeks ago, I got into a running skeet spat because I argued we ought not valorize a military member for protesting the Trump administration while in uniform.  I argued that the US military has long stayed out of politics, and I meant partisan politics, even though it and any govt agency, especially armed ones, are inherently political.

Politics: the basic definition involves the making of decisions affecting the group/society.  Because the military is an arm of government, anything involving it is inherently political even before one invokes Clausewitz's war is politics by other means.

So, yes, the military is always involved in politics.  The use of it, the non-use of it (say on Jan 6th), are political.  Its behavior in the seas off of Venezuela or in the war in Iran are political.

But are they partisan?  Yes, the US military has taken sides in other people's conflicts---supporting the Afghan government against the Taliban, etc, but the US military has almost entirely stayed out of American politics.  Yes, some retired generals ran for office and won (no Admirals, sorry) the Presidency with Ike being the most recent.  Which is not very recent.  The US military has not put its thumb on the scale for any election.

In these dire times, folks were supporting this one officer who publicly protested in uniform.  To be clear, the regulations say he can protest as long as he does not wear his uniform.  Why?  Because, yes, even though this individual is a member of the military, they have the right to free speech.  What they don't have the right to do is make it appear that the military is taking a side in partisan politics.  This officer knew that, knew he was violating the regulations, and will pay a price for that.  This is civil disobedience, which I am normally ok with.  I am not ok with efforts to drag the military into politics, because it is hard to undo.  Yes, Trump is awful, and yes, the military should disobey illegal orders (like firing on civilian boats in the Caribbean), but if we start asking the military to decide who governs, when will that stop?  The best predictor of coups is the history of a country.  The US hasn't had any coups, and that is a major factor helping to prevent coups.  Break that once, and, let's how things go.  And, yes, militaries suck at governing and at engaging in partisan politics.

I finally returned to this conversation due to an incredibly bad argument in a legit outlet (which has also published bad stuff before).  The author is basically saying that the politicization of the military now is nothing new because MacArthur.  And that is just dumb for a number of reasons:

• Mac was an exceptional case where the senior theater commander defied the President on multiple occasions (and, yes, this left the troops on the ground in worse positions)
• This was not a case of the military being dragged into politics (the problem of today) but of a military officer trying to jump into politics (Mac also explored running against FDR in 1944 when he was still commanding troops in the Pacific campaign).  
• Back then, Mac was violating just one big norm. Today, Trump and Hegseth are violating piles of them (the data collection effort continues!) 
• There has been much work of late by civil-military relations scholars directly addressing politicization of the military.  This historian does his best economist imitation and ignores all of it..

To put my cards on the table, I am not an expert on the normative side of civil-military relations--what is a norm violation.  The network I have helped to create, the Civil-Military Relations Network, will be studying both the normative and analytical questions on this topic, but my research agenda is more on the absence or presence of oversight.  So, consult Risa Brooks and Christoph Harig and Pauline Kaurin and the like. But, please don't ask an historian who seems to focus on one event in the 1950s and hasn't considered what has happened since then, either by the US military and the politicians or by the scholars studying this stuff.

Oh, and yes, not all civ-mil folks buy the political/partisan distinction, but I do.   

 

 

NATO issued a six paragraph communique https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2026/07/08/the-ankara-summit-declaration A big improvement over last year's?  Sure, one para more. 

In the days of yore, I would watch folks at the expert forum side party comb through pages of paragraphs, trying to figure out what the summit addressed usually over 100 issues.  Last year's five para (with one thanking the Dutch hosts) showed that NATO can't come to consensus on much with Trump in the room. 

Let me go through the six, it won't take long.

1.  Usual language about Article 5.  This is entirely empty these days thanks to Trump 2/

There is nothing automatic about A5.  An attack only is an attack if the allies can get consensus.  Trump again demonstrated that while he is around consensus is more than elusive. 

2.  More spending on defense.  This is progress on last year's promise of getting to 3.5% of GDP. 

It does not mean that the alliance agreed to anything new here. But it does reflect less griping about burden sharing. To be clear, Trump will take credit for NATO countries spending more.  And he is right but not in the way he thinks--countries are realizing they will have to fight w/o US

3.  A stronger Europe in NATO.  More language about spending more on defence, modernizing.  Again, does not reflect any new agreement.

