By Jove, We Have a Crisis in Civ-Mil Relations

Usually, when we think of crises in civilian-military relations, two possibilities come to mind: a coup someplace or the American military and civilians are not getting along.  But now we have the Brits doing a very nice imitation of a classic US civ-mil crisis.

We now have British naval, air and army leaders making assessments about current missions that are at odds with the messaging of the British government.  Heads of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have indicated that fighting two wars is unsustainable with current capabilities and budgets. 

Prime Minister David Cameron:

"angrily told RAF and Navy chiefs who questioned the mission in Libya: “You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking.”

And now,

General Sir Peter Wall, the Chief of the General Staff, suggests in a television programme that Mr Cameron’s 2015 “deadline” to end combat operations [in Afghanistan] could slip.

Is this inappropriate?  Depends.  It seems to be the case that the officers are taking their cases to members of parliament and the press rather than to the Prime Minister:

Mr Cameron is understood to be particularly unhappy that some of the military concerns expressed about Libya to MPs and the media have not been raised with him. A senior source said: “In some ways, it’s a good thing that the chiefs are prepared to stand up to ministers and aren’t just 'Yes’ men. But it would be much more helpful if they did it in private instead of in the papers and in Parliament.”

But it is more complex than that.  There are at least two ways to look at this conversation amid deep cuts in the defence budgets (and in all other budgets):

1. The military is upset about the budget cuts and is using these events to demonstrate that the cuts, made deeply and bluntly, have a significant impact on British standing in the world.  Thus, the crisis du jour is really about the military being opportunistic.
2. Given how the cuts in the budget were made, the military has learned that Cameron makes decisions without taking seriously the advice they give him, and thus have learned that they must go outside of the normal procedures to have any impact.  So, the crisis is not so much about the military whining about a loss in £'s but the military feeling that the Prime Minister neither understands their concerns nor cares about them. 

Which one is it?  Probably a bit of both, but Cameron does seem to be reacting quite poorly, as the division of labor he proposes (military fights, he speaks) raises the question of whose job is it do the thinking?  To be clear, having a crappy leader (not saying Cameron is or isn't) is no excuse for military leaders to run amok.  However, in the first case, the Admiral was talking to members of parliament (despite Westminister systems having poor oversight over their militaries)* and should be speaking what he considers to be the truth.  But it is quite clear that there is a crisis in civil-military relations here in that both sides have lost confidence in the other. **

* One of my projects, on a backburner, is considering how British-style parliaments do oversight over their militaries. 

**  Of course, I am no expert on British civ-mil relations, so I could be wrong.

The timing here is most interesting, as the US may be seeing a bit of a storm brewing over how much Obama should be reducing the forces in Afghanistan and how quickly.  The difference: the storm is likely to be as much or more within the US military as between the military and the President.  For much of the American armed forces, Afghanistan is not a high priority, and they would like to get on with the job of preparing for the next big war (with China).  I will be writing more about the big US decision after Obama's speech tonight rather than speculating wildly now.  Instead, I am wildly speculating about the Brits.

Drones Overboard

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have become very prominent over the past few years and very much so over the past few days.  Erica Chenoweth does a great job of reviewing the state of scholarship on the effectiveness of Drone strikes.  And now an unarmed UAV has been downed over Libya.

I tweeted that perhaps folks were overreacting as the one of the key reasons to have UAVs is to put robots in harm's way rather than people.  I got a bit of a pushback from NATO's friends via https://twitter.com/#!/NATOSource/.   The counter-tweet noted that losing technology to the bad guys is not a good thing and, given that UAVs are a scarce commodity (in military jargon: low density, high demand), losing one is pretty significant.  So, I apologize for being flippant about this.  I realize that these UAVs are expensive and scarce.  Moreover,  we do not want to share the technology with the Libyan government who can learn how to counter these systems and/or sell the parts to countries that might not be friends of ours. 

I guess my tweet was due to frustration--that losing a helicopter in Afghanistan is not really news these days but losing a UAV in Libya is.  While this is the first downing of a UAV in Libya, we have lost UAVs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so this is not a unique event or the first time we may have lost some technology that could be exploited by other folks.

I guess the media got more excited (or I have exaggerated the media's excitement) because it happened over Libya.  Why?  Because the media tends to obsess about stuff that is being hotly debated in national capitols, and Libya certainly is a hot issue in DC, Ottawa, London, and elsewhere.  Afghanistan comes and goes, but Libya is the show right now, so one UAV and one errant strike get far more play than their strategic significance would suggest.

I also tweeted that folks were overreacting to the NATO strike that killed some civilians.  Again, this is a serious issue, but it, by itself, should not really raise that many questions or change that many minds about the mission.  Any military campaign will inevitably kill bystanders.  The difference is that for NATO, these unfortunate people were unintended casualties and not targets, whereas Qaddafi's force continue to aim at the civilians.  The ratio of civilians killed by the Libyan government vs NATO forces must be starker than the Taliban/NATO ratio.  Yes, hitting civilians can undermine the effort, but NATO is doing as much as it can to avoid that.  Hard to do without having ground troops providing intel, but that is where UAVs fill (partially) the gap.  So, we risk losing UAVs not just to avoid NATO casualties but also to limit "collateral damage."

So once again, I will say that losing a UAV is an acceptable (and expected) price for doing this kind of business.  We don't have to be happy about it, but nor should we fret that much.  I am reminded of a classic scene in M*A*S*H: "Rule number one of war is that young men die.  Rule number two is that doctors cannot change rule number one."  Times have changed, so it is now young people with women now playing greater roles in combat; AND because now we have found some ways to beat rule number 1--with technology and via political restrictions (no boots on the ground).  Perhaps in the future, rule number one will be: in war (and hostility like events), machines die.  Again, I may be sounding flippant, but war is destructive and we are spoiled if we think that only the other side is going to pay the price.

Innovate This!

Canada apparently does not innovate so well:

Canada ranked 14th out of 17 peer countries in overall innovation performance in the Conference Board’s How Canada Performs: Innovation report card (published in 2010). Moreover, Canada has obtained consistent “D” grades in innovation performance since the 1980s. 

