Those Wacky Italian Prime Ministers!

In my series of posts on wacky leaders, the next entry is Berlusconi. Slate has a good piece explaining why folks continue to vote for him despite (because of?) his corruption, his reputed orgies, his failed promises, etc.

While the lack of an alternative is one hypothesis, one of the keys seems to be media dominance that makes Fox look like a yapping chihuahua:

Of course, Berlusconi also has at least one tool that none of the others have: popular television. He controls three mainstream channels and various digital channels because he owns them. He also effectively controls state television because he is the prime minister.

The other explanation is that he is what Italians aspire to be--newly rich, a lover, a force in soccer, etc.

Either way, he keeps things interesting, and what more could you want from an Italian Prime Minister than that? All the Canadians have now is a dispute between the Prime Minister and the Governor General about whether the latter is head of state or not. Zzzzzz.

Another Predictable Recommendation on Afghanistan

Robert Pape has an op-ed in today's NY Times, arguing that occupation causes terrorism and that has been the increased presence of foreigners that have led to the escalation of violence. His recommendation is a small footprint and an over the horizon/offshore effort.

Two problems with this argument: the basis of the argument--Pape's statistical work--has been, well, shredded; and he asserts that we could work through the locals--renting them. But why would the locals trust us if we leave?

Canada in Afghanistan

Another short follow up today. Much speculation and confusion about Canada's role in Afghanistan after it pulls out most of its troops in 2011. The latest news suggests hat the role is to be more minimal that I had expected. The CA military will train Afghans but only on protected bases. This would be the end of CA OMLTS (omletes), which would be too bad, since these are high priority efforts towards creating a competent Afghan National Army at some risk.

And the numbers the spokesman is referring to suggests that any development done in Kandahar by the Provincial Reconstruction Team is going to have to rely on American troops or those from elsewhere--not Canadians. And that would be most problematic since the PRT might not be a priority, and so the Canadian diplomats and aid types may not be able to leave the base if there are no spare Americans/others available on any given day.

So, this is looking more and more like a token Canadian flag in Kandahar but no real effort at development/governance once the troops go home despite some grand plans. While one can debate how ISAF should go forward, we ought to be clear about what will and will not be happening post-2011. Of course, it could change after the next election, but we are unlikely to see a majority government here anytime in the near future.

NSF Follow Up

See this article for the latest on the Coburn attempt to end NSF funding for political science. We are probably wasting more bandwidth on this than it deserves as Coburn is a, ahem, loon and is unlikely to win. On the other hand, complaceny rarely leads to good things.

Coburn is apparently suggesting that this is a big decific issue--$9.3 million a year or so. Which is so silly that it is hard to fathom, and then he compares it to waterboarding. Anyone doubting his loon status (as in lunatic, not the $1 canadian coin) should consider this statement:

But Coburn said that continuing to spend taxpayer money on programs that don’t deserve it will amount to the “waterboarding” of American children.

Shouldn't take long for a journalist or political scientist to find boondoggles for Oklahoma des[ote Coburn's stands on earmarks.





Hat tip to Mrs. Spew for this link.

AQ and War in Afghanistan

Here is an extended article on Al Qaeda's links to the war in Afghanistan and the implications of a US/NATO defeat. Even if half of the stuff is true, it is quite suggestive--that the links are strong, that Biden is wrong, and that we need to do more than just counter-terrorism.

Just another argument to consider. No wonder Obama is taking his time.

Trendy Day?

After the post on trends in Z movies, I got to thinking about trends in general. We tend to cluster reality according to our own messed up sorting mechanisms. So, we often see three celebrities dying in short succession because we notice the first three that catch our eye and ignore the fourth or ignore the times when only two die.

Well, in the past couple of days, I think I have noticed a trend but cannot at all be sure--the students in my Intro to IR class were far more comfortable in sharing their anxiety about the first paper, asking questions upto the last minute. Usually, I get hit hard a few days out, and then those procrastinators do not contact me much at the last minute.

Is it the case that students are bolder in their procrastination? Did I do something to make them more comfortable about their procrastination? I did mention several times in class that I was expecting them to pull an all-nighter even though they had two weeks to write the assignment? Is it because it was due shortly after Canadian Thanksgiving so they didn't start until Tuesday (due today)? Is it because the paper topic was perhaps a bit more challenging?

I have no clue. I just am realizing that trying to figure out trends probably requires numbers. Hmmm.

The Real Pandemic: Zombie Movies

Chip Gagnon linked this piece that asserts that Zombie movie frequency follows big, depressing events like war and economic shocks.



The post then recommends that we be the judge of whether this is correlation or causation. Such an invitation I cannot resist.

The post does recognize the data limits pre-1980 and also that there are more movies being produced today, so that might flatten things some what. It is clear that Zombie stuff is a fad today, as my previous posts can certainly attest. So, there is a recent trend, but is it one that responds to events like wars and economic shocks?

1. First, one has to evaluate the categories. The dependent variable of frequency of zombie movie includes mummy movies, which is a very questionable decision. Sure, both are undead, but mummies tend not to create the same sense of panic/hysteria/apocalypse since mummy-ism is not contagious. What separates Zombies from Mummies is how much it is like a pandemic--that it spreads quickly. Vampires and Werewolves also spread their illness via biting, but the former are quite selective in their prey and the latter are only active for a short time each month. Zack is unique, relatively. I don't know how frequent mummy movies are so I am not sure how much this affects the trends.
2. Second, continuing on categories, the definition of an event seems pretty broad--depression, prague spring, Sputnik, AIDS Epidemic, Global Recession, Iraq. The problem is that one can easily find such events when the trend line is low--the advent of nuclear weapons and the Korean ware are accompanied by very low levels of Z-movies. Why are the mid-1970's a low point in Z-movies? So shortly after a major crisis (Arab-Israeli war with superpower involvement), Watergate, Cambodia? Why low in the mid 1990's after Bosnia, Rwanda?
3. The more obvious trend is a fairly steady increase in the average level of Z-movies and then followed by a big ump the past eight years or so. One could then suggest that Zombie movies increase when Saidemans move to Canada. But that would be overly narcisistic to think that Z movies revolve around me. A more powerful stat would be percentage of movies made each year that are Z movies and compare that to Horror movies. It could be the proliferation of movies in general or the rise of DVDs as sources of income for Holywood might be the cause.
4. Still, one could argue that 9/11 might have had a big impact as the spike really follows that event more than anything else.
5. Other interesting things to note: 1956 seemed to be the last year that was Z-free and 1975 was the last year that the number dipped below three.
6. What this chart does demonstrate quite clearly is that Zombies have been hot for the past several years. If I had the cash, would I invest in the production of the movie of World War Z? Probably--if this were a graph of the profits. That is what we really need--not the trend in movies made, but in the box office.

A Broader Menu? Not Just All In or Out

As folks consider what the Obama Administration should do in Iraq, the choices are proliferating.

Despite the best efforts of the some folks, there are more choices than just follow McChrystal's recommendation of 40k additional American troops and just get out. Kaplan seems to be recommending an enclave strategy that others have also proferred. The idea would be to focus on just a few population centers--Kandahar, Kabul and one or two others. I guess this would also allow the rest of the NATO folks to hang out in the North and West and muddle along there. The idea would be to focus the effort and see if one can get some success where it is most important and then demonstrate to Afghans elsewhere that the good guys can be competent.

Austin Long documents the math of a very narrow counter-terrorist (aka Biden plan) effort. Basically, a total of 13k Americans, mostly special operators, would be based in two or three spots and focus on Al Qaeda and not much else. The problem here is that the lines of communication (LOCs) and bases would be pretty vulnerable. And if the government of Afghanistan were to fall, would this plan mean a few outposts in a Somalia-like place?

What is abundantly clear are that all the options are bad. The least worst? Perhaps giving it one last chance to do it right?

