The Purge Continues: Cold, Multilateral Edition

 In the aftermath of JD Vance's visit to the US base in Greenland, we learn that it is a multilateral base.  How so?  The commander of that unit, Colonel Susan Myers, sent an email to everyone under her to indicate that things at the base are going well and that the Canadians and Danes within the unit should feel part of the team. 

"I commit that, for as long as I am lucky enough to lead this base, all of our flags will fly proudly -- together,"

And then she got fired.  The hacks and around the Trump Administration will say she is too woke and that she was insubordinate.  The challenge is: what was she supposed to do?  This is a dilemma facing any officer who has a multinational command--how to keep your non-Americans included when the US turns in a unilateral direction?  Dave and I started our NATO in Afghanistan book seeking to understand how commanders balance having responsibilities to two chains of command--the national one and the multilateral one.  While they often point in the same direction, that is not always the case.  We quickly realized the national one almost always matters more since the homeland shapes promotion of the officer, most of the assets they have, and so on.

As it turns out, sometimes the commander acts more on the basis of the multilateral mission.  Myers cared more about her troops and unit cohesion (see below) than she did about her career.  Not all colonels become generals--most do not--but now she will find herself seeking a new job, I guess.  It is bad for her and bad for the force, as it teaches everyone in the military that subservience to the partisan stances of the administration are more important for one's career than doing the assigned mission well.  

Michael Robinson wrote a great book about how politicization of the military can put the officers into damned if you, damned if you don't situations.  This ain't the first one of this administration, and it ain't the last.  Standing still and not doing anything, as Rush reminds us, is still a choice.  Myers could have said nothing and would have appeared complicit with Vance's statement.  Just like if the Army had said nothing when Trump's campaign team violated the rules at Arlington National Cemetery or if the generals and admirals were silent after Charlottesville (condemning racism is only controversial for the racists, but alas, that is now who governs).  With the political system shifting, the military, even if it stands still, appears to be moving, according to Robinson.  It is up to the civilians not to put the military into these situations--but the Trump administration wouldn't recognized responsibility if it walked up to them and said hi.

One of the ironies here is that unit cohesion is usually cited by the intolerant.  It refers to the aim of keeping a unit together so that it can be more effective.  It is often cited by those who don't want Black people integrated in the military or women in the military or LGBTQ+ people in the military--that their presence will disrupt the cohesion of the unit, which will make it harder for that platoon or ship or squadron to cooperate in the face of the enemy.  But, of course, the real threat to unit cohesion was always the intolerant.  

Here, the threat to unit cohesion is the Trump Administration.  That Vance's presence and speech and the entire discourse aimed against the allies threatens to disrupt multilateral efforts around the world.  In Greenland, there are Canadians and Danes in what was Myers's command, and she had to take seriously how to make them feel part of the common mission in the aftermath of Vance's divisive appearance.  The same goes for American commanders in Europe who have NATO countries contributing to their units.  The same goes for the American commander in South Korea who in an emergency would not just command all the Americans in and near South Korea but all South Korean troops.  And on and on.  It may not have been Vance's intent, but, again, the irresponsible rarely recognize when they are doing damage to relationships.

This may not be a problem for a unilateralist administration who has been discussing the possibility of no longer having an American officer serve as the top military official in NATO (SACEUR).  Trump and his team don't play well with others and don't want to play with others.  So, we are going to see more of this at the expense of American influence, power, and security.  Congress often resisted having Americans serve under foreigners because they didn't trust them--so nearly every NATO mission with the exception of KFOR (the Kosovo mission) had an American at the top.  That will end soon, alas.  

Myers had two strikes against her--she's a woman and she believed in her mission.  The longer this goes on (and it will go on), the more officers in the US military leave, are pushed out, or conform to the administration's various dictates.  I am not saying civilian control of the military is at risk, but that the effectiveness of the military is. That is what happens when one politicizes the force, when promotion is not based on merit but on fealty to the autocrat. We know this from the comparative study of autocratic militaries (Talmadge/Roessler/etc).  Another irony---those who complain that DEI gets in the way of merit promote those who are not meritorious but are loyal (Hegseth) and fire those who are doing their jobs well because they are not sufficiently loyal--Myers today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti, Commander of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and so on.

