Crowdsourcing Civ-Mil Violations

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recognizing Public Commentary at a Dangerous Time

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

Lama is a terrific
teacher

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

James simply rocks

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

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

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

Dean Mary Francoli giving 
me the award

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

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

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

Happy to share the spotlight 
with NPSIA hotshot Lama Mourad

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

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

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

Chile 2: Deja Dos

The llamas were greedy
but sweet.

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

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

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

really sweet boutique vineyard 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

Valparisio had many, many amazing murals

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

Great sunset from top of tallest building in S. America

No skiing but still did a gondola over the big park

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