Picking on Lind and Nuclear Abolition

Once again, Michael Lind of Salon brings out my inner realist. Two weeks ago, I spewed about his piece on Pax Americana. Today, he uses Obama's Nobel Prize to justify a discussion about nuclear abolition. His basic argument is that the US would have greater superiority in a conventional world whereas the nukes are weapons of the weak--especially bad guys. Then, he recognizes the reality that nuclear abolition is not going to happen. So, this provocative and clearly unsound thesis is just the premise for a discussion about proliferation today.

He then uses the past projections of proliferation and nuclear use to pooh pooh the concerns of proliferation pessimists (as they are called in the poli sci lit (see Scott Sagan's debate with Ken Waltz).

Here is one of the stranger quotes:

Genuine great power status today requires massive, expensive conventional forces. Iran would be much more alarming if instead of trying to obtain nuclear weapons it were building up a first-rate navy, a long-distance air force and an enormous army capable of occupying one or more of its neighbors. The fact that it is not doing so suggests that the nuclear weapons capability it evidently seeks is for deterrence, not offense.

This is true but almost entirely irrelevant. We don't care about Iran because it is a great power or is becoming one. It is a regional power in a region we care about. And it has a history of supporting terrorism--much more so than Iraq ever did. We care about its development of nuclear weapons not so much because of its offensive threat (although we have to take that possibility seriously) but because of how it affects other countries in the region--the security dilemma is an action-reaction dynamic.

Next contentious quote:

Why should a terrorist go to the trouble of trying to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the U.S., when it is easier to spread mass panic with guns, backpack explosives, suicide bomber belts or truck bombs?

While one create sustained panic via a campaign of low level violence, it is clear that some terrorists, especially AQ, seek large-scale, dramatic events that capture cameras and networks around the world. All other terrorist events pale in comparison to 9/11, and a nuclear device in a major city would make 9/11 pale in comparison to that. Again, not a high probability event, but something we need to take seriously. Not invade Iraq seriously, but seriously nonetheless.

One more:

I think of it as the mutant factor. Weapons that conceivably could produce a ravaged landscape populated by cannibal mutant zombies -- atomic bombs, lab-created pandemics -- are far more frightening than dynamite and small arms, even though the latter are more likely to be used.

Well, now he is on to something. We are concerned about nuclear weapons because they might cause zombies..... Well, my blog attests, I am quite concerned about the zombie threat, but not really because of nuclear weapons. For some reason, I think that a weapon that can kill 50,000 people in a heartbeat might be a legitimate concern, whether or not it turns people into zombies.

And now, he goes after the experts:

My point is that, in our age of publicity-driven policy advocacy, experts who inflate threats obtain grants and get on TV. For a specialist to say, "Having examined the issue carefully, my conclusion is that we should not be overly concerned" is not only career suicide but also heresy. The patron saint of this day and age is Our Lady of Perpetual Alarm.

Um, ok, he has a point there since my friends will always remember the day I suggested that Lubbock might be a target of terrorism. Well, only because I was thinking Oklahoma City and abortion clinics. And I am not an expert on nuclear weapons, terrorism or proliferation. But he is ignoring the experts who have downplayed the treat of chemical and biological weapons. He even cites experts who say that terrorists are unlikely to build their own nuclear weapons. And, of course, he mentions not at all Pakistan:

• Pakistan lionizes the father of its nuclear weapons program and who was trying to become the Amway salesman of nuclear weapons technology.
• Pakistan is a very fragile country with its own civil war, so that its nuclear weapons can fall in the wrong hands.
• Pakistan does not even really control segments of its own military, not a good recipe for control over its nuclear stockpile.
• Pakistan is engaged in an enduring rivalry/protracted conflict/endless pissing-match with its immediate and nuclearly armed neighbor.
  

So, perhaps the lesson to be learned is that I should stop reading Lind?

David Brooks as Pop Social Scientist

Brooks has an interesting column where he summarizes what he learned at an academic conference (I guess they cannot all be boondoggles). The conference was a meeting of the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society. The focus is the piece is on the reality that individuals in different cultures process information they receive differently.

Many of the studies presented here concerned the way we divide people by in-group and out-group categories in as little as 170 milliseconds. The anterior cingulate cortices in American and Chinese brains activate when people see members of their own group endure pain, but they do so at much lower levels when they see members of another group enduring it. These effects may form the basis of prejudice.

Sounds like Gladwell's Blink book, but also social identity theory which has much relevance for scholars of ethnic conflict. Brooks goes on to point out that in experiments these effects of identification can be manipulated to lessen people's instincts to react differently to different kinds of people.

The funny thing is that Brooks either intentionally or unintentionally begins the piece with a stereotype:

When you go to an academic conference you expect to see some geeks, gravitas and graying professors giving lectures.

Is he trying to be ironic and hip by imitating that which he learned during the conference, or is he just sorting academics into a pre-conceived box. Or is it just the desire for alliteration? I don't resent the gray or the geek reference, but gravitas? Hmmm.

Europe Divided

I mentioned the other day that the dream of Europe as a single actor in foreign policy is just that--wishful thinking. Today's NY Times has a piece on yet another issue that could unite but is likely to divide Europe: Russia.

"Yesterday tanks, today oil,” said Zbigniew Siemiatkowski, a former head of Poland’s security service.

But officials in Central and Eastern Europe fear that while profits from the pipeline, a joint venture between Gazprom and a trio of German and Dutch companies, will flow to Russian suppliers and German utilities, the long trod-upon countries once under the Soviet umbrella will become more vulnerable to energy blackmail.

Last year, people died in Eastern Europe when Russia cut off the flow because of its dispute with Ukraine. As a result, you will find those with greatest focus on NATO's Article V to be residing where the Warsaw Pact was the alliance of non-choice during the Cold War. Why? Not only do the East Europeans fear the Russians, but they do not trust the Germans either.

Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, has compared the pipeline deal between Russia and Germany to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Central Europe into spheres of German and Soviet influence. “Taking the decision first and consulting us later is not our idea of solidarity,” he said.

Unfortunately, the US also tends to decide and then consult--like when Obama chose McChrystal to replace McKiernan as COM ISAF.

Election Does Not Matter So Much?

See this link for an op-ed (written by Richard Fontaine and John Nagl) that says that the Afghan elections are not nearly as important as others have asserted (hat tip to Marc Lynch for pointing this piece--his twitters are chock full of good links).

They assert that the Afghan government probably still has more legitimacy than the Iraqi one had when the surge began there. The Taliban is much less popular in Afghanistan than various alternatives were in Iraq as well. But a missing ingredient is the Awakening. If one wants to run with the analogies of the two surges (past and proposed), then a key difference is that a key part of the insurgency in Iraq decided to change sides quite dramatically. The Sunnis came over and brought heaps of intelligence (info) and manpower that made it far easier to pursue the Al Qaeda in Iraq extremists. And the other side of the civil war--the Shiites basically stepped down their level of violence--a political decision.

Are their equivalents in Afghanistan? Well, there are groups essentially allied with the Taliban that could switch (Hekmaytar and HIG group), but their likelihood of switching sides seems as remote as their desirability as alliance partners. The Taliban and other opponents could fragment, but that might be wishful thinking. Mike Lombardi of the National Football Post always reminds us that hope is not a plan or a strategy.

But Fontaine and Nagl are correct in pointing out that much can and should be done at the local level. Indeed, one response to the election is to focus even more on the sub-units (provinces and districts) than at the national level.

Still, these are very tough choices, and focusing on the Iraq analogy has some utility but has its limits as well.

Nobel for Econ--Familiar Names

Good times for the Nobels, making more news by giving the Nobel Prize for Economics to two folks: Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson. I always get a bit of a thrill when this prize goes to people I have read. And for two people who greatly influenced Political Science, well, that is pretty cool since there is Nobel for Poli Sci, this is the closest we can get.

And, as I have mentioned in earlier posts about ethnic conflict, one's self-esteem rides on the esteem one feels for one's group--as political science gets respect, it makes me feel all gooey inside.