4. The Ukraine section: more pledges to give Ukraine money 4 Ukr to invest in its defense and to pay to buy US weapons (US doesn't donate anymore) 5/

Z seems to have done well in his meeting with Trump, but that won't necessarily stick.  I do think that the more Ukraine appears to be winning the war, the more Trump will have a positive attitude.  He always joins the winning side.

5.  The Iran para. No consensus except it would be nice if Iran didn't get nuclear weapons and we'd like to have the strait open. 

6.  The para thanking Turkey.

In sum, the alliance really didn't agree to much, but it survived another Trump summit, so there's that. Maybe summit less often?  ‪Summits are supposed to be like conferences for academics--to force folks to get their work done.  But this summit, like last year's, didn't get NATO members to agree to much. 

NATO has always been a defensive alliance, but the meaning is different now: the threat to its existence is the US.  The allies are trying to keep the alliance intact until the next president, but they have learned that the US will elect every 4-8 years a unilateralist as president (Bush jr, Trump and then Trump again).  Trump does everything he can to erode NATO credibility. 

I keep asking whether NATO is better off with or without the US. With the US, it has capability but little credibility.  W/o the US, it has more credibility but much less capability. 

 So, 3 cheers for the alliance surviving another summit.  And three boos for the tyranny of low expectations.

London Regains The Lead: Fave Capital Again

 I have spent the last week in London, the first time in 14 years and only the second time since my seven week experience after my junior year in college.  I was here for the very first Civil-Military Relations Network workshop (or any other endeavor of our new network/grant), as Phil Lagassé is leading our Command research agenda.  The workshop featured historians and political scientists, so we can check our inter-disciplinary convo item on our goals/aspirations immediately.  The first day featured the historians, and so I learned much about the Romans and medieval military stuff. The second day mostly featured the political scientists. It was a great start for our seven year tour exploring strange old worlds and boldly going where we have sometimes gone before.

And, yes, it was also an excuse for me to enjoy London.  Much has changed since I last was here and much has not.  I had previously ranked London behind DC for my fave capital since everything on and near the Mall is quite spectacular, including the Smithsonian, the various war memorials, and such. But London's Whitehall area is pretty spectacular and hasn't been ruined by the awful pols who have led this place since Brexit.  

One key element was the timing--not so much the fourth of July of it--always interesting to be outside of the US on that date, including #250--but that the big huge Pride day was Saturday.  So, the city had pride flags all over the place, and, yes, many of them included stripes and such for Trans People despite the increased (since 2012) of Harry Potter merch and such.  JK Rowling may have greatly influenced the horrific transphobia of the UK, but she didn't make a dent on Saturday or in the week leading up to it.  I was staying near Trafalgar Square, which was the focal point of the celebration although there were parks all over the place with events.  It was maybe harder to find a shop or pub without a pride decoration than with one... but maybe that is my confirmation bias speaking.

The city was packed before the event and then more so on the day.  Luckily, I was here in between heat waves. I visited some places I had been before and some that were new to me.  I mostly walked since I was so close to many things, and I had an old Oyster card that I could use for a few tube rides.  I also took a boat ride for my very first time (I had a very strict budget way back in 1987).  

So, some highlights and then some observations:

• I spent a lot of time near Covent Garden.  I had some excellent tapas in the garden itself and shopped some of the markets. I didn't stay long to watch the buskers, but they were busy and entertaining.
• I walked through Westminster Abbey, which I hadn't done since 1987 (long lines, I think in my two previous 2000s visits).  Always impressive, so much history there, including some recent--markers if not graves?  for Sir Laurence Olivier and  John Gielguld, for example.
• On Saturday, I escaped the crowds by going to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, my first time that far east of London.  Some amazing history and science of which I knew not previously.  The National Maritime Museum is next door, and that, too, was fascinating.  
• I then took a boat to go back, stopping off at the Globe Theatre stop.  I walked from there to the Borough Yards/Market to check that out.  The going was challenging as the walk to and the area itself were crowded.  I passed by at least four groups of folks wearing silly stuff and dancing and singing (see below).  I then checked out the Tate Modern, as I prefer modern art. Some installations were simply breathtaking.
• On Sunday, I went to the Imperial War Museum, which I must have done before but don't remember so clearly.  The WWI stuff was fantastic--very informative and very engaging.  There was an entire floor dedicated to the Holocaust, with an emphasis on the micro and the macro.  They did an excellent job of connecting individuals to the horror but also depicting the scale of the horror.  Going through that at a time of rising anti-semitism around the world (thanks, Bibi) and Nazis marching on the fourth of July, everything here resonated even more than usual.   
• I then grabbed lunch and went to The Truth, a comedy about ... infidelity.  It was hilarious as the writing was terrific and so were the performances.  In my first trip to London, long ago, I went to farces as the Brits do them so well.  Last time, I saw Avenue Q, which was wonderfully profane and uproarious.  They didn't have the usual farces, and there were no Hamilton tickets available around the 4th, but I am more than happy with what I chose.  Simply an incredibly funny show, with four actors doing amazing work.  I highly recommend.