Perhaps Canadians are too busy trying to stay warm to spend time tinkering with the latest widget.  Nope, Sweden is ranked ahead and it is mighty cold here.

Perhaps Canadians do not innovate because those who do, such as Jim Basillie and the folks behind Blackberry, are denied the fruits of their labor (NHL is not letting Basillie move a team to Hamilton, Ontario). 

Perhaps it is because Canada produces few PhDs:

 Yet Canada is a consistent top performer overall in the Education and Skills report card, ranking second only to Finland in the most recent release. Canada’s ranking slips, however, as we move from high-school completion (second) to university completion (fifth) to PhD graduates (last of 17).

Apparently, PhD production is correlated with innovation. Perhaps unemployed PhDs can develop critical mass and then propose all kinds of new ideas?  It is this point that raises the hairs on the back of my neck.  Given the current employment crisis for PhDs, I fear that the desire for more innovation would lead to encouraging more programs to produce more PhDs but not necessarily jobs for those PhDs. 

The funny thing is that the Canada Research Chairs program and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation were aimed at reversing the brain drain, bringing back lost Canadian scientists and bringing in folks form elsewhere to compensate for the lost Canadians.  So, it is apparently my fault, as I enter my tenth and final year in the CRC program (the junior chairs are for five years and can only be renewed once) that Canada is failing to innovate.  I have not come up with enough new ideas, invented any widgets, or produced enough brilliant PhD students.  Well, the latter I have in great surplus but most of them have gone south for jobs.

Aye, there is the rub.  I am not sure we can figure out how innovative Canadians are anymore since there are plenty of Canadians innovating in the US and plenty of foreigners innovating while in Canada.  There is no Silicon Valley up here, but then again, Silicon Valley is not what it used to be.  I guess I have a hard time seeing how business and academics are supposed to work together to foster innovation since there are few corporations in the Irredentism business.  And those that might be would probably not make it past a research ethics board.

The only thing I can recommend is: more slots for academic researchers.  But you knew that i would be saying that.

What Do You Think About While Time Traveling?

Nice to see the enduring relevance of Back to the Future:

From College Humor.

My version would be somewhat different, as I am not a birther nor a fan of Doctor Who (despite my daughter's new infatuation with the Doctor).  I might have some Biff in me (must remember who wins the big games and when to sell stocks).  What else would be on my mind as my Delorean reached 88 miles per hour?*  Hmm, mostly girls I should have and shouldn't have asked out long ago in high school and at camp, not falling for my daughter's ploy to get a cat (how about you guys get a divorce and we can have a cat in house and the dogs in another?), perhaps getting some stuff published in grad school, and worrying that any nose bleed might be a sign of forthcoming doom unless somebody spins the donkey wheel again.

 *  I love that these are the results you get from typing 88 miles per hour into google:

Deja Vu, Canadian Style

Canada is leaving Kandahar.  That is old news.  It is going to forget about some of the key lessons learned.  The Unarmed Aerial Vehicles [UAVs] or drones were only leased, not bought.  So, Canada will not be taking back its squadron of drones back home, despite the fact that they proved to be most handy in this war and proved their usefulness for future military operations.  Instead, the folks who flew these flying robots will be dispersed.

The military is kidding itself if they buy this claim:

"There's probably going to be a hiatus of somewhere between two and five years. But those people will still be in the military, and those people will have this experience, and they'll be able to move forward with the yardstick when the time comes."

No unit means no training, no refinement of expertise, no lessons being learned and transmitted.  Drones have proven to be lifesavers (and lifetakers, but the Canadian kind, which are unarmed) and are now known in military jargon as enablers and force multipliers.  Cheaper, far cheaper than F35s, far more likely to be used in most missions, but hey, a lease is a lease.  Easier not to buy the stuff in a time of budget cuts.

The only good news in this is for me personally--if the Canadian Forces are losing their drones, it might just mean they are betting on no new ground deployments in the medium term.  And I do have a bet on that.

Good TV, Bad TV

Game of Thrones vs The Killing.  Had heaps of fun today reading the reviews of both. In general, folks loved the former and hated the latter.  Sometimes I wonder how much my opinion is shaped by the reviewers.  Did I hate the Killing that much before I read Sepinwall's review and then the various tweets?

Spoiler break

21st Century Dilemma for Narcissists

What to do?  What to do?  If one has an active twitter account, it is likely that one will attract undesirable followers.  There are programs/spambots that will choose to "follow" your twitter account to promote their products.  Usually, the avatar of the twitter-bot is an attractive female, suggesting that they are marketing only to straight men (and lesbians?).  I tend to block these folks from following my twitter account, as I do not want to be associated with this stuff.  But, on the other hand, it reduces the number of followers I have.  My guess is that I would have at least twenty-five percent more followers and perhaps even fifty percent more if I did not block these folks.

Alas what is a 21st century narcissist to do?  Accept the unwelcome followers who have agendas?  Or block them and then have a lower follower number?  I have chosen the latter, but ponder whether it makes a difference at all.

Sucker for 70's

Ah, Spielberg and Abrams know how to go retro.  Super 8 did a great job of not only replicating life in the late 1970's with one exception, but also replicated the heart and humor of the classic Spielberg flicks with Super 8 as a mix of Jaws, ET and Close Encounters.  Spoilers below

Best Part of Father's Day

What is the best part of Father's Day?  Breakfast in Bed?  Pretty cool.  Is it the tough decision to figure out which book to read first?  Yep, books tend to dominate the gift list.  Is it the token hug from my kid?  Nope, she gives better, more enthused hugs at other times.  Nope, it is when I get to see the card my daughter has made for me.  She combines her sharp computer skills with Microsoft's hegemony to produce a homemade card each year.  And each one demonstrates her wonderful sense of humor and keen smartass talents.  This year, I am "Better than Vader."  What more could I want?

Oh, and I get to choose the movie.  Hard choice between Super 8 and Green Lantern as both appeal to the geeks in my family (that would be all of us).  But Super 8 has some father-child stuff perfect for today, and no need to try to figure out how to avoid the 3D version. 