Williamson matters more for my work these days, as I have been sucked into the black hole that is principal-agency theory. The basic idea is that whenever anyone delegates, there are challenges that arise and how one addresses those challenges greatly shapes the organization and the behavior of those being delegated authority (the agents). I am no expert on p-a theory, and picked up much of it through osmosis as the Americanists at UCSD drank it in, and it had not yet become the koolaid of the rest of the department.

But for the project at hand, the behavior of various countries in Afghanistan, it provides a very useful framework for thinking about the question. Usually people focus on how principals oversee their agents to make sure they are doing their job--how does the boss ensure that the employee is working hard while the boss is out of the office? A problem that is very central to Mad Men most of the time--and to government.

For the Dave and Steve project on NATO and Afghanistan, we are less focused on oversight--making sure the job gets done--and more focused on the discretion delegated to the agent--when does the officer have to say no, say yes or call home for more instructions. That is where caveats come in--countries impose restrictions on their commanders in a variety of ways and vary quite considerably in how much flexibility/autonomy units will have. Our research seeks to understand why this pattern of delegation exists. So, Williamson does not provide us with the answers (perhaps he has, but I have not read of all of his work), but his work sets the framework for the project. So, between this work and the fact that Ostrom is a political scientist, I feel far fuzzier and warmer about these choices than about Obama's premature selection.

Obvious Statement of the Month

This piece is a nice statement of the obvious. The title is:

"Civilian Goals Largely Unmet in Afghanistan"

Um, duh.

The disputed Aug. 20 Afghan election has laid bare the ineffectiveness of the government of President Hamid Karzai, administration officials said, and frozen steps toward reform.

Um, duh, again.

I guess someone has to say this stuff, but the failure to make any real progress on the civilian side is probably the reason why Obama is having a hard time deciding what to do. If progress was apparent, then it would be far easier to justify further investment and commitment.

Again, we have not been at this for very long, but the results thus far are so very discouraging.

Giving Canadian Thanks

Tis Thanksgiving in Canada, and after seven years or so, we are finally embracing it, sort of. So, I thought I would give thanks now and then perhaps again in about six weeks.

1. I am glad that I don't have to drive for at least this one--we have long drives over the next three months for a Bat Mitzvah in Providence, American Turkey day in NJ (with my reunion in Philly a day later), and then the Winter holidays in the DC area
2. I apparently have the 3rd best job in the USA. The piece softens the hard edges--"you'll probably have to relocate" Ha! And to call competition for tenure-track jobs intense is still an understatement. But I do control my time, get to study what I want, got to travel to Paris, Berlin and London this past summer on someone else's dime, and will be doing the same down under next winter (well, their summer).
   
3. The McGill students once again are proving to be phenomenal. In my big Intro to IR class, they consistently ask sharp questions, reflecting that they have done the work and have thought about it.
   
4. I would be thankful for McGill's graduate students as they are a smart and interesting lot, but they are making me do way too much work these days.
5. I am very thankful for the support of the associate professors in my department, who consistently demonstrate not just wisdom but generosity of spirit that make the tougher days far more bearable.
   
6. I am grateful that Montreal has such a vast and fun ultimate frisbee community. I ended up playing way too much this summer since I was chauffering my daughter to a game each week in addition to three other games each week. It was nicely capped by the Grandmaster (over 40 only) tourney where I was lucky to get off the bench with such a deep team.
7. I am grateful that the skiing near Montreal is great, but am hopeing that the season is a short one (that is, a short winter).
8. I am thankful we finally had our dining/living room/bathrooms painted. The cleanup will not be fun, but the guys did a great job.
   
9. I am always grateful that I have a daughter who is as good at teasing me as she is in taking my teasing. She is more of a smartass than her camp counselor can possibly imagine. I am less thankful that my daughter has compelled me to make turkey today.
   
10. I am also always grateful that my wife tolerates me and my tendency to blather online.
11. Finally, I am thankful to my readers for their existence.
    

I hope the Canadian readers are having a great Thanksgiving and that the American ones are enjoying Italian food today, I guess (Columbus day and all).

Obama Nobel Follow Up

Slate has a nice post comparing Tiger Woods to Obama, not just because both are thin, tall, multi-racial success stories, but because Tiger was named Sports Illustrated's Man of the Year in December 1996. He had won a couple of tournaments but no majors. Seemed premature, but not so much now, given what he has done since (including some great shots yesterday at the President's Cup to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat).

For Obama to live up to the Nobel, he'll need to score the political equivalent of a 12-stroke Masters victory.

Peace in the Middle East would fit that analogy. What else would?

On the other hand, why should we care so much?

In his will, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish dynamite tycoon who thought up this whole thing, specifically wanted Norwegians to choose the winner, apparently because Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, would be less likely to be politically corrupt. The trouble is that Norwegians, being outside the European mainstream, are also more likely to be eccentric.

Anytime you have a small group, of say five or eight, you are likely to get strange outcomes.

Dawkins on Evolution

As part of a continuing series in my blog, I would like to review another book I have not read. Richard Dawkins (whom I keep confusing with Richard Dawson of Hogan's Heroes) is apparently famous for his pro-evolution, anti-Christian lectures (one does not require the other, but .....). His new book, Greatest Show on Earth, is squarely aimed at destroying the arguments of creationists.

Dawkins has a nice sense of irony, deployed without mercy on the opponents of evolution. If the creationists think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, rather than 4.6 billion, he asks, shouldn’t they assume, by the same measure, that North America is less than 10 yards wide? The book is even more enjoyable when Dawkins forgets the creationists and launches into evolutionary explanations, whether of the hippopotamus’s long-lost cousin the whale, or of the long-tongued moth that Darwin predicted must exist to pollinate a Madagascan orchid with a nectary 11 inches in length. He gives striking examples of “unintelligent design,” forced on evolution because it cannot ever start from scratch but must develop new structures from older ones.

Ah, path dependence, one of my favorite concepts that I learned of in grad school--a useful way of thinking about how the past choices or events constrain the present. Which leads to this:

The best way, in my view [the book reviewer's view], is to distinguish between evolution as history and evolution as science. Evolution is indeed a historical fact. Every living thing and every fossil-bearing rock bears evidence that evolution occurred. But evolution is not a scientific fact as philosophers of science see it. In science it plays a far grander role: it is the theory without which nothing in biology makes sense. The condition of this high status is that it cannot be the final and absolute truth that Dawkins imagines it to be; it is liable to future modification and change like any other scientific theory.

Ah, there is the confusion. We know that there has been evolution--but the explanation for it is subject to change precisely because it is not faith but based on science. Science changes when new facts are found that conflict old theories or that new theories can explain that which old theories explained plus that which old theories could not explain (Einstein > Newton).

Creationist types use the debates amongst biologists and other scientists to show that evolution is just another hotly debated topic, and therefore is just a theory. And, thus, they show that they, like most of us, don't really get what science is--an exploration of the world around us that is never satisfied, not even after tenure. Which means that we can have a great deal of confidence that, indeed, evolution has occurred, but that we might develop a better explanation for it as we learn new stuff. And we are always learning new stuff.

The irony is that the super-religious folks find it problematic that scientists can and do change their minds when confronted with new facts.

MacCivil-MacRelations

Slate has a piece comparing the current controversy regarding Obama and McChrystal to that of Truman and MacArthur. The author is careful--making sure that we do not think that the two situations are the same, but rather arguing that the past constrains the present. Different interpretations of the MacArthur firing by left and right affect today's discourse, and the supposed unwillingness of civilians to really buck the military.

I think the comparison is wildly over-drawn. McChrystal made one comment in a Q&A, aimed more at Biden perhaps than Obama, and the leaks of the review are not that surprising. Obama has had the military inside the room at all times--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen and Central Commander Gen. Petraeus. The question at hand is really a political one right now--given the shaky legitimacy of Karzai's government, the question is really whether 40,000 or 60,000 additional troops will buy enough space for the Afghan government to get into some sort of shape?