Now onto some observations:

• I don't think I have seen more student groups on weekends going to museums.  And these students came from near and far.  
• The food scene is amazing. I ate Indonesian, Malaysian, India, Burmese, and pub.  One of my iron rules of travel is if there is decently rated Indonesian food, I get it since I can't get it at home.  Indeed, the "can't get it at home" explains my restaurant choices and my choices of which dishes most of the time.  The pub food was pretty terrific, so even English food was quite good.  I specialized in meat pies, and that worked out well for me.
• The ice cream scene is even more amazing.  I simply don't remember there being so much excellent ice cream here.  Maybe it was the heat or maybe an invasion of gelato stores?
• I really don't remember the pub scene being this well attended in previous visits. Each evening, the streets were packed with people outside of pubs. My previous visits were roughly the same time of year, so I can't explain it via weather.
•  Speaking of booze, the garden pub/bar scene rivaled Berlin's.  The walk along the southern side of the Thames had heaps of both permanent and temporary booze gardens, with numerous screens set up so folks could watch Wilmbedon and the World Cup.  
• I had a chance to have a cup of coffee with a friend from summer camp.  My camp imported British and Israeli folks to be counselors, so I have a few folks I know in the UK.  It was great to Joe and learn what he was upto over the past, gulp, 40 years.  This reminds me that this summer is the 40th anniversary of my last summer at camp and, yes, the 50th anniversary of my first as I went from 1976 (shortly after the bicentennial celebrations) to 1986.  As longtime readings of this blog may remember, that place left a huge dent on me.  I tried to go back this summer, but that didn't work out. Anyhow, great to see Joe and hear about the other British folks and how they experienced that place.

I kept marveling at how lucky I am.  My career has given me so many opportunities to travel, to learn so much about the history and food of all these places, to meet great people, and just see stuff.  As I head into the final stretch of my career--six years left--I will make sure I appreciate it all.  There were plenty of bumps along the way, and except for the first post-grad school stop, none of the places I worked were in my imagination long ago.  Each step did lead to the next, but not in any way I could have predicted.  I started out with an interest in international conflict, which led me away and then to civil-military relations.  And that move has been so very fruitful for me--leading to yet more travel.  The current project may produce one or two more bursts of fieldwork, but is nearly complete.  So, I am spending the summer writing a grant for the next project while trying to complete the current one. Yes, the next one involves much travel again.  As I always say, better to be lucky than good :)   That the divvying up of the fieldwork with an expert on Westminster countries has meant fewer trips to London than I would like is, well, the right thing to do. Glad I could sneak in this trip as part of a different project---again, I am very lucky.

Aforementioned dancer

=2=

I got the hat as United 
didn't get my my bag until
middle of my second day
and I needed to protect my head

Battle of Britain monument

Covent Garden

Standing astride the Prime Meridian

The Royal Astronomer used to live in 
the Observatory, including the guy 
whose name got attached to Halley's comet.
Apparently, he was not as precise as the
others so much of his work was tossed out. 

    

250 Years and 24: The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

I am in London, having finished a two day Civil-Military Relations Network workshop, our very first, on Command.  Run by Phil Lagassé, it considered from many angles and all over history what it means to command a military and who has the authority and such.  The moment resonated quite a bit for many reasons:

• that Phil couldn't get any Americans who specialize in this kind of stuff because they wanted to be home during the big annivesary
• that No Kings conflicts with the reality of the US being more monararchic than most constitutional monarchies (Phil's argument)
• my first time being in the place the US rebelled from in quite sometime, with the first visit to London was 39 years ago around this time.
• the utter incompetence of the Great American Fair creating much schadenfreude from a greater distance.