More Micro-Management, Please!

This op-ed piece re-plays the usual arguments--profs teach too little, class sizes too big, make profs teach more.  There is something to this--I teach an intro course with 600 students.  This does not bother me so much as the 80 kids in my senior level class.  We do offer seminars for honors students but not enough of them. 

But to blame profs for reduced courseloads (and yes, I have been enjoying such a reduction due to my Canada Research Chair-ness) is to overstate that problem, compared to underfunding/over-admitting; incentives for grad programs; and administrative bloat.  Oh, and not understanding the research part of a research university.  Let me make this self-serving argument point by point.

First, the author of the piece, Simpson, acknowledges that provincial officials (for the US, think state governments) tend to emphasize access, producing larger and larger groups of incoming students but funding has tended to be shrinking.  So, they want us to do more with less.  The original source of McGill's big bloat in class size, at least in my department, was in the 1990s when there were steep budget cuts.  My guess is that our classes will get bigger still because of the new cuts that means we cannot hire as many temp folks.

Second, some of our classes are really quite small--we call them graduate classes.  Funding schemes often give departments more money if they have more graduate students despite the fact that the academic job market is rather poor and will continue to be so.  Indeed, there are still departments around North America starting new PhD programs--which is semi-unconscionable.  We are a very bad guild and having too many grad students in the pipeline is a collective bad  so we might be better off if governments reduced some of the incentives that reward universities for having heaps of grad programs and students.  This would have to be carefully done so that we do not penalize the students in the pipeline now nor underfund future ones.

Third, if you track where the funding has gone over the past 10 or 20 years, the area that has seen the most growth is administration.  Even when other areas are being cut, it seems to be the case that we have more Vice Principals (Vice Presidents or Chancellors at US schools), Associate Provosts, and so forth. These folks are not only expensive in terms of their salary but in terms of their staff requirements.  So, before we start asking profs to teach more, how about we look at administrative positions?

Fourth, the article here entirely underplays the notion that a research university is supposed to do research.  If we up courseloads to 3-3 (three course a term) or 4-4, which would be the only way to really get class sizes down significantly without adding more resources or cutting the numbers of students, then profs would be doing far less research.  That's ok as long as you realize that time is finite and there are tradeoffs. And if you don't value research.  But if you do value knowledge creation (oh, what a wonderfully arrogant way to put it), then perhaps you might want to keep some of the universities in the research game.  Relying on the private sector is a risky way to go, as Canada (or the US) would still be in a world where research is publicly funded via universities and thus at a competitive disadvantage.  And private research money may not examine government output since that might risk their funding.  Tenure does have a purpose--such as allowing folks to challenge the prevailing wisdom, whether it is in cancer research, foreign policy, or provocative art. 

Update: I forgot to mention that the idea that teaching and research are unrelated is also problematic.  As I have mentioned here at the Spew many times, my teaching is informed by my research (and vice versa).  And not only in the more specialized upper division courses but even in the big intro to International Relations class.   More knowledge is.... more.

Simpson is essentially calling for more micro-management of universities.  That may be ok in Ontario, but I think we get enough of that here in Quebec, thanks.

Is there a problem with class size?  Yes.  Is asking profs to teach more a simplistic solution?  Indeed.

Scandal 101 [NSFW]

Thanks to Jimmy Kimmel for the 21st century Schoolhouse Rock:


Nice to see both in the comedy and in reality how technology just adds a bit of flava to tradition.

Canada Post Lockout Means What?

It means this is the only gift I am likely to get:


My daughter used her mighty internet skills to find this piece of instructive silliness or silly instructions.

But the books I ordered, we shall see.  Whine.

Thanks for the Tanks

I am working on a paper about Canadian military adaptation while in Afghanistan.  A key example is below:

Hipster Confusion

The strangest part of the Hipster phenomenon (if it exists) is that these folks apparently like to drink Pabst Blue Ribbon and other forms of swill.  So, they want to say, "hey, I am a rebel, you guys are all so picky in your beer preferences, so I will demonstrate how ironic I am by drinking bad beer." Ok, go ahead.  More good beer for the rest of us.  I guess this is akin to previous forms of rebellion where folks got tattoos, piercings and the like.  Yep, a tough call--would I prefer getting part of my body pierced or having to drink Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Oh, and cool hats, dudes.

Patience Could be a Virtue

We know, absolutely know, that the 1982 effort by Argentina to reclaim their lost Malvinas (a.k.a. Falklands) was an exemplar of a diversionary war (where leaders use foreign policy to distract restive domestic audiences) because there were public plans in the UK to dismantle a hunk of its navy.  Had Argentina waited just a year or two or three, it could have launched the same effort, and the Brits would have been hard-pressed to do anything about it.

Why mention this now?  Because Argentina seems miffed that the UK is not bargaining with them over the future of the Islands.  I would think that Argentina could and should wait as British bargaining leverage will certainly decline over the next few years as its armed forces are decimated by budget cuts.  In a few years, Argentina could repeat 1982 or just threaten to do so, and the British will not be able to respond as it did under Margaret Thatcher. 

Not that I am recommending a particular policy stance.  More that I am wondering why this is coming up now.  Since I don't know much about Argentina, I am curious about what is driving the timing of this.  Any suggestions from my readers?

Obama Is a Weenie

Yep, I said it.  I understand that Presidents do not like the War Powers Act, but suck it up, dude.  This is the third or fourth on-going war, so step in front of it and take some leadership.  Put the Republicans in a difficult position if they want to oppose a conflict while Americans are putting themselves in harm's way.  To call this conflict anything other than a war is akin to the German defense minister (the one before the plagiarist) who referred to some folks killed in a crisis scenario  ... in Afghanistan.

Publics do seem to prefer it when you take ownership rather than playing with words. 

Science Confirms Hypocrisy

Just a link to lil Steve's blog which documents something we always suspected (given the scandals of many prominent Republicans): folks who seem most uncomfortable with homosexuality actually are those who are most turned on by it. 