Obama clearly has a difficult call to make. The Republicans are attacking him because it is another opportunity to attack him. The left is opposed to any more war. So, yes, Obama is in a tough spot, but doing due diligence is the proper way to go.

The Z Virus Spreads

Last night's Smallville focused on a zombie virus--one that could be cured with a bit if Kryptonian blood. This is perhaps the first time I have seen a reversal of the Zombie disease. In most depictions of the dreaded Zack, it is kill or be killed--no redemption. And now, probably the worst spread of Zombie left--as a metaphor or modifier for the financial collapse.

The piece is actually a pretty good one, and it includes quotes from the Z-master--Max Brooks, author of World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide. It is interesting because there is apparently room enough in the contemporary zeitgeist for Zombies and Vampires although perhaps Z is spreading more widely in the non-tweener set while the Vamps are more of a young person's obsession. The other monsters have never really, ahem, caught fire, even though American Werewolf in London is one of the best monster movies of all time.

It does make sense as the article suggests that we live in a time of anxiety, so we are focused more now on those monsters that have a simple and cathartic solution--a shot/blow to the head.

The next question is how do pirates fit into all of this?

Asking Lesbians, Telling More than Gays?

While Don't Ask, Don't Tell is now facing some debate within the Department of Defense, today's news indicates that its application, surprise, surprise, is uneven--women are being drummed out of the services disproportionately than men. What is very much unsurprising is that the Air Force seems to be the worst offender.

The USAF Academy is located in one of the most conservative parts of the US, and it is not out of place. I visited there as part of their annual event where more than a hundred undergrads are brought in and have a few days of discussions about a variety of issues (just like the other two academies), and some profs are brought in as well to moderate the discussions. It was incredibly striking how, well, Christian the place felt--and not just Christian in the Judeo-Christian sense, but evangelical Christian definition. Over the years, a number of stories have been reported about the domination of evangelical Christians at the academy and the ostracizing of non-evangelicals there.

The academy also has the worst rep for its treatment of women. Again, over the years, a series of news stories have focused on harassment and far worse. One of my colleagues on the Joint Staff had her term there shortened so that she could go to the USAF Academy and help deal with the female cadet crisis.

I have less experience or insight into the USAF at large, but given how folks are socialized at the academy, which is supposed to produce the leaders of the service, it is quite likely that these folks with their views towards gays and lesbians and towards women in general then go on to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a way that hurts women more than men.

Just another reason to end it as soon as possible, although I do appreciate that Obama does have a very full plate indeed.

Symbolic Politics Is the Theme of the Day [UPDATED]

President Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize for .... being himself??? The facebook status updates are chock full of liberals and other left wing types who are surprised and not entirely pleased. What has Obama done thus far to earn such a prize?

• Presiding While Black? Is this the opposite of the old profiling problem of Driving While Black where African-Americans are targeted by cops for driving in the wrong areas (white suburbs)? Is just winning an American national election as a person of color sufficient to win the Nobel Peace Prize?
• Not Being Bush? Perhaps winning an election that removes Bush, Cheney and gang is a sufficient accomplishment? Well, given that the US became considered in most polls around the world for the past eight years as the greatest threat to peace, then Obama might have earned the prize for changing this perception/reality.
• Lowered Expectations? Along the same line, perhaps Bush lowered expectations so much that if an American President can go nine months without starting a new war, he deserves recognition?
  
• Making Good Speeches? He is the best orator the US has had in a long, long time. Certainly in my lifetime. But, as many will point out, thus far, he has talked the talk, but the walk has not yet been completed (I do think it has been started).
• Because He is Cool? Obama does radiate cool, no doubt about it. And people want to be associated with him, so that they become seen as cool as well. And then reputation will reinforce itself (just like in university rankings). Perhaps he really is the Fonz of the 21st Century.
  

[Update: "Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office." From CNN. This suggests that it has little to do with his governing]

Ron Howard's Call To Action from Ron Howard

Rule Brittania! Canada's Head of State?

For the first time since I moved here more than seven years ago, there is a reason for the Monarchist League of Canada to make its existence known: the Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean, made news referring to herself as the Head of State. This caused much umbrage, as the Monarchist League got into a snit and reminded everyone that Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of Canada. And yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper jumped into the fray, and supported the ML's position.

I find it incredibly amusing that there are Monarchists left in Canada--just like in the game of Junta! And Harper's recognition, despite some past moves by the King at the time to give authorities to the G-G, solidifies one of the key wrinkles in my current project--that the Queen is technically the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces with her agent, the Governor-General, filling that role.

I look forward to watch the continuing fireworks on an entirely symbolic issue, as neither the Queen or the G-G have used their "authority" anytime lately.

The next question, of course, is whether there are any Royalists, perhaps in Kingston, still pining for a British-ruled America.

Chasing the Grant $$

As a result of the previous posts about the NSF, I ended up in a conversation with the one and only, the legendary, Steve Greene about grants. He is a wee bit more critical about the NSF than I, but we concur that universities have tended to obsess about grant money, putting too much stress on getting external money.

At TTU, where we hung together albeit briefly, the obsession was incredibly strong, particularly as the chair felt his job was to amplify whatever command came from on high (which explains the presence of Alberto Gonzalez).

Universities like profs to pursue grants for at least a couple of reasons: a) so that the professor can use the requested funds to engage in research; b) so that the funding agency provides funding for indirect costs that go to the university. These indirect costs are supposed to cover overhead like electricity, secretaries, paper, phones, whatever. Some of the indirect is often returned to the professor (a.k.a. principal investigator or p.i.) to do with as she/he pleases. This slush money can be quite handy for stuff that the grant does not fund and is less subject to accounting.

Universities like indirect money because it is essentially free money. They say it is for costs that are incurred by researchers, but these profs would be flipping most switches and doing the other costly stuff even if they did not get outside funding.

So, at the end of the day, the question can be asked: is this a scam? Or is this a clever way by which governments can fund university operations, which are collective goods that benefit the local and not so local communities?* One could ponder why one would need such a charade to have federal funding of universities, but then again, my Canada Research Chair is exactly that--a federal program to fund higher education despite that being the responsibility of the provinces (aka states). States, provinces and federal units are jealous of their domains, and often will take federal funding and either re-allocate it or re-allocate the stuff that is now financed by the feds. Just as lotteries really did not increase funding for education (they allowed states to either cut taxes or spend the money on other services/expenses), federal money can lead to states diverting money. Is that why indirect costs work as they do? Probably not. Is it a scam? Perhaps just a bit--that indirect costs do actually cover real university costs but perhaps not the additional cost of doing that hunk of research.


Your thoughts?





* The argument that universities provide collective goods is a pretty easy one so I will not spend much effort here. But to be clear, universities basically do three things:

• educate folks and that education benefits the society through greater productivity, perhaps even better citizenship although Coburn's education suggests otherwise;
• create knowledge. Whenever, I say this, I feel pompous, but the idea of research is to learn new stuff--that new stuff is new understanding, new products, etc. And this benefits society, mostly (one can debate about better weapons and the like).
• foster a more dynamic economy. Just check out the valleys around my old grad school--U of Cal, San Diego--chock full of software companies, biotech companies and more. Universities are local engines of growth as they provide jobs, serve as focal points for collaboration between public and private spheres and more.

So, of course, it makes sense to spend more $$ on prisons than universities.

Is Political Science Gay?

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) is trying to get NSF to stop funding political science. This is pretty hard to understand, as I suggested yesterday. Perhaps he thinks that political science might spread gay-ness. Gays and lesbians seem to be his primary obsession. However, he does not focus on NSF-funded research on sexuality-related issues in his statement about the NSF.

So, perhaps this desire for greater ignorance in politics is driven by something else, but my bet is that he is position-taking on an obscure issue because he has a fragile position back home and spending on academic research (that is not health related) can look like waste. Of course, we could test that kind of hypothesis if only we had some grant money to collect the data and run the results. Or perhaps consult the ANES--the massive NSF-funded data collection that Coburn does mention. Perhaps Steve Greene will do this for me.