Those in the military will look at those who are promoted and wonder what partisan machinations they engaged in to get promoted, rather than think about their military records.  This will breed disrespect and distrust.  And it will be very, very hard to undo if there is ever a chance to do so.  Norms take generations to build, days to destroy.  Respect takes much time to be earned, but distrust can happen in a heartbeat.

We know that Trump and his ilk disrespect service, given his past blatherings about not respecting those captured in war or those wounded in combat.  So, please do not take seriously any concerns by Trump, Vance, or Hegseth that Myers or others like her are "too partisan" to be in the military.  The military does need to subject to civilian control and strong oversight, but what it does not need are loyalty tests to the individuals at the top. Do they need to be loyal to offices at the top?  Sure.  But not to any one man.

 

 

 

Steve As Fake Economist: Maybe not as Dumb As the Wannabe Oligarchs?

 I am not an economist, but so much of what is going on these days is due to faulty understandings of basic economics, so even my level of understanding may be sufficent.

I just wanted to highlight a few things that bluesky conversations forced me to think about.

First, there is the discussion of the chances of a recession happening in 2025.  In my humble opinion, the probability is not 25% or 50% but 100%.  That is, it is a certainty because IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.  A recession is when the economy shrinks as opposed to growing.  The formal definition is when it happens for two quarters.  

Will there be less economic activity this year?  There already is less and it will continue.  That cutting hundreds of thousands of government jobs AND cutting heaps of money from flowing to various actors (cities, states, universities, etc) will reduce the economic activity.  Plus, yes, multiplier effects--those restaurants and other services that benefit from having fully operating universities, states, cities, think tanks, etc will be doing less, buying less, spending less.  

This is before we get to the tariffs, which have already started to hit the economy--that firms are pausing production because they really don't know what their inputs will cost nor will they know what kinds of prices they can charge if they hope to export into markets that are, yes, raising their prices due to retaliatory tariffs.  

The only way to avoid a recession--the technical definition--is if somehow all of this temporary for one quarter and no more than that.  Guess what?  Trump is not going to reverse all of the Musking and DOGE-ing of the government, and no matter what happens with the tariffs, it will have stirred up too much uncertainty to magically erase within one quarter.  This recession is likely to last a long time precisely because this administration does not believe in standard macroeconomics.  But standard macroeconomics believes in it--spend less money, people will buy less, economic activity will slow.  Tax cuts on the very rich may prop up some investments, but they don't actually generate as much economic activity as argued--it does not trickle down.  

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned what Trump is doing to agriculture by keeping out migrant workers or what he is doing to tourism, a very big industry, due to the fear of being disappeared.  

So, that's the first thing I wanted to get off my chest.

The second is this: before the election, business folks had to consider who would be better for them: the guy who promised tax cuts and deregulation or the woman who wasn't going to raise tariffs or create a tremendous amount of uncertainty.  It seems like most of them chose the former and not the latter.

This was, in a word, dumb.  Why?  American businesses already pay very little tax, and rich people pay historically low taxes still.  And they can evade much of it.  Yes, regulation is annoying, but if they want to export to the EU, then they will face regulations there anyway. Plus they can price in penalties and figure out ways to dodge or cheat on the regs.

What they can't finesse are trade wars or uncertainty.  Uncertainty is an absolute killer except for those who can wager on it.  For most businesses, having predictable political and economic situations is basic for making investment decisions and for good operations.  Maybe the Silicon Valley types who have fallen in love with disruption think they don't need either inputs from abroad (or to sell stuff abroad) or stable environments, but pretty much every other actor in the economy relies on foreign inputs, foreign markets, and stable situations.  

So, now, they are fucked.  Unfortunately, so are we.   

Yes, we have short-term-itis among business people--that the focus is on today's market price and not tomorrow's profits. I get that.  But damn, tomorrow turned out to be today, not five years from now.  

Again, what angers me so much is that it didn't have to be this way--just like the Brits stupidly chose Brexit, which was predictably dumb, much of American business chose Trump focusing on tax cuts and deregulation and wishful thinking away the tariffs, the trade wars, the uncertainty, the cheap labor provided by immigrants.  