Escape from Montreal

My parents visited us this week, and now I am wondering if they can leave.  One of the major bridges is now closed for repairs in the direction of the south shore.  Another is at risk of being closed at a moment's notice.  Why?  Because these bridges are falling apart.  You would think that a city that happens to be on an island would have secure means to get to and from the island.  If there is anything here that testifies to mismanagement by the province and by the city better than the bridges falling apart, I do not want to hear it. 

So, I am imaging what a third "Escape from" movie would be like.  In the first one, Snake Pliskin (Kurt Russell) is dropped into Manhattan, which has been made into a prison, to rescue the President.  In the second, he has to escape LA (the plot was pretty forgettable).  In the third, he is simply visiting Montreal for a festival (jazz or comedy), and finds out that all of the bridges to get to the south shore are closed.  What will he do?  What will he do?  Kidnap all of the politicians to force them to spend more attention on the bridges than on a new hockey arena in Quebec?  Only if he wants to be driven mad by the infighting and nationalist posers. 

Another Innovation Way Too Late

NSFW:


Where was this when my kid was young?  Five years of sleeplessness!!!  Funny we were just talking this morning about the innovations that came too late, like changing tables in airplanes, men's rooms, and the like.

Rock On, Libyan Fighters

“When it got really quiet, we’d play guitar and sing ‘Mother, do you think they’ll drop the bomb?’” said Abdulfatah Shaka, 22, his rocket-propelled-grenade launcher at his side. “The snipers would get furious and start shooting everywhere.”

From this interesting Atlantic piece,* thanks to a Current Intelligence re-tweet.

* The Atlantic has really been bringing the heat lately.  Some very good reads the past few months.

The good news is that these guys quickly dumped the Backstreet Boys (even though that is what a good urban insurgent is, ironically enough) for Pink Floyd, Metallica, Nirvana, Iron Maiden, and, the Canadians will be pleased, Neil Young.

Still, this article presents the darkness of war pretty well:

For Bozaid, a machine gunner who put his body count at more than 25, preparation for battle meant listening to Slayer on his smart phone. “Some of my friends said that I should be reading the Koran. But I needed my drug.”

Online In Reality

Nice short video taking the online social media and making it, ahem, real.


Great advert!

Trolling for Love

Why do people post stuff on the net that is solely aimed to blow things up?  Perhaps trolls are even more narcissistic than me, which is hard to imagine.  But the good news is that we now have some social science that recommends the following:

"Trolling can (1) be frustrated if users correctly interpret an intent to troll, but are not provoked into responding, (2) be thwarted if users correctly interpret an intent to troll, but counter in such a way as to curtail or neutralise the success of the troller, (3) fail if users do not correctly interpret an intent to troll and are not provoked by the troller, or, (4) succeed if users are deceived into believing the troller's pseudo-intention(s), and are provoked into responding sincerely. Finally, users can mock troll. That is, they may undertake what appears to be trolling with the aim of enhancing or increasing effect, or group cohesion. "

What is your strategy?  I tend to respond because I feel a compulsion to try to provide clarity and truth, to de-myth.  Probably causes more trouble than it solves.  Not a problem here since I could moderate the comments and because trolls seem not to have found me.  Folks who disagree with me have, but I have no problem with good intentioned-debate.  However, elsewhere on the magical web, trolls have pushed my buttons.  I don't always respond, but sometimes I cannot help myself.  Am I a masochist or just a narcissist?  Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.

Ignorance Sauce: Now In Americanized Flavor

When I first moved to Canada, I was kind of surprised to hear that you can call something here "American" and it is an insult.  That you can demonize anything by calling it Americanized. General Rick Hillier was viewed by his critics as too American, that he was tainted by his tour as Deputy Commander of the III Corps at Fort Hood. It is an old trick that keeps on giving: "Further proof of the Americanization of our politics: the journalistic elevation of the drunkard’s walk known as Stephen Harper’s foreign policy to the level of a “doctrine.”"*

* The author of the piece, Andrew Potter, was joking in his use of Americanization.  Too bad the rest of the folks do not use it the same way.

I wholeheartedly concur (and tweeted earlier today before I saw this article) that calling something a doctrine tends to be an effort to impose non-existent coherence on a set of policies, like the Obama Doctrine or the Harper Doctrine, as in this case.  BUT calling something "Americanized" is just a Canadian way to cover something with ignorance sauce.  Yes, I have a new sauce to go with the other four sauces: perspective, denial, awesome, and denial  Ignorance sauce seems like denial sauce, but it is a bit different.  Rather than denying an existing reality, this sauce disguises whatever is going on and adds just a bit of bitterness.  Too much salt?

The US is a lot of things, both good and bad.  To say something is too American means what exactly?  Too brash?  Too bold?  Too loud?  Sure, the American F-16s this weekend seemed louder than the Canadian F-18s.  And that means what?  It is an easy punchline to say something is too American up here.  I am guilty of something similar, using "Concordia" in some of my jokes at the other English University in town since most McGill students will take pleasure in cheap shots at the neighbor to which they feel superior.

As an American, this insult activates my patriotism and my identity as an American.  As a social scientist, I find the trope problematic since there are heaps of bases of comparison in addition to the US.  Comparing the Canadian health care system to the American one can make Canadians feel good, but really does not bring much light to the conversation.  Indeed, it usually fosters ignorance, as invoking the US allows one to stop thinking. 

I do think that the US and Canada are far more alike than they are different, in all of the most meaningful ways, as tolerant, vibrant, fun-loving, hard-working societies.  As a scholar of ethnic politics, I am only too well aware that folks will make more of their differences when the gaps are narrow than when they are broad.  So, I see what is going on here.  I just would prefer that Canadians pay a bit more attention to their strengths and weaknesses without invoking the US.  Of course, they would prefer that the Americans pay some attention up north so that some Americans opinions are not covered in ignorance sauce of the old kind--just plain ignorance.

Short Note on Why NATO

During my DND junket to Bagotville, I was reminded that for all of the grief that NATO gets (and I give it plenty myself), we must remember that while governments develop all kinds of rules that give each contingent its own rules of engagement, the units themselves are far more inter-operable than they would be otherwise.