Rank Rankings in 3-D

Ranking universities is pretty hard and perhaps somewhat pointless. The Times Higher Education has ranked McGill as 18th on the planet, up two spots from last year. This makes McGill the top-rated public school in North America, one spot ahead of Michigan. Um. Ok.

Of course, what matters here is what matters? How are the rankings produced?

• First, they total the number of papers produced and divide by number of faculty. Ok. Well, that really leaves open a lot of questions--do papers in Bob's Journal of Neuroscience count the same as in the top journal in the field? What about books? Do books count? Apparently not, which means that McGill might actually be under-rated because books are a big deal here at least in Political Science and probably throughout the Social Sciences (17th down a few spots from last year).
• Second, staff to student ratio for excellence in teaching. Again, this says something, but not that much as the ratio of bodies to bodies says little about the bodies involved. I think McGill is a great place to learn because the students are so great and one learns from one's peers as much or more than from one's profs. So, a measure here of selectivity might make sense. McGill does really well here, which surprises me since the ratios I see are horrible (600 to one in my one class and more than 35 majors per faculty spot [FTE]), but Poli Sci is incredibly popular here, so perhaps the rest of the campus has great ratios.
• Third, a key component is how international the university is: "we measure the proportion of overseas staff a university has on its books (making up 5 per cent of the total score) and the proportion of international students it has attracted (making up another 5 per cent)." Hmmm. I can see that there is something about international-ness that might have to do with quality, but still pretty strange. This would explain McGill's high ranking as it has always been less concerned with hiring Canadians than other Canadian schools (and the CRC program is a Canadian effort that also has increased the hiring of foreign folks such as myself). Also, Canadian schools have always been a good deal for Americans and McGill especially so since costs (non-tax costs that is) are quite low in Montreal.
• Fourth, 50% of the score is based on reputation--10% from employers, 40% from academics surveyed. Reputation is very sticky, so you will often see schools that are ranked highly even though the reality of their quality has declined.

Of course, this all begs the question of what "best" means. What do we want our colleges and universities to do? More than anything else, we want universities that are known for being best. Which is why McGill promotes its ranking, because, in part, that will shape next year's.

But if one really wants to know of a stat or indicator that will predict the performance of their students, then consider whether they have a successful ultimate frisbee team. McGill's men and women's teams do very, very well, so perhaps we should not be surprised that as an institution, McGill is highly respected.

Of course, the downside is that such rankings will cause some schools to become smug about their status and suggest that reforming old, dysfunctional and strange ways of administrating is unnecessary--that good rankings might lead to institutional arrogance and complacency. The good news, of course, is that reputations are, indeed, sticky so that the costs of such hubris are pretty small in the short term--to one's reputation.

Kaplan on Civil-Military Relations

Excellent post by Fred Kaplan (with whom I don't always agree) on the civil-military relations of McChrystal's comments about Biden's proposal for doing less with less in Afghanistan.

Kaplan addresses all the right issues, and also reminds us of a distinction (of which I was not aware) between retiring and resigning. Officers who retire have full benefits but are obligated not to shout from the rooftops. Officers who resign give up benefits but are free to speak out.

Anyhow, check it out.c

Ignorance is Bliss?

Senator Tom Coburn is trying to strip Political Science funding from the National Science Foundation. I have received a small bit of funding via my participation in the Minorities at Risk project, so, sure, I have something directly at stake. But really, the arguments used are ridiculous as Dan Drezner documents so well.

To quote from Dan and from Tommy "Captain Ignorance" Coburn:

Here's the key paragraph in Coburn's explanation:

If taxpayers are going to get their money's worth from the significant funding increases being entrusted to the National Science Foundation, the agency should be held accountable for how those funds are being spent. The political science program which does not withstand scrutiny should be eliminated immediately. Theories on political behavior are best left to CNN, pollsters, pundits, historians, candidates, political parties, and the voters, rather than being funded out of taxpayers' wallets, especially when our nation has much more urgent needs and priorities (emphasis added by DD).

OK, dear readers, I want you to close your eyes and imagine a world in which your entire knowledge of political behavior emanated only from CNN, pollsters, pundits, historians, candidates, and political parties. (end of quote by DD)

I would doubt that such a laughable set of claims would make it very far, but who knows? I have a friend who was part of an NSF grant that asked a very basic but understudied question: who chooses to become a candidate for political office and who does not? This became controversial because, I guess, some folks thought that they might actually find some good ones by accident. What bug crawled up Coburn's butt? I have no clue.

This should be of concern because one crank in the Senate can actually be an incredible obstacle, as Jesse Helms repeatedly proved. My hope is that Coburn is as dim about political processes as he wants everyone else to be.

It's Media Day!

Ok, a second post on media stuff. Steve Greene linked to this site, which happily notes that they have been threatened by Ralph Lauren for using Ralph Lauren images--because they were mocking a strange picture of a model whose body seemed to have been shrunk by a photoshop accident. The post points out that fair use includes criticism, satire and the like, and if Ralph Lauren's business is hurt by criticism, tough tooties!

Anyhow, we live in a strange time for advertising where we really don't know where things are going to end up with the internet, dying newspapers, plummeting TV ratings and DVRs-skipping commercials. So, Ralph Lauren might consider other ways to deal with its advertising issues besides threatening to sue some folks on the internet.

On a different advertising note, Mad Men has rocked this season, but there have been precious few Don-moments where he magically spins a new image for a product like Kodak's carousel. On the other hand, I wonder what John Deere thinks of the shocking episode that has been compared to the Kennedy Assassination.

Media Pro Alert!

I have been appearing on a regular basis on the local CTV station in Montreal during the noon news program. Today, it was a bit different in three ways:

• I was not at the remote location (either in the newsroom or in a hallway), but actually in the studio at the comfy bright red couch.
• I was not alone--I appeared with a person from Rights and Democracy, a Montreal-based Human Rights non-governmental organization (I left his card at my office, sorry, Michael).
• There was a large group of students from one of the local CEGEPs (Quebec's unique community/junior college that bridges between high school and university) who were off on the side, observing.

The first two differences were the relevant ones. I had less time since the segment was shared, but it felt far more comfortable to be talking people than to a camera on its own. I have no clue if it looked good or not (my hair was a mess, as usual).

It was on Afghanistan, of course. Turns out the war started eight years ago today, but the timing of the panel was more of a coincidence.

Afghan Ditto

Check out Marc Lynch's five questions for those debating what to do in Afghanistan. He is so on target that there is little left to add besides:

• Wouldn't four questions be more apropos? Why is this night different than any other night? The answer in the case of Afghanistan and in his post is--it ain't. This is not a unique moment for a turning point, which is what is so obviously troubling to the Obama folks--that escalation now is not clearly going to win the day.

I am glad that Marc has provided a good cheat sheet since I will be doing the CTV Montreal news program tomorrow and I could just plagiarize from him.

About that Canadian Feed and Hockey!?

I have griped here before about the challenges of watching TV in Canada, especially sports. Well, I am frustrated yet again. I have bought into the Sport Guy's (Bill Simmons) hype about the new documentary series on ESPN--30 for 30. Thirty documentaries by thirty different directors about an event that took place during the thirty years of ESPN's existence. It has received excellent reviews, well at least from those who are connected to the Sports Guy.

But, Tuesday nights, which is when ESPN is broadcasting the series, is, of course, yet another hockey night in Canada for TSN, our ESPN-equivalent. TSN shows a lot of ESPN programming but not always when ESPN shows it, so I have to hunt and hope that the program in question does not conflict with other stuff I like. And tonight would have been perfect since there is little else of interest on.

If anyone can find out when and where I can get 30 for 30 in Canada, let me know.