Will this lead to Trump's undoing?  Maybe eventually, but as long as the GOP fears Musk's money going to primary candidates and Trump siccing his mob on those who disagree with him, I doubt that the GOP will find their backbone.  Maybe the media will stop providing cover for this as people become increasingly outraged.  So, the pain has come quickly, but I don't think it will go away anytime too soon. 

Sorry to be a doomblogger, but at this point, things just suck mightily.  The protests have already made a difference as Democrats are starting to block stuff, and most elections have gone Dem since November.  But the only way out is through--impeachment won't get rid of Trump, and if it did, we'd have Vance.  

The Purge Continues: Cyber Edition

 Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency General Timothy Haugh, who is also double hatted as head of Cyber Command.  I went on a long rant on bluesky, which I will mostly replicate here.  As military folks like to BLUF--bottom line up front--just like every other institution in the US, the military is being broken.  Making fealty to the mad king will undermine effectiveness in a number of ways.  

First, some basics: to be clear, the military is always a political actor and subject to the political dynamics of a country.  It goes back to Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means--and the basic definition of politics which focuses on any kind of decision-making that affects the public, especially the allocation of money and other stuff.  Being partisan is something else entirely.  We used to have American generals refuse to vote because that they wanted to be neutral.  In the past 30 years, some of that has broken down as retired admirals and generals began to endorse candidates, playing upon the perception that they were speaking for the active forces.  But it was not inevitable that we would get here.

During Trump 1.0, many norms (standards of appropriate behavior), were violated repeatedly.

• Trump announced the Muslim ban from the part of the Pentagon paying tribute to various heroes
• Trump kept referring to the senior officers as "my generals"
• Trump blamed the generals and admirals if things went awry rather than owning things--the buck never stopped with him
• Trump used the military to deal with protestors and wanted to do it more violently--"Can't they shoot the protestors in the leg?"
• Trump pardoned war criminals

 It got to the point where scholars of civil-military relations, who usually try to avoid advocating for any military disobedience, were tempted to root for some.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the senior leadership spoke out in favor of a diverse force and for tolerance.  This was seen as being partisan--because it could be viewed as an implicit critique of Trump's take on the event.  But not speaking up would have been seen as complicit. 

This is where Michael Robinson's work fits in--he wrote a great book that argues that even if the military stands still, if the observers are moving, the military will be seen as moving either towards or away--that they will be dragged into partisan politics--politicization--even if they resist it.  

As I discussed a few weeks ago, when Milley retired and spoke out about how the military serves the country and not a wannabe dictator, it was pretty clear that what might otherwise be a banal statement was a criticism of Trump.

The firing of Haugh is yet another dead canary in the coalmine (that coalmine must be packed with dead canaries at this point).  A few things stand out.  He is a white man, so the previous purge was perhaps just racist and misogynist (note I am not approving--I am incredibly angry) as Trump fired one Black general and two women four star officers. One could argue (foolishly) that this was not aimed at creating a submissive class of officers.   By firing Haugh, it is abundantly clear loyalty to Trump is the only criteria that matters.

And who decides?  Laura Loomer, who is a far right agitator.  She was briefly banned by social media for being racist.  It is quite notable that this firing happened basically at the same time as several people were purged from the National Security Council for not being sufficiently Trumpian.   

It will not stop here as Trump's fundamental insecurity produces an unquenchable thirst for loyalists.  He won't ever be confident in the loyalty of whichever people he promotes to admiral or general.  His own disloyalty gets projected in every direction.

And this happens as we have already seen many disturbances in the force--banning books at the Naval Academy, the commandant of the US Air Force Academy pondering firing civilian profs, civ-mil conferences cancelled at the Army War College. 

This will produce a less effective force.  Those who get promoted will be seen as less qualified, less meritorious, as they will be viewed as moving up due to their partisan loyalty.  The civ-mil literature shows quote clearly that when you promote on the basis of loyalty, you get bad results-Talmadge, Roessler, etc.  This will create dissension and friction within as unit cohesion will break.   [Any time a military seeks to include the previously excluded--Black Americans, gays and lesbians, trans people, the intolerant argue that this is bad for unit cohesion, and a coherent unit is necessary for battlefield success.  It turns out that the real problem are the intolerant people, as the diverse armed forces of the world have proven to be most effective.]