I briefly talked with an American pilot who was there to show off his KC-135 at the airshow (pic to right shows simulated fueling).  He just spent much time over the Mediterranean re-fueling American, Canadian, British, French, Danish, Norwegian, and Italian jets (and perhaps others).  Mid-air re-fueling is not an easy task where a fighter can just fly up and say "please, sir, can I have some more ... fuel?"  It requires compatible equipment, common doctrine, heaps of training and practice.  I somehow doubt that there is much mid-air refueling for the non-NATO members of this mission since they have not had literally decades of effort on inter-operability.

Another NATO contribution:  getting communications, command and control up and running very, very quickly so that the various platforms (intelligence, air-to air, air-to-ground) can be tied together.  Having dozens of planes in the air from many countries in the same airspace is not easy.  There is apparently no regional division of labor (no equivalent of regional command south or east or north like in Afghanistan) as Canadian planes fly all over Libya, not just in one part.  This complexity is under-rated by outside observers, but is smoothly handled by the organization.

So, there is my NATO cheerleading for the day.  I will go back to criticizing tomorrow (or later today).

Standard Libya Post

I forget how many times I have said this, but juxtaposing civilian protection and getting rid of Qaddafi as being entirely separate endeavors seems to be just as naive as Ned Stark's expectations.  How does one protect the civilians if Qaddafi stays in place?  He cannot make a credible commitment of any kind. He has promised to kill all of his opponents, which would seem to include heaps of civilians.  So, tell me, how do we protect civilians while not upending Qaddafi? 

During the past few days, I went to and from Bagotville, where many of the Canadian pilots flying over Libya are usually based.  I had a conversation with one of the senior pilots while the air show was going on (so the conversation was punctuated by the sound of freedom--afterburners, baby!).  It was very clear that these guys (there are female pilots in the Canadian Air Force but apparently none in the squadron that was sent) take quite seriously civilian protection, returning back to base much of the time with their bombs since the risk of collateral damage was unacceptable for many of the missions.

More striking was the common perception amongst the pilots that boots on the ground will be needed.  I wonder if American pilots, who are much more service-oriented, would admit that they could not do the job alone.  But the boots on the ground would raise real risks of mission creep--if they remain after Qaddaffi's departure.  Again, it is damn near impossible to separate regime change from civilian protection in this case.  Perhaps elsewhere it is possible, but not here given the course of events.

Gates Hiatus

I am not posting about Gates and NATO for a couple of days as I have an op-ed under consideration on the topic.  I will post the link if it is published or the piece if it is not.

A Successful Junket

I am recovering from a day at an airshow.  It was a lot of fun and actually quite productive as I had conversations with two officers with interesting experiences--Afghanistan and Libya.  So, I think I blew Canadian tax dollars in a productive fashion.  And got a bag full of swag at the same time. 

So, what did I observe during the course of the airshow?

• I think American planes are louder.  Or they are flown more loudly.  The F-16 flown by an American pilot (Canada only has F-18s) had a tendency to hit his afterburners while they were slightly pointed towards the audience.  Super-loud.  And, yes, super-cool.  there is something visceral about a plane blasting overhead.  I felt a huge urge to sing this South Park song (NSFW).  It may not make sense, but a loud fighter flying low overhead just is absolutely thrilling.

• I loved the reactions of the Canadians when I told them that the sound of a fighter jet blasting by is the sound of freedom.  And boy did I feel freer after the show.
• We were only able to breech the defenses of the VIP tent (even though we had VIP badges) when we went to meet the Commanding Officer (and ask him a bunch of Afghanistan questions).  But once there, we found free beer, and good free beer.  I don't know why they were selling Coors Light elsewhere since Canadians produce far better beer than that swill. 
• Very interesting musical selection to accompany the various planes, including the theme from Band of Brothers for the Sabre, a Korean War era plane (the yellow/gold one in the pic above). 

I am beat but I learned a great deal and had a good time.  I do love my job.  

Summer songs

I am in a long line of traffic approaching the air show, and Supertramp came on the radio.  It instantly brought me to back to the summer of 82 or so.  Perhaps it is the impact of summer camp, but I realized that I associate songs only with specific summers and not with any other season.

Is this just me? 

I Don't Get It

My wife sends me a link to this video when I am out of town for a few days on a Dept of National Defence junket to the Quebec far north (well, far to me, there is still a lot of Quebec north beyond Chicoutimi). 

Is she telling me that she found a funny link that shows how bad screenwriting can be?

or do I just not get it?

We Will, We Will Pluck You!!!

Imagine Queen's We Will Rock You (or just hit this link). Then picture a pretty aggressive bird.  Maybe an Alouette.  Ok, first some context.

Today, I spent the day at Bagotville Airbase, as part of a Canadian Department of National Defence junket.  I joined the trip because I was hoping to meet some folks who had served in the effort over Libya (Op Mobile) and get some info that might help write the conclusion (and perhaps the intro) of the NATO and Afghanistan book.  Plus tomorrow there is an airshow, so I got to watch some practice runs today while I was moving in between briefings.

Anyhow, the base here is located near an aluminum plant that used to belong to a company with Alouette in its name.  As a result, the symbol of the 425th Tactical Squadron is the Alouette and its symbol includes this motto: "Je te plumerai."   This is, of course, from the song.

The question, of course, is whether "plucking" is aggressive and threatening, as a tactical air unit should be.  I guess having one bird rip out the feathers of another is pretty nasty.  Because it is in French, the word that rhymes with pluck is not so operative.  When I realized what plumerai was referring to, I could not help thinking about Queen singing, We Will, We Will Pluck You!  And then, of course, an old version of the song:

Poking Allies in the Eye with a Sharp Stick

I am only posting on the SecDef Gates speech on NATO now rather than earlier in the day because I was getting briefings and tours at a Canadian airbase.  The purpose of this trip (five hours from Montreal) was to learn more about the Canadian air folks and ask questions about Libya.  So, it is funny that while I was riding to the base yesterday and then walking around it today that SecDef Gates did his best Rumsfeld imitation and poked the Europeans in their respective eyes with a metapohorical sharp stick. 