The EU as a Great Power

Whenever I teach my big Intro to IR class and start talking about Great Powers, the question always arises as to whether Europe is one or will be one soon. With the impending ratification of the Lisbon treaty, which would provide a President and a Foreign Minister, perhaps that day is arriving. Or not.

Both had changed their minds because they were tired of hearing politicians endlessly urging them to do so. Some also felt that during the worst recession in recent memory they might need Europe's help. Not many seem to have been inspired by the high ideals and lofty aspirations of what is sometimes called "the European project." Although a whopping two-thirds of the Irish voted yes, there wasn't much audible or visible enthusiasm. A few politicians in Ireland and across the continent hailed the referendum as a "great victory for Europe," but no one believed them. And thus did Europe take another limping step toward the historic creation of a unified foreign-policy apparatus, complaining bitterly all the way. (Slate)

A united FP apparatus is not a united foreign policy. That is the obstacle in Europe as a great power. It has most of the other usual ingredients--a large population (bigger than the US, smaller than China), nuclear weapons (if France and the UK share with the rest of the EU their nuclear umbrellas), conventional weapons (hmm, combined, they would still be lacking in the ability to project power without the help of the US), and a large and productive economy.

But the problem is that while the EU will soon have a phone number for others to call (the Slate piece dutifully cites Kissinger on that), will it actually be able to make decisions and act as one? Thus far, Europe has failed repeatedly to come up with a common foreign policy when push comes to shove.

• The first big test was Yugoslavia. The European Community was becoming the European Union and wanted the US to stay out. Bush senior was happy to accommodate, but the Europeans could not agree on what to do. The eventually established a commission (the Badinter Commission) to decide which former hunks of Yugoslavia should be recognized as independent countries, and then Germany went ahead and recognized its preferred candidates--Slovenia and Croatia (when the commission said Slovenia and Macedonia).
• The next big test was Iraq in 2003. But, as Rummy put it, old Europe minus UK went against new Europe with France and Germany opposing the US effort and the UK, Poland and others in favor.
  
• While most of the EU is present in Afghanistan, the burden-sharing problem (due to varying restrictions/caveats on what each country is willing to do) has again created deep divides with the Brits, the Dutch, the Danes and Poles on one side and the Germans, Italians and Spaniards on the other.
  

Still, the EU will probably cohere more on ordinary foreign policy issues in the future, even if they agree to disagree when the stakes are especially high and the interests of the members are in conflict.

Thus, the Slate advice that follows is actually pretty good:

But do watch closely, over the next weeks and months, to see who is selected to fill these jobs [President and Foreign Minister of the EU] and, more important, how they are selected. Traditionally, leaders of multilateral institutions are chosen through a process of elimination—the person who is the least interesting, least opinionated, and least influential gets the job, precisely because nobody else objects. Yet this is not how the president or prime minister of a country is selected. He gets the job because he has convinced the electorate that he is better than somebody else. I'm not saying that democracy always produces the most gifted leaders, but it does frequently produce politicians who are willing to argue loudly in favor of some things and against other things. By contrast, people often wind up running multilateral institutions—and not just European ones—because they are not willing to argue about anything at all.

.

Sexual Violence and Intra-State Conflict

While the topic of rape in warfare has gained increased attention since the discovery of rape camps in Bosnia in the early 1990's, I think this might be the first instance where violence against women actually draws more opposition at home and abroad than murder. The military of Guinea suppressed a protest, and, in the course of events, cameras caught much sexual violence, outraging the public.

Rape is a fairly common tool of military repression in Africa, but large-scale violence against women has not been a previous government tactic here. “This time, a new stage has been reached,” said Sidya Touré, a former prime minister who was also beaten at the stadium and said he had witnessed brutalities there. “Women as battlefield targets. We could never have imagined that.”

Always, things can go in two ways--less repression and more. It is not clear where it will go in Guinea (admittedly far, far away from my expertise). The problem is that the ordinary way in which an authoritarian leader is removed is via a military coup. But the military is implicated by these events, so they are unlikely to side with the opposition. So, my best guess is more repression, as there is really very little the international community can do unless it wants to intervene quite directly. And given that few countries have any spare military units on the shelf, I do not expect the outside world to offer more than words and gestures.

If You Think Afghanistan Is Complicated ...

Read this piece about Pakistan, especially the final quote:

“People think this government has sold us to the Americans again for their own selfish interests,” said Jahangir Tareen, a former cabinet minister and a member of Parliament, in an interview. “Some people think the United States is out to get Pakistan, to defang Pakistan, to destroy the army as it exists so it can’t fight India and to break down the ISI’s ability to influence events in India and Afghanistan. Everyone is saying about the Americans, ‘Told you so.’ ”

I find the "too many troops will alienate the Afghans" argument to be swallowing Taliban propaganda. If the extra troops increase security, that would offset any xenophobia. But in Paksitan

The article also shows how complicated life is when one uses private military contractors (although perhaps not as complicated as depicted in the recent Russell Crowe/Ben Affleck/MacAdams/Mirren movie, State of Play--entertaining if a bit over the top).

Pakistan apparently is not as close to failing now as it was last year, but I would not put too much money on predicting its future.

I will post later today or tomorrow where Pakistan fits into various theories of international relations and foreign policy.

You Can't Always Get What You Want

Sometimes I wonder if understanding basic math is an entry requirement for universities. Students at McGill recently protested corporate involvement with the academic world. While there are some real concerns to raise about such interactions, there is a big problem here.

The students want to keep tuition low, they want smaller classes and better facilities, and they don't want corporations funding research (and infrastructure). The only way to square that circle is to have someone else fund universities at a time where endowments are in steep declines. In the case of public institutions, such as McGill (many people thing McGill is private, but it most certainly is not, and its modest endowment is now tanking), students can hope that governments will step in the gap.

That would be great, but it is not going to happen, especially now that states and provinces are strapped for cash. I saw this clearly in the early 90's and it still true--politicians face many competing demands, and even though $$ going to universities are great investments and economic multipliers, other "demanders" have more access, more votes and more power.

Again, I would love to see government step up here, especially if there is some stimulus cash to be spent. But I just don't see that happening. I don't know how colleges and universities are in the US are going to manage the challenges ahead of parents with broken savings, limited capacities for banks to take on new loans, and severely underfunded states.

So, if a corporation wants to sponsor an endowed chair, a grant program or a department or building, I will look for strings, but if I don't see any, I will take the cash. Of course, I have taken cash from the Canadian military and will do so again, so these students probably would consider me to be severely tainted.

It is always easy to be idealistic as a student. Harder when one is facing significant tradeoffs and constraints.

Nostalgia for Bush?

Just to continue the rant from the previous post, why is it that anyone would look at the Bush Administration's way of doing things, and ponder why Obama would deviate from that? While the ditching of Rumsfeld in 2006 was a significant improvement, the Bush Foreign Policy process was flawed in a great many ways and was not known for producing superb foreign policies.

Obama was elected on a campaign of change, and part of the change he promised was in how things were going to be done. While I find some of the decisions made to be problematic (and way too dependent on some of the folks who were on the wrong side of the financial crisis), it is clear that Obama is handling his team of foreign policy experts far better than Bush. Powell was marginalized, Rice failed utterly in the role of National Security Adviser, Cheney was Cheney, and so forth. Obama, relatively inexperienced in foreign policy (like Bush), has assembled a team of pro's, including Gates, former SACEUR and current National Security Adviser Jones, Hilary Clinton and others, and these folks all seem to have roles to play, giving the President a diverse set of opinions.

The role for the military in these circles is represented by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stuff--Admiral Mullen. Under Rummy, the JS was marginalized. Under Bush post-Rummy, the Chairman was a marginal factor. But under Obama, Mullen seems to be a credible player, interacting with the others. Therefore, McChrystal and Patreaus don't need to be talking to Obama every day or every week. That is the job of Mullen and of Gates. People have apparently forgotten that the Chairman is the guy to provide military advice to the president. I guess you cannot blame people for that, given Rumsfeld's best efforts to make that role invisible and the willingness of Generals Myers and Pace to go along with that.