Dan Drezner has a great post about how things are awful now, but have been at every 50 year marker in US history. It is most instructive, especially given how much of a betrayal of the civil war was 1877.  I do remember 1976--the celebration, not so much the post-Watergate/Vietnam moment.  It was a big summer for me, as I went to summer camp for the first time two weeks after the bicentennial.  It was a strange summer for the US--an election year where one candidate was an unelected President who pardoned Nixon, who, in turn, committed what might be considered a typical day of Trump work.  

Drezner's piece has a note of optimism--that the US made some big leaps in progress in between 50 year markers.  I can't help but be more pessimistic in this moment.  As a friend put it, how can the US recover when the Republicans do not believe in democracy?  I worry that the GOP will do damage either in 2026 or in 2028 to subvert elections.  Given that they tried in 2020, that Trump pardoned those who sought to help him, that the court has given Trump immunity, why wouldn't they try to prevent the Dems from taking power.

I also worry that the Dems, if they get back into power, might not do what it takes--packing the court, admitting DC as a state, taxing the crap out of billionaires, breaking up the big tech companies, prosecuting the criminals of Trump 2.0.  The bright spot right now is that the Dem primaries are producing fighters who will push hard.  I do  hope that the rest of the Dems get the message.  I do believe that the 2028 primary election will involve dems outbidding each other to undo Trump's destruction, but I am not sure that enough fighters will be elected to support the changes that must be made.

I did hear from some folks who say that the Dems can't fight fire with fire, but giving into the GOP and being bipartisan helped get us here.  There will be no reforms without unpacking the court, and the Dems need to improve representation so that, yes, the GOP can't get back into power without expanding its appeal to beyond white folks and those betraying their groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc).  Who radicalized me?  Mitch McConnell.  

Anyhow, on the anniversary of 250 years of the US Declaration of Independence, I am most worried.

On the other hand, I was busy traveling so I missed posting about my 24th Canada Day in Canada.  Canada has been very, very good to me.  It rescued me from West Texas, where I would probably have been fired by now given attitudes there about academic freedom.  I have had much success here--fun books, heaps of grant-funded travel, several big grants to fund a series of terrific networks, two cool jobs, amazing access to folks in and near government, great colleagues, twenty years of awesome ultimate, much improvement on the slopes, and more.  

Canadian politics is not as broken as American politics, but, yes, we can see it from here.  Federalism is broken as the feds get blamed when the provincial leaders do their best to break pretty much everything.  The current government is pretty right wing for a center-left party--central bankers are not hippies, as it turns out.  But we have dodged having a Trump wannabe serve as Prime Minister--our own bad faith actor.   

ultimately, I place my hope on the fact that the US has always managed to recover from its lowest lows.  The majority of Americans support the right things (except for trans rights, as the demonizing of a fragile minority has gotten so much support from folks who shouldn't --NYT!), and the elections since Nov 2024 have been a rejection of Trump.  But I am not sure the institutions and the votes will matter... I hope so, but I am just not sure.

Sorry for this American birthday post being so depressing..... 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles 2: Electric Bugaloo

 It does not take an IR scholar or an historian to note the significance of Donald Trump signing onto a "deal" with Iran while he's at Versailles, site of the treaty that temporarily ended WW1 and set up WW2.  I have a few thoughts to add to this perfect illustration of how dumb and tragic this war has been:

The costs here are understated:

• Trump alienated allies by starting this war without giving notice.  So, it not only led to physical destruction in the neighborhood, but also harmed US relations with them.  Even Canadians were harmed since Iran hit a Canadian base in the region.
• Probably putting off any chance for the Iranian people to either put pressure on their government to reform or to get it to collapse.  The US killed potential replacements to the regime and ultimately produced a government that is probably more radical than the last.
• How many Iranians paid with their lives for Trump to get this inferior deal? 
• The US engaged in war crimes, including the recent attacks on water plants, which is significant stain that will have consequences. 
• Speaking of war crimes, this war deepened the crisis in US civil-military relations because Trump and Hegseth got the military to do some pretty awful things here.
• The cost to countries around the world of higher oil prices is not just in "global financial costs" but starving in some countries and energy crises that may have increased their vulnerability in others (the Philippines had much reduced capacity to patrol at sea and in the air to push back at China).
• Trump made the Chinese alternative more attractive--who is the reasonable country and who is the out of control aggressor now?
• Higher oil prices also help Russia.
•  The US not only depleted its stocks of missiles and smart bombs but also lost a number of expensive and relatively scarce planes--AWACS planes and tankers.
• Note that this chart does not include the costs in Lebanon.  This war gave Israel permission and space to engage in yet further unwarranted and unproductive brutality towards people who have had nothing to do with the crimes committed against Israel on October 7th, 2023.
• US gave up its role in maintaining freedom of the seas and taught every country that owns one half of a strait that they could use that geographic advantage to charge tolls for passage.  The post WW2 prosperity depended on this ability for trade to flow freely.  On the bright side, maybe China will replace the US to maintain the flow?  Oh, wait, that's not good news. 
• The big criticism of the original Iran deal, the JCPOA, was that it didn't affect Iran's missile capabilities.  No deal to limit that.  Now we have Republicans saying that the Iranians can just keep their missiles for their own defense.  So, the Party of Bad Faith betrays one of their major talking points about how bad the Obama deal was.   
• The other claim the anti-JCPOA folks kept making is that it did nothing to stop Iranian support for terrorism.  Um, and this deal did?  Nope. 

I could go on--there is no upside for this war.  Trump gave away the store and a lot more for a deal that is far inferior to one that Obama got via diplomacy.  This is all so tragic and stupid.  Remember one of the claims folks made was that they voted in 2024 for the candidate promising no more wars....  

 

NATO Is Not Dead, It is Just Pining For the Fjords

 I have been arguing that the heart of NATO, Article V, has been dead for since January 2025.  It took a while for the Europeans to believe it:

Anton Hofreiter, a German lawmaker, said: “NATO’s main problem is that, as long as Trump is president, there is no longer any faith that the U.S. would come to the Europeans’ aid in the event of an emergency.”  NYT

 This quote comes from an article discussing how much US military capability is being withdrawn from Europe:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

The most important piece here are the tankers--a scarce capability.  I am waiting for the big shoe to drop--how much army stuff will be moved out, because that stuff is harder to bring back quickly.  The rest could be returned to Europe in a crisis. 

First, we have to remember that the US deployment to Europe is not altruism.  The US has long benefited from stability in Europe AND using Europe as a platform for operations elsewhere (the Mideast).  

Second, deterring Russia is still an important thing--that pivoting from Europe seemed cool in 2013 but not since.  

Third, sure, the US should pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but Trump does not seem that concerned.  He has been willing to waste not just years of missiles and other ammunition but risk and lose a bunch of planes for the Iran war, which, last I checked, is not in the Indo-Pacific.  Plus Trump's statements on Taiwan raise questions about how sincere any move to the Indo-Pacific might be. 

Sure, the Europeans are investing in their militaries now--less because of Trump's hectoring and more because of the Russian threat and American unreliability.  But the Americans have always been the glue.  Can Europe count on the UK?  The UK Defence Minister just quit, so maybe not.  Can Europe count on Germany?  Not yet.  Still unproven and still lacking readiness. Can Europe count on France?  Putting elections down the road aside, it sure seems like that is the best port in this storm--many countries are now developing nuclear sharing agreements with France, something unimaginable only a few years ago.  France has finally deployed some troops to the Baltics (Canada leads in Latvia because France was too busy elsewhere to put troops there), so there is a bit of a French tripwire now.  

A European replacement for NATO is now imaginable but would be much weaker--the US simply has too many unique capabilities, has the most effective military (although politicization of it is reducing that), and has quantity as well as quality.  So, now, the best deterrent of Russian aggression in Europe is ... Ukraine, which is keeping the Russians pinned down.  

Trump is tossing away American influence and limiting future American choices while alienating allies.  And for what?  Not much.  The dealmaker continues to throw away bargaining chips.

and for the title reference, kids, check out this sketch

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bad Faith Actor Dictating Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

The State of US-Canadian Relations, June 2026

 Lots of stuff happening the past week or two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowdsourcing Civ-Mil Violations

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Public Commentary at a Dangerous Time

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

Lama is a terrific
teacher

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

James simply rocks

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

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

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

Dean Mary Francoli giving 
me the award

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

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

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

Happy to share the spotlight 
with NPSIA hotshot Lama Mourad

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

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

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