An officer corps of yes-men (and yes, I do mean men) may make it easier to issue orders to invade Mexico or shoot at Americans, but with disrupted unit cohesion, it will be more likely that the military will not engage in such efforts in unison--and those divides might become violent.

The only winners in all of this are those countries seen by normal people as America's adversaries--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc. 

Just like the tariffs, this is all so unnecessary, so destructive, so costly to so many individuals as well as to the country and to those who used to be America's allies.  

So that is my angry civ-mil riff du jour as another general is tossed for appearing to be not sufficiently loyal to the mad king. 

 

Big Man, Big Heart

This week, we found out that Brandon Valeriano died.  It is quite gutting as he had such a terrific spirit, and he was too damned young.  Brandon stood out from the crowd at all the conferences as he was literally bigger than most of us, and he was also one of the very few Latinos in the field of IR. But mostly he stood out because he was always surrounded by the large groups of friends and mentees he had amassed over the years, as he had so much love and friendship to give.  So his passing is a huge loss to all of us.

Notice that there are no chips in front of
Brandon. This was not an outlier.

I was mostly a conference pal with Brandon.  I would see him twice a year--once at the American Political Science Association meeting and once at the International Studies Association meeting.  I didn't see him this year as I missed the most recent ISA, and now I regret not having a last chance to hang
out with him.  I first met Brandon at the poker games we have been having at these two conferences since the early 1990s.  He joined us when he was fresh out of grad school, if I remember correctly, and made a big impression.  Brandon was simply fun to be with.  He had a great sense of humor, and he also laughed loudly and with gusto (although his laugh was never as piercing as some of his fellow poker players).  He was, well, a lousy poker player, which made him, of course, more welcome.  He simply didn't care about the low stakes games--he was far more focused not on the cards but on the players--not their strategies but their lives and stories.  

Brandon could have easily not fit in.  He was much younger than most of us.  He was single while the rest of us were mostly not (of course, his single life made him far more interesting to the rest of us).  But he was so very sweet and funny that once he joined us, he quickly belonged and became not just a regular, but a crucial member of the group.  The games in the future will not be the same without him.

As a result of the semi-annual game, we became friends.  We didn't chat that often between conferences, but we kept in touch via the usual outlets of social media.  Through the poker games and through our other correspondence, I learned how much love he had to give.  I loved that he was such a big guy but had such a teeny dog who became a focus for his affection.  He talked much of his family, and one of the great tragedies of the timing of his passing is that he was just about to start a new job in his beloved home of LA.  

One repeated theme in his social media was hunting for food in LA that he could not get in Scotland and elsewhere.  One of the things we bonded over was our dissatisfaction with the challenge of academic life--not having a lot of choice about where one lives.  He enjoyed Glasgow (more below), but it was so far from home and from decent ingredients for the food he loved the most.  I have been thinking of him a lot lately, as I can't get decent tortilla chips in Berlin.

We also bonded over our shared love of tv and pop culture.  Some of my non-poli sci friends remembered him from the games I set up via social media during the last seasons of Lost and Game of Thrones. We agreed on much stuff, but I remember him pushing me on both Band of Brothers and The Pacific--the lack of Latino representation in those World War II shows. He had family that had served during the war, and he had been proud of them, and was disappointed that these shows didn't feature people like them.  

Jaroslav and Brandon as
we wander through Glasgow.

The one time I got to see Brandon outside of a big conference was at a smaller conference in Glasgow.  He got me invited to be a participant in a conference on Scottish separatism before the referendum in the mid 2010s, and we made the most of it.  He introduced me and Jaroslav Tir to his favorite place to drink.  We rented a car, and he made me drive, and we drove through the Highlands.  On the wrong side of very narrow roads.  At no time did he panic, even when I once entered a traffic circle the wrong way.  The three of us had a great time wandering through this beautiful landscape.  Which reminds me that we both had a travel bug, another shared interest.

 

The start of Brandon's career was difficult as his home institution blew up (no fault of his own), but he managed not only to survive but thrive and succeed so very well.  He was one of the first political scientists to study cyber-security, writing a series of books and many articles.  While that area is far from my own, I can tell that his work there was quite well respected not simply because of the citations, but the invitations--to be  a fellow at multiple places.  What I appreciated most about his work was that he could have been a threat inflater--making it seem like the world would end soon due to cyber war--but he pushed back against that, developing a reputation for measured, serious analysis.  It was clear that the most important part of the job for Brandon was mentoring.  I met a number of junior scholars who had worked with Brandon, and they all had so much appreciation for him.

Over time, Brandon branched out, examining the international relations of sport, pop culture and IR (another shared interest), and the role of race and ethnicity in international relations.  One way to get to  know Brandon is to check out his old posts at Duck of Minerva.  It was a great place for him to share not just his IR but his other interests in very accessible pieces.  I will be going though some of them in the next few days.

A few years ago, Brandon had a heart attack while in Mexico and nearly died.  He joked about it, but it has been clear the past few years that he was not healthy.  I had thought things were getting better--that he was in better shape--but clearly not so much.  People are stunned at the news of his death because he was such a vital person, so full of love and humor.  We are now very sad for we lost a friend who had such a big heart.  My condolences go out to these friends and his family.

Security Clearances Fiasco 2: Another Bugaloo

 I wrote this piece a few years ago about how serious it is not to store classified documents seriously.  This week, the story is not documents but a group chat via an insecure system.  Lovely.  Now, the bullshit artists are trying to claim that the info was not classified.  Sure.  First, to be clear, the key official with authority to declassify stuff can't just say stuff was declassified after it is revealed that the info was mishandled.  There is a process by which stuff is declassified, and this ain't it.  

Ok, how does classification work?  Let's see what I remember (I learned this stuff my first week 20+ years ago and is very much burned in my head since, well, it was the only stuff that might have led to jail if I screwed up).

 Any document (and yes, a group chat counts) has a number of pieces of information.  Each bit of info, each clause or paragraph gets its own rating, so that a document may consist of unclassified stuff, some confidential info, some secret, and some top secret stuff:

(C)  Indicated confidental

(U) Unclassified

(S)  Secret

(TS) Top secret.

I guess there would also be either SCI--for need to know, compartmentalized info, but, guess what?  Since I wasn't cleared for SCI, I never saw any SCI stuff.  I inferred that mostly involved Special Ops or NSA stuff, but that is just a guess.

Anyhow, there are other classifications: NOFORN for not to be released to foreigners, NATO Only to be released to NATO countries, SFOR only to be released to countries participating in the NATO stabilization mission in Bosnia.. which included the Russians so not much secrety stuff there,  and so on.

 The key is that when a doc has a bunch of different info at varying levels of secrecy, the entire doc is rated at the level of the most secret piece.  So, a doc with lots of open source info having one bit of Top Secret in it would be classified as Top Secret.

Guess what a war plan consists of?  Heaps of Top Secret stuff.  For the Houthis group chat texts, the most secret thing there is probably the reference to the targeting of an individual.  We can't be certain of how they did that, but it probably involved a human source, given the context.  Guess who needs to know that?  Damned few people, and definitely not those on this chat.  So, probably TS/SCI--top secret, sensitive compartmentalized info.   You know what the opposite of compartmentalized is?  A 19 person chat on insecure channels.  

So, don't buy any excuse this assholes give--they were reckless because they were trying to show each other how tough they are, how cool they are.  So, they broke heaps of rules ... and laws.  But since their boss did so quite flagrantly, and since he pardons his loyalists, they can act with impunity. This is what impunity looks like.  A shit show.

Can Militaries Save Us From Democratic Backsliding?

 Last night, I participated in an event organized by the Canadian Embassy in Berlin and the Hertie School on what role do militaries have in arresting democratic backsliding (no, it was not taped).  While I am not an expert in this part of the civil-military relations field, I had views.  Ina Kraft from the Bundeswehr's Center on Military History and Social Science was my partner in crime.

What did I say?  Well, the bottom line up front, as the military likes, was, nope, the militaries of the world can't actively reverse backsliding, but they can try to avoid either being complicit or accelerating the demise of democracy.   In essence, do no harm. The timing, of course, was fantastic, as the attack on democracy in the US accelerates with every day, and the military has been a target of the arsonists under Trump. 

I first highlighted what backsliding usually refers to--the usurpation of power and authority by the executive from the courts and from the legislature, the undermining of the media, and unfairness in the elections.  South Korea is an example of an attempt to seize the power from the legislature, Poland is an example of manipulating the courts.  The US these days is exemplar of pretty much every form of backsliding--disobeying court orders, stealing the spending power from the legislature, attacking the media, undermining elections....  Of course, defining backsliding these ways raises the very question of exactly what do we want the military to do besides .... something!!!

I then went on to discuss the fundamentals of civ-mil--that civilian control of the armed forces is foundational to democracy, often taken for granted, that we don't want to give the military a vote on who governs.  That both we and they want to stay out of partisan politics, and that politicization refers to that very dynamic of either being dragged into or jumping into not just politics (all things military are inherently political, and not just because of Clausewitz).   I pointed out that being loyal to a constitution or to democracy sounds neutral and non-partisan except for when politicization is so rampant even such a statement about the sources of loyalty are pretty partisan:

Milley's statement here was labeled as a swipe at Trump, and, well, yeah, it was, even though it was essentially pretty basic and mundane--the US military swears an oath to the Constitution, not to a person.

My next step was to consider why do we look to the military for help.  First, in many democracies, it is the most respected institution--it performs most highly in surveys.  Of course, that is partly or mostly because it is not seen as attached to one party or another, although again politicization is making a dent in that.  Military officers are also seen as being honorable, motivated by duty to country.  Also, despite what the white supremacist SecDef desires, miltiaries are often more diverse, more representative of society than other actors (and if that diversity is handled well, it improves capability).  And, yes, militaries have power.  Mostly via the weapons they carry, but also via their legitimacy as a national institution.

So, what can/should militaries do?  They can't un-usurp.  They can't take power from the executive and return it to the courts or to the legislature.  They can't free the media.  They can seize power and then hand over power to ... someone.  The record of coups is not great for facilitating democracy.  So, I raised a few other alternatives:

• Don't obey illegal orders.   The lesson of World War II is that "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse, and democratic militaries are told that they are obligated to disobey an illegal order.  
• The question then becomes--what counts as illegal?  Who decides?  There are lawyers all over the place--civilian agencies have lawyers, miltiary units have lawyers.  But lawyers often disagree, so how do you decide which lawyers are correct?
• In my year in the Pentagon long ago, I saw the lawyers for the Secretary of Defense saying different stuff than the Joint Staff's lawyers.  So, this is not theoretical.
• Would invading Canada be illegal?  From international law, almost certainly.  From a US legal perspective, damned if I know as the war powers stuff is contested.  Both Republicans and Democrats have used force without congressional authorization.  Plus it might not be that hard for Trump to get his lackeys in Congress to sign off. 
• Would shooting at protestors be illegal?  Probably....
• How about lawful but awful?  That is, what should the military do if the president wants them to do something that would be really bad but would be legal.  
• Again, invading Canada comes to mind.  Always fun to be talking about such stuff at an event organized by the government of Canada (yes, I do love my academic freedom, good thing I don't teach at Columbia University).  One could imagine the military telling the President that this is a very bad idea.  But then he has the right to be wrong (although that norm is not as well understood or supported as civ-mil folks would like).  So, my best guess is that the US military would slow roll: hey, Mr. President, we need a plan.  Six months later, hey, Mr. President, we need to get a lot of snow tires....
• And then this might be the kind of order that some obey and some don't, which can lead to fighting within the US military.
• Or it could be the military simply refuses to fight, staying in their barracks. There are non-coup options.  
  
•  Avoid being co-opted.   Don't appear in Lafayette Square with the President after protestors are forcefully expelled, for instance.  Make statements before elections that the military has no role--of course, that can be seen as partisan in politicized times.
• Align with the opposition?  Not by fighting alongside but by endorsing.  Oh my.  Possible but would probably damage the military for a generation or two. 

To be clear, there are real limits on what the armed forces can do.  They can't create or reinforce political norms on their own.  Military leaders have no expertise when it comes to domestic politics--Milley demonstrated that in a big way.  

These choices, the politicization of the armed forces, can break a military.  Promotion may not be viewed as a merit thing but about fealty to a person. The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, plucked from retirement, will be seen as unqualified and chosen solely because he is MAGA-ish.  The irony here is clear--that these folks complain about DEI but they appoint an unqualified and disqualified SecDef and now Chairman.  Anyhow, if asked to do something truly awful like shooting at protestors or invading Canada (invading Mexico would be bad too but may not be as divisive), the military may break apart.  

Ultimately, the challenge here is that acting disobediently to save democracy can erode democracy.  To be fair to Milley, he faced awful choices.  Ones he shouldn't have had to face--most of the responsibility for the politicization of the US armed forces is on the civilians.  And the same is true in South Korea and other places.

We received a lot of good questions from the sharp Hertie students, other attendees, and moderator Julian Wucherpfennig. Preparing for the event made me think, and I am grateful to Christoph Harig, David Kuehn, and Risa Brooks for helping me get a bit smarter on this part of civ-mil.  And then the presentation by Ina and the Q&A pushed me to think harder.   I got into this business because I like being pushed to think about important, interesting stuff.  I just wish it was not so damned relevant these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pop Quiz: Dystopia Edition

 Oy, things are getting dark fast.  So, yeah, ICE and DHS and other actors are trying to make the US as unpleasant as possible for foreign folks.  So much so that they pulled apart a Canadian sister act and asked each, do you prefer the US or Canada?  If I were asked, of course, I would have to be a good academic and say: it depends.  Given my dual nationalism, of course, I have some ambivalence, as each country has good and bad things.  To preview, I am not moving to the US anytime soon, so that's a hint, but let's borrow from every sitcom including a classic Friends, and list each side's advantages or disadvantages:

US

• Bagels. Yeah, 20 plus years in Canada and ten in Montreal and I am still firmly against eating smokey bricks covered in lousy seeds.
• Milk containers. Another old argument here. 
• Dairy prices.  Oh, the dairy cartel in Canada means that milk, eggs, and butter are very expensive.
• Football.  It is no contest--Canadian football just looks silly.
• Private grant money.  Heaps of foundations.
• Abundant think tanks--lots of entities generating ideas
• Chinese food.  I guess one likes what one grows up with, but I just like the Chinese food in the US better--the wonton soup is better, the fried stuff is better.
• Summer.  Hot, sure, but I had so many great summers growing up.
• Trader Joes 
• Mexican food

 Canada

• Democratic governance.  The court, while still a political actor, is not one that makes batshit crazy stuff up.  The elections are not gamed by parties, but run by non-partisan actors.  No concerns about gerry-mandering or voter suppression.
• Egg prices... for now.  That the US is gutting all public health stuff means a lousy avian flu response, among other things.  
• Better pandemic response--mostly.  Canadians did very well on the first round of vaccines, with not so great on the latter rounds.
• Government grant money--far more money for the social sciences.  Tis been bery bery good to me.
• Ultimate.  I had fun ultimate in the US, but the city leagues in Montreal and Ottawa were great to me.
• Skiing. Whistler and Lake Louise are special.  If I had more Colorado experiences, this might be a tie. 
• Winter.  Long and cold, but heaps of snow for the aforementioned skiing.
• Legal status of LGBTQ+.  The Canadian Conservatives are doing the same transphobic shit, but are less likely to be successful. 
• Few think tanks.  More is better, but few means that the government reaches out to academics and that has been mighty good to me.

 Tied

•  Costco!
• Treatment of Indigenous people.  Genocidal in both, better now but that is just because the bar is super low.
•  Senates.  Both Senates suck but for different reasons.  Canada's is unelected so it has less power/legitimacy, but the US's is, well, an obstacle to progress.
• Governors/premiers.  Those right wing folks governing federal units suck mightily in both countries.  Danielle Smith and Doug Ford give Abbott and Desantis a run for their money. 

 

So, what do I prefer?  The hint is at the top--I am not moving back to the US--I will eventually be retiring in Ottawa.  When I first moved to Canada, I thought I would eventually return to the US.  Not any more.  My friends are concentrated in Ottawa, I enjoy living here.  The people have been great to me and my family.  It, alas, is no longer about the best ultimate communities.  And, yes, I can't imagine living in the autocratic hellscape that the US is rapidly becoming.  Way too many Americans have chosen Trump three times now.  The first time, one could blame party id and the idea that he might not do so much bad stuff.  Sicne then, WTF America? More Americans don't support him or the party of bad faith, but way too many do.  Ewwwww.

Not sure this is what I would tell some border person, but this is where I stand these days--in a sea of maple, wary of the beavers and the angry geese.