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” Mr. Gates said.He was dismissive of some NATO partners as “nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”

 So, what are my thoughts on this?

• Surprise.  I know that Gates is smarter than this.  Or at least, he knows that trashing his NATO partners will not lead to much increased flexibility on the part of the Germans or the Turks.  I interviewed the US Military Representative at NATO a few months ago and he noted that the US had realized that this method did not work and had become much smarter about trying to persuade the allies to kick in more.
• Frustration.   This is not going to change what the Germans are doing. Merkl has misplayed this, like lots of other things lately, so this public spat is not going to do much.
• Elation. Woohoo!!  My next book (with David Auerswald) matters big time!  What we are writing about regarding Afghanistan is relevant for Libya and for future NATO ops.  The US SecDef says so.  
• Annoyance.  People are going to pickup on Gates's use of irrelevant to suggest that NATO is irrelevant.  It ain't and it is not going to be.  While NATO has some significant problems and will have even more once Europe cuts their defense budgets further, NATO is still the most powerful, competent multilateral defense entity on the planet.  There are three choices: US alone, NATO, or nothing.  More or less.  The really telling fact about NATO's relevance: all NATO countries plus nearly 20 more are in Afghanistan.  Even though some have opted out entirely of the Libyan operation, the alliance does (dare I say it) create some obligations that are costly to break.  The Poles can get away with it this time (and should) because of their significant commitment in Afghanistan.  The Germans cannot so much since they have some key capabilities for the Libyan mission and are being more difficult than usual.  But the NATO imprimatur makes it easier and perhaps even possible for some of the more effective countries to participate--Canada, Norway, Denmark--and for Italy to provide bases.  So, NATO is hardly irrelevant.  

So, there you have it.  My take on Gates, having only read part of the speech.

Sovereignty and Identity

Check out one of my colleagues--who is far smarter on this Quebec politics stuff than I pretend to be.

Her conclusion:

It remains to be seen whether the situation in Quebec leads to as much confusion and chaos as the struggle between illusion and realism in Pirandello’s tragicomedy, or whether the sovereignty movement can renew itself in its quest for the promised land.

Good news for me as I prefer the nationalists to be confused.

Confirmation Bias Among the Politicians

Watching the news, it is easy to arrive at the belief that all right-wing Republican male politicians are actually closeted homosexuals, and now it is easy to believe than any Democratic male in a position of power is going to be very generous with his actual penis (Clinton, Edwards) or virtual (Weiner).  We are seeing many ponder whether any male with power will philander (is that a verb?), with Tiger Woods seeming to prove that better than anyone else since Wilt Chamberlain. 

The problem here is that we will not notice all the non-stories.  Not all men are serial cheaters.  Not even all powerful politicians or athletes.  While opportunities abound as one gets more powerful (I would guess, having no real power), not all males succumb to temptation.  And our view is very distorted because the most salacious stories get far more attention.  Just as we think there is more crime, more war, more ethnic conflict and more other stuff that makes the news, there is probably more adultery featured in the media than experienced by the average male, even the average powerful male. 

To say that we will not have such character collapses if we had more female politicians in positions of power practically begs me to study Norway and other countries with many powerful female folks (something about proportional representation leads to, um, proportional representation in gender).  The problem will remain that we will only have sketchy numbers for the positive outcomes (that is, those who cheat) and not much in the way of non-events.  I wonder if the methodologists can handle this. 

Canada's Prairies Are Lefties?

I had a fun half hour on a CBC radio station broadcasting to Saskatchewan a few minutes ago.  The focus was a proposal for Canada to establish bases of some kind around around the world to facilitate expeditions like Afghanistan.  I was surprised that most/all of the questions focused on how the military-industrial complex wanted more busy work around the world.  I think this proposal is in reaction to Canada getting booted out of Dubai when the United Arab Emirates wanted to use Camp Mirage as leverage for getting Emirates airlines into more gates at the Toronto airport (and elsewhere here). 

The military-industrial complex line does not make too much sense, as these bases, if they are like Mirage at all (which I got to see on my way into and out of Afghanistan in 2007), are a runaway, a few quonset huts, some container-type barracks and some buildings to house the guns, protective vests, helmets and other stuff, plus maintenance equipment.  They are not places where big hunks of capital are sunk--that is what the F35 and the new naval vessels (much competition now about where the ships will be built) are for.

Yes, having such bases will make foreign deployments easier, but politicians will deploy troops whether the conditions are set or not.  Not having a base like Camp Mirage will not stop a Prime Minister from sending Canadian Forces to Haiti, East Timor, Afghanistan, Darfur or a Rwanda.  And, as the US learned when it tried to get Turkish support at the last minute in 2003, asking for help when you really need it is not a good way to get a good deal. 

So, it is funny to hear some folks get upset when the Canadian government is actually trying to do some due diligence and make the next mission down the road more effective and less expensive.  And, for the record, I don't expect such a mission to happen any time soon.

Oh, and one last note, I guess I could pick up a whiff of isolationalism as well--spend money at home, not abroad even though this particular proposal is not very expensive.

Good Government? Don't Be Silly

The Parti Quebecois seems to be falling apart just as victory (at least in terms of winning a provincial election) is around the corner.  The current fight is whether it is proper to give a sweetheart deal to one company to build an arena in Quebec to attract an NHL team at a time where budgets are otherwise mighty tight.  Apparently, Pauline Marois, fresh off of her 98% vote tally of support in a party convention (Soviet-esque?), is facing criticism for being authoritarian.  I would never have guessed that someone who got 98% of the vote might be seen as acting undemocratically. 

What is a bit more surprising (although not entirely so) is that the PQ is falling in the polls.  It seemed to have clear majority support whereas now it would win more seats than the Liberals (who have been in power forever here and have heaps of scandals to prove it) but not enough for a majority.  Not the best conditions for a referendum. 

Ooops, even more so, the polls show that more than eighty percent of Quebeckers would rather folks focus on good government than sovereignty. 

Reality appears inevitable now: Quebecers want the PQ to put aside its sovereignty option and instead offer a "good government" to taxpayers.This verdict is clearly dominant in the general population (82%), but also among voters PQ (71%) and the separatists (68%).

Given that many PQ diehards usually see focusing on good government as a distraction from the pursuit of independence, this is not something the PQ elites wants to hear.  It is a sentiment that also explains why the Bloc collapsed so dramatically in the recent federal election--people want decent streets, bridges that don't collapse, metros that work all of the time, health care that does not require waiting in emergency rooms for more than 24 hours, and so forth.  I would be interested to see how "good government" is unpacked.  Is it about roads, schools, taxes, health care or immigration discrimination?

I am suddenly not so pessimistic about the future of Quebec.  But I am not going to bet on it quite yet.

Kandahar in the Rear View Mirror

Lots of stories in the Canadian press now about the mission in Afghanistan now that Canada is pulling out of Kandahar.  Pieces on the training of the Afghan military, Matthew Fisher's series this past week on the mission, Liberals having buyer's remorse (or blaming everyone else for their initial decision), and others provide are nice reminders that things are never clear when it comes to either Afghanistan or counter-insurgency.

I spent yesterday in Ottawa talking to various civilians about the "whole of government" or three D (defence, democracy, development) effort in Afghanistan.  Of the four meetings, one was pretty upbeat, one was overwhelmingly negative, and the two others were in between.  I think I would have only gotten more differences of opinion had I talked to a hundred economists (old joke inserted here). 

I guess I should feel much better about my ambivalence about the mission since it comes pretty close to the average of what I have heard.  Of course, we should be confused:

We've learned when the politicians change their story about why Canada is fighting and what is at stake, public support for war will erode. Successive governments over the past decade have changed their tune several times on this war - arguing variously that it was a fight to rout al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; then arguing that it was an effort to stabilize a fragile new state; then that it was a war to defeat the Taliban that threatened its region and beyond; and finally that it was about re-building a wartorn country. These various narratives confused the public and led them to believe that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was optional. Public support drained away as a result. Eugene Lang

A couple of quick reactions to this, keeping in mind that Eugene Lang was an adviser to several Liberal Ministers of National Defence.  First, it is not just the government that changed their tune.  The Liberals started the mission in 2005 and then ran away from it when it was out of power.  Sure, in Westminster systems, the job of the opposition is to oppose.  But the major critiques raised were so incredibly lame that they did not serve to educate the public but confuse them--that Harper was opposed to development (no, the Taliban were and they voted with their weapons); that Canada would only be there for a short time and then rotate out (since when has anyone ever rotated systematically in an alliance in and out of harm's way); and that the Afghan effort was too much, preventing Canada from peace-keeping elsewhere (as if the only roadblock to a Mideast peace or serious efforts in Darfur were the absence of Canadians wearing blue helmets).  So, we can blame the main opposition party in part because it was so lame in its opposition.

Second, we can blame the government for not saying enough.  Harper largely hid from the mission for much of the time, not unlike Merkl and others.  The mission was better received in countries where politicians stood in front and explained it, even when there were high casualties (see Denmark and its minority coalition government).  Moreover, the insistence that the civilians get their talking points from back home meant that the reporters in Afghanistan didn't talk to them much.  If only the military would speak about what they were doing, then the media would not wait around for the Ottawa-approved messaging.  So, no wonder that Canadians do not see the civilian effort too clearly.

Third, what are the metrics for success? This has been a problem that everyone has talked about endlessly, including myself.  One example: Canada put much effort into the prison in Kandahar, and apparently the warden and the jailers treat their prisoners far better than they used to.  But the prison is a sieve where hundreds escape every few years.  So, has the effort to improve corrections been a success or not?  Well, given that the starting point was so incredibly low, yes, there has been much success, but it does not look like anything that we would find acceptable and the optics of the semi-routine breakout are awful. 

So, the Canadian public is confused.  As are all the others.  The fog of war is especially opaque when it comes to counter-insurgency campaigns in countries that never made it past the 1300's and then suffered through more than thirty years of war.

 

Ignoring Tradeoffs Is a Tradition

From the Canadian War Museum.  Big question for the next twenty or more years: can the country afford an adequate Navy, new planes for the Air Force, and engage in expeditions even if they are not as intense as Afghanistan?

Wifi Break During Day of Interviews

I am in Ottawa today interviewing a variety of folks related to Afghanistan--a former RoCK (Representative of Canada in Kandahar), Public Safety folks (who sent police and other types to Afghanistan to mentor), a Senator (to ponder security clearances and oversight), and an NGO that trains and send folks to train Afghans.

The scheduling gods altered my plans so that my morning got freer after a breakfast meeting so I had time go to the Canadian War Museum.  Note: War museum, not a museum of military history.  It was very interesting--I learned a great deal about the early days plus additional information about the WWI/WWII experiences.  I will be posting pics later, so that I can show a relatively unique exhibition--a hall of tanks, guns and vehicles. It also contained some stuff dug up in the 80's when a German informed the Canadians that Germany had dropped a few guys off in a remote part of Eastern Canada to observe the weather during WWII.  It was unclear if they had been detected at all, but seems that they were not.  The only notable part of the museum is that Afghanistan has not made an appearance, at least as far as I could tell.  Herds of school kids may have blocked  whatever A-stan stuff I might have seen, but still pretty strange to see almost nothing on the most violent hunk of war Canada has had since WWII.  Much more space for Cyprus--which was a more violent and longer-lasting peace operation than I had thought. The museum is definitely worth a visit.

After today, I have one more trip to Ottawa planned but will add more if I can get more folks to agree to talk to me.  Next time, I will be able to drive my brand new ... car!!  We pick it up tonight.

D-Day, 67 Years Later

With NATO engaged in a half-hearted effort to take down a relatively lame dictator, today's D-Day anniversary reminds us that the guys back then paid a huge price so that we can be far less committed today.  Um, that is perhaps not the right lesson of D-Day, but it is one lesson.

The other thought that has occupied me today on the anniversary of the Day of Days is that this is the first one without Dick Winters, the leader of the Band of Brothers.  He is just one of the many folks who made such a difference who are passing from the scene.  The good news is that we will still have some of these guys for a while longer--the last vets from World War I recently died.  The bad news is that we are losing folks who knew what it mean to sacrifice it all for their buddies and beyond.  We still have those folks around today, as we have seen a Nepali get a medal from the Queen and Obama honoring of a living Congressional Medal of Honor winner.  But as a country, we refuse to raise taxes to pay for these wars, making our children pay not just in debt payments but in declining government support for education and other programs.  We did far better sixty years ago with the investments made in education and elsewhere.

Where is our Marshall Plan?  Oh yeah, tied up in Congress.  Still, we must remember that we had common cause in 1944, and perhaps it is a sign of progress that no threats today are so great as to provide us much glue today.

So a very ambivalent D-Day anniversary, I guess.

Appealing to the Ego

One more stray thought on Libya:  anybody got his email or skype address?  I'd love to tell him that if he stepped down today, he would be upstaging the anniversary of D-Day and the events in Yemen!  Given that he has all the attention-seeking requirements of a youngest child (not that I would know anything about that), and his keen sense of fashion, better for him to make the news today rather than slink off while folks are on summer vacation.

Caveats Ahoy!

NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen is calling for more NATO members to pick up the slack over the skies of Libya.  Good luck with that. 

NATO has intensified its campaign, launching daily raids on Tripoli, but only nine of NATO's 28 member states are taking part in the strikes. France and Britain are bearing the brunt of the load with helicopters now in their arsenal.   The other countries are the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy and non-NATO state the United Arab Emirates.

The big surprises there from the Steve and Dave project are Belgium and Italy.  I guess Belgium demonstrates that it might be easier to have an assertive foreign policy without a government than with a coalition.  I am skeptical that Italy is doing more than providing bases.  Is Italy really dropping bombs?  It would not be the first time that Italy said it dropped its restrictions and then didn't.

The less obvious difference between Libya and Afghanistan is that all NATO countries (and then some with about twenty partners [Australia, New Zealand, Jordan and so on]) gave at least token force to the effort, such as Greece having 15 guys deployed at one time.  For the Libyan effort, many members providing nothing.  For many, it is a matter of capability--that the Baltics have nothing to give.  For others, it is simply too much, politically or logistically, such as Poland. 

This Sec-Gen speech is an effort to hector the free riders to kick in some support, given how burdened the nine strikers are.  I doubt that he will be successful in getting a greater commitment from the less enthused.  The domestic dynamics, plus the ability to say I gave at the office in Afghanistan, means that NATO is not going to get much more help.  The good news appears to be that Qaddafi's supporters are ebbing away.  He now officially has outlasted Milosevic since the Kosovo campaign lasted 79 days.  This effort may exceed one hundred days but not much more than that, I think.  Indeed, I would rather bet on the under of the over/under of 120 days, compared to the under of a NATO participation over/under of 11 members engaging in air strikes.

Marvel-ous Summer continues

We continue to make our summer Marvel with the X-Men: First Class movie.  It was a heap of fun, especially for the IR professors in the audience with the Cuban Missile Crisis as the focal point.

Below the break: Professor X as Obi-Wan Kenobi: these are not the mutants you are looking for.

Poland and Libya

Interesting take on Poland's opting out of the Libya campaign.  I would concur with the conclusion that opting out here will not harm Poland in NATO or with the US.  Six F16's here is much, much less meaningful than more than two thousand troops in Regional Command East in Afghanistan.  The Poles have been willing to put themselves in harm's way in a mission that matters far more to the US and, ultimately, to NATO.

Still, an interesting story to follow as the public opinion story is an easy one to convey and to buy, but the Libyan mission is not tremendously popular for some of the contributors either.

Who Had Late June?

I proposed a betting pool for when Qaddafi would lose power.  It is increasingly looking like late June is looking pretty good (congrats, Brandon) with more defections by senior officers who report that Q's military capacity is collapsing.

“Gaddafi will fall in a few weeks' time, morale is so bad both in the army and in the population,” said General Halassa, who defected a week ago with his wife and five children. He said rebel and NATO attacks as well as shortages of food and fuel had demoralised Colonel Gaddafi's forces.
On Friday night Britain deployed its Apache helicopters for the first time, attacking and destroying two military installations, a radar site and an armed checkpoint.
General Halassa said: “Sometimes the rebels or protesters who are killed are relatives or friends of men in the army; the killers and the killed are related, and that hurts morale even more.”
General Oun Ali Oun, formerly of the military intelligence service, said a group of 120 officers and soldiers who had defected were now in Tunis. Many others had switched sides and joined the rebels, or were in hiding. source

Note not just what they are saying but who is saying it, especially when generals from the intel branches.  They have not only the most knowledge but also often the most to fear if they stay on a sinking ship. 

There are no guarantees, of course, as Qaddafi has held out longer than Milosevic, but, then again, the demands here are higher--loss of his job, not just a loss of territory.  I do think that Q's end will be sooner rather than later.  But I have been wrong before.

You Cannot Go Home Again

A friend posted this promo video about my old summer camp, Camp Airy, on his facebook page:


So much has apparently changed at this place that has meant so much to me.  Most of the activities shown did not exist during my time: model rocketry, zip-lining, skate-boarding, dune-buggies or whatever, monster trucks, etc.  A lot of the equipment and facilities were far more basic in my time.  Lots of investment since then, and apparently much effort to keep up with other camps, I guess.  I wonder what has happened to overall levels of campership in the US.  It seems clear that Airy's apparently peaked at some point, when it was restricting folks from spending the full eight weeks to open up space for other folks.

The promo plays up the Jewish-ness* as well, as it only really meant, in my time, that we didn't have milk with meat (and obviously no pork or shrimp); that we had about 15 minutes of songs before Friday night dinner and about forty five minutes of songs Saturday mornings (wearing white as they did in the video); that we had some Israeli counselors sprinkled among the Americans (and Brits) who taught us that Israelis do not use their brakes much when driving; and that the dating pool at the girls camp was parent-approved (only Jewish girls).  I don't remember that many Israeli flags, which kind of bothers me now