Proper Role for Smart General

Interesting piece about where Gen. Petraeus now occupies in the Obama Administration. Not in the front row, apparently. And not that visible either. Given that Obama and Gates have hired his guy for Afghanistan (and the first major replacement of a US general since MacArthur), it would be silly to argue that Petraeus is irrelevant or out of the loop.

Instead, he seems to be playing a normal role, compared to his outsized, out-in-front situation when Bush was president.

To be clear, the job of Petraeus is to give the best military advice and then let the civilians decide. He clearly overstepped his role earlier, and we (ok, I) did not mind because the Bush decision-making process was so very dysfunctional. Now that we have a President who thinks a few steps ahead, a SecDef who is not blinded by his own arrogance, and a strong National Security Adviser, the military guys have to take their situation as a mixed change--less influence but less micromanagement. I think that is a deal they can buy into pretty easily.

Axe-Grinding or Truth Telling?

Probably a bit of both with Peter Galbraith, the recently fired #2 UN official--he lost his post over differences about how to deal the electoral fraud in Afghanistan. An interesting read to say the least.

Once again, very difficult choices--how to you build institutions if the folks running them don't believe in them?

This is the problem that Obama is facing--40,000 troops are not going to solve this one. In my interviews with senior Canadian military officers, it was abundantly clear that little progress had been made on the governance side. And that was before the election.

Where is Vegas When We Need It?

In the NY Times today, there are ten "Steps to Victory," with each one written by a different expert/pundit. I wish Vegas had a pundit book akin to their sports book, so that I could bet on what a pundit would write. Perhaps even (thanks Sports Guy) set up a two pundit tease: Kagans to urge doubling down with Kilcullen focused on governance. And if I had known that Pape would be writing, then perhaps a three pundit tease with suicide terrorism.

Then, we could come up with over/unders on such topics like: how many outlets will a particular pundit appear? How many outlets will accuse Obama of being too slow after criticizing Bush for not being thoughtful enough?

Of course, the over/under in Obama's mind is: how many months before the military comes back with a request for more troops? I think Vegas, if it was doing its job right, would set that at eleven months, and, if that were the case, I would probably bet the under.

Perhaps I just should stick with poker?

Zombie Kill of the Week

Zombieland. It kills. I am not going to post any spoilers here. But do go see it as it has a, ahem, killer cameo and you don't want that spoiled. Some great pop culture references as well.


And if you want to make a Zombie picture of yourself, just go to the zombieland website, and you can make one just like I did.

Just don't expect any reviews of any Twilight movies from me. I like vampire movies just fine, but the trailer for Twilight interests me not.

Civil-Military Relations and the New Surge

Good post at Salon, responding to the criticisms of Obama for daring to think first before agreeing to McChrystal's recommendations. Besides the argument there about the proper role of civilians in the chain of command--the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief, there is also another, often under-stated aspect here. The war in Afghanistan, as all wars are, is a political one, but especially so as counterinsurgency requires deft political efforts to build a legitimate alternative to the insurgents. So, who is the best judge of whether the outsiders can do this? McChrystal, a smart military guy, or Obama, a smart political animal?

War is too important to be left to the generals, even if Rumsfeld made civilian control of the military to look like a bad idea. Micro-management is often bad (including blunt caveats and strict force caps or ceilings) , but civilians must make the call on larger, strategic concerns, including balancing Afghanistan versus other demands. The problem is that Petraeus was so much smarter and thoughtful than the civilians around Bush that it made it appear to be the case that the military should have the say.

One other thing--this episode reminds this impatient scholar how impatient the media is. We can take a month or two to figure this out. As someone reported in recent days, it took Bush far longer to decide about the surge (took him forever to get rid of Rummy). It reminds me of how impatient people were after two or three days of bombing Kosovo and after a few days of invading Iraq. We are still trying to figure out the big question of how to produce some kind of legitimate governance in the aftermath of the election fraud that is Karzai.

Give Obama the time to do some due diligence.

Obama's Process

Good short item on how Obama is making the decision on Afghanistan and the recommendations made by Gen. McChrystal. While good process does not always lead to good decisions (or least worst decisions), bad process does usually lead to bad decisions. So, once again, I have to like how Obama is approaching this decision. My guess is that he will agree to send more troops, but will make it clear (perhaps not credibly) that another request in one year's time is not going to get as sympathetic a hearing.

Obama seems quite focused on the real problem in Afghanistan--the Afghan government. While more effort needs to be made to create security so that the rest of the nation/govt/state-building process can develop, the security situation relies on a semi-legitimate government. And it is not clear whether one exists now or will in one year's time. See Kaplan for his take.

Nuke Clarity

Great post at Salon on how inspectors can tell good nuclear from bad nuclear projects (power vs. bombs).

The explainer column in Salon is consistently, well, clarifying.

When Biden is Rumsfeld

Gen. McChrystal is getting ahead of the DC debate, overstepping his bounds, as he gave the President and the SecDef his "best military advice." He should now wait for the folks back there to decide and be careful about answering questions too bluntly in London.

Having said that, I find what he said to be largely true. That the go small option and just to counter-terrorism option as apparently espoused by VP Biden is not a promising way ahead. Indeed, isn't this what Rumsfeld was doing from 2002-2006? Indeed, in the Dave and Steve project on Afghanistan, we (Dave) learned that Rumsfeld only got interested in Afghanistan in 2004-ish when the US general was doing more than CT but COIN, and Rummy pulled him back. The current talk about just doing counter-terrorism and let Afghanistan rot (not quite what they say) is quite problematic for a variety of reasons, with most obvious one that CT requires intel, and that comes from the locals.

Meanwhile, Marc Lynch suggests muddling through might be the answer. That might not a politically sustainable stance, but it is pretty realistic. The challenge to Obama is that if he does give the additional 40,000 troops or whatever is not so much that decision, bu the next one when he is asked for another set of reinforcements. I think the hesitation and deliberation now is mostly about anticipating that next request. And doing due diligence.

No good choices. So a very interesting moment in time. I do think that McChystral's emphasis on the next year is interesting. As I have said here before, the current level of violence might be partly election-produced and partly an effect of the surge of Americans into the south--more targets and more operations. So, if it were up to me, I would wait the end of next summer to make any irrevocable decisions. Sending 40k troops now might not be a bad bridge to the next decision point. Not a great one either.

Russia vs Georgia Review

The EU has published the findings of its fact-finding mission. Some highlights and my thoughts:

1. "The issue of self-determination of South Ossetians and Abkhaz as well as their right to unilateral secession from Georgia are two legal issues related to the conflict. Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories. However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid. An extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far not found general acceptance." And the report then says genocide didn't occur. Not surprising. And, thus, Russian behavior is then contrary to international law. Not clear yet how the EU squares that with Kosovo (unless Serbia was viewed as genocidal) .
2. The report is critical of Russian "passportization"--giving folks passports in the former Soviet territory outside of Russia. Such citizenship can only be confirmed with the consent of the other country. "The mass conferral of Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals and the provision of passports on a massive scale on Georgian territory, including its breakaway provinces, without the consent of the Georgian Government runsagainst the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and an interference in the internal affairs of Georgia." Indeed, Russian behavior here makes Hungary's famous "Status Law" look entirely trivial by comparison. This finding is quite reasonable and does not require any kind of revisionist view of Kosovo.
3. "Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the
   town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008." The report does not find conclusive evidence of large-scale Russian incursions prior to this attack, but does suggest that Russia was sending equipment and volunteers into South Ossetia prior to the outbreak of large-scale violence. So, this one goes for Russia and against Georgia.
4. But the report does not buy the Russian justification for its disproportionate response--that there was no genocide or threat of it.
5. And the report is critical of Russian aggression after the Georgians try to have a ceasefire.
6. "There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia,
   beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was
   justifiable under international law. It was not." Well, EU gets pretty definitive. Yikes. South Ossetians could defend themselves, but they went beyond that, the report finds.
7. Russia was ok in defending the peacekeepers once the Georgians started the attack, but: "Although it should be admitted that it is not easy to decide where the line must be drawn, it seems, however, that much of the Russian military action went far beyond the reasonable limits of defence." Thus, "In a matter of a very few days, the pattern of legitimate and illegitimate military action had thus turned around between the two main actors Georgia and Russia." Now, Georgia was right in defending itself against Russian aggression.
8. The EU then hoists Russia on its own petard: "Among major powers, Russia in particular has consistently and persistently objected to any justification of the NATO Kosovo intervention as a humanitarian intervention. It can therefore not rely on this putative title to justify its own intervention on Georgian territory."
9. Russia's use of force in support of the Abhkaz at this time also is ruled as out of bounds.
10. "Allegations of genocide committedby the Georgian side in the context of the August 2008 conflict and its aftermath are neither founded in law nor substantiated by factual evidence." Thus, most of Russia's behavior is illegitimate.
11. "several elements suggest the conclusion that ethnic cleansing was indeed practised against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia both during and after the August 2008 conflict." So, South Ossetians/Russians are, ahem, bad guys.
12. Georgia clearly used weapons indiscriminately in areas with civilian concentrations (multiple rocket launchers, cluster munitions), Russia probably did as well.
13. Could this be avoided: "one of weaknesses of the peace processes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 1992 - 2006 seemed to be the fact that the Georgian, Abkhaz and South Ossetian sides concentrated heavily on external aspects and players without paying sufficient attention to building mutual trust and promoting reconciliation." Kind of sounds like International Relations causing a civil war.
14. "As a power with traditionally strong links to the region and understandably enough,
    important political, economic and security interests there, Russia was given the role of
    facilitator in the Georgian-Abkhaz and the Georgian-Ossetian negotiation processes, and
    that of a provider of peacekeeping forces. This formula, while seemingly in line with the
    rules of Realpolitik, seriously affected the existing political equilibrium in the region." So, Russia was going to play a role--that is just the power politics of it, but it was not going to be a stabilizing one.
    
15. "The lack of timely and sufficiently determined action by the international community, and to some degree the non-innovative approach to the peace process adopted by international organisations, contributed to the unfolding crisis. Thus a series of mistakes, misperceptions and missed opportunities on all sides accumulated up to a point where the danger of an explosion of violence became real." EU blames NATO and rightly so, not so much for the Kosovo recognition, but for starting admissions process for Georgia, which encouraged Georgia and annoyed Russia. And did not guarantee anyone's security.
16. "While it is possible to identify the authorship of some important events and decisions marking its course, there is no way to assign overall responsibility for the conflict to one side alone." Cop out? Or recognition of a complex reality? Somewhere in between I guess. Georgia behaved badly, but had been provoked again and again by Russia directly and indirectly. I think a tie goes to the weaker actor. Russia could have refrained entirely, Georgia was embedded in a difficult situation.
17. "Finally, it must be noted that there are no winners in this conflict." Um. It would be nice to think so, but so wrong. Arms dealers always win. The Abkhaz won as they faced few costs and now Georgia is handcuffed. The South Ossetians probably win, since Georgia cannot doing anything. Russia wins because Georgia lost. NATO did lose some credibility here, but might win in the long run if it slows the pace of dubious membership (Ukraine, Georgia, etc.) And the criminals win, since South Ossetia has become a haven for organized crime.
18. Under observations: "It has also become apparent that the effectiveness of monitoring, peacekeeping and other stabilising institutions and arrangements depends to a large extent on the trust and confidence in which they are being held by the parties to the conflict. This is in most cases directly related to the impartiality which the parties attribute to them, and this in turn is immediately linked to their country of origin or to the country thought to be in control." Duh!
    

The Obama Team Gets Interesting, Danger Ahead

American civilians in war zones are now getting as much or more press than the military guys. One might consider this to be a good thing--that governance and development are becoming priorities. Except that the news is not that good.

Peter Galbraith, a diplomat with a long record of, ahem, being true to his beliefs, just got canned as deputy to the UN Special Representative in Kabul. Jonathan Western at Duck of Minerva has a good post that raises heaps of questions about the impact of Galbraith's dissent. He did not last nearly as long as the previous one, Canada's Christopher Alexander (the tall blond guy in the picture), who is now seeking to be a member of the CA parliament. Galbraith was making a big stink about the fraud in the election, and he was critical of how close the UN mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) was/is to Karzai.

This raises all kinds of issues, but really cuts to the heart of the challenge in Afghanistan and how it differ from the experiences in the Balkans. In Bosnia, the Office of the High Representative (OHR) had the power to remove Bosnian politicians from office if they were too obstructionist, and the international community via the OHR coordinated with the military side (NATO's Stabilization Force--SFOR). Of course, even with that power, the OHR could not force people to vote for less nationalist parties.
In Afghanistan, the UN and the Special Rep have far less power (and resources), and have to work through the Afghan government, not around or over it. So, improving governance--improving the capability and legitimacy of the Afghan government is really quite hard, even if one had significant influence and power. I am not sure Galbraith is right or wrong--there might have been an opportunity for the UN to intervene to clean up the election, at least just a bit.

While this is blowing up on the frontpages, Thomas Ricks has been documenting a significant rift between the US military and Christopher Hill, the US Ambassador to Iraq. This is in sharp contrast to the positive relationship between Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, but reminds folks of the bad old days between LtGen Sanchez and Jerry Bremer. Hill has no Iraq expertise and seems to resist taking advice from the guys in uniforms to influence the Iraqis. On the other hand, the process of building Iraq capacity means letting them make thing own mistakes--as the Petraeus playbook and all COIN manuals suggest. Just as in Afghanistan, the course ahead is hardly clear and the folks on the ground face daunting challenges and difficult tradeoffs.

While it is hard, the focus must be on institutions and not people, even as we need to influence people to make the right choices. The problematic election in Afghanistan is bad for many reasons, including undermining the institutions that the outsiders are trying to build AND increasing dependence on the individual in the office, even as he gets increasingly unreliable or decreasingly reliable. Likewise, in Iraq, the unraveling that Ricks continues to document is all about how the institutions are not really binding behavior--that the government is being used by one side to dominate the other.

The future is going to be bumpy, to say the least.

A Gray Victory is Just as Sweet

When I posted the other day about the Grandmaster Tourney in Montreal, I didn't have any pics. Now I do:


I discovered that beer drunk out of a big silver cup tastes better:

Arise Germany?

Roger Cohen has a wonderfully pithy op-ed this morning about the new Germany (is Germany new every five years or so?). He argues that Germany is shaking off its constraints, more or less, and seeing more of an independent role between the US and Russia in the years ahead.

Germany, these days, feels it has no choice but to pursue its self-interest. It is through with self-denial.

I am not so sure about that. Its military is quite constrained, although admittedly some of the caveats are loosening, so that limits to German power exist. They may be imposed by domestic political forces, such as pacifism, but they exist nonetheless.

The more striking and more enduring hunk of knowledge dropped by Cohen is that the current round of EU deepening is almost certainly the last:

The German Constitutional Court recently approved the Lisbon Treaty, which could give the E.U. essential new leadership if the Irish say yes in a re-run referendum this week and the Czechs check in. But the German approval was laced with warnings that no further erosion of German sovereignty was acceptable.

“The court built a concrete wall five centimeters from here saying not a step further in eroding the German national state,” said Reinhard Bütikofer, a leading Green politician. “That’s the flavor of our new nationalism.”

That is a more robust and lasting reality. The fall of the SPD might be a bit more temporary, despite Cohen's assertions, as elections can be harbingers of great change or much less than that. I am no expert on Germany despite spending a week in Berlin this summer, so I cannot say anything for sure about the future of Germany's political parties. But it may be too quick to judge whether the SPD is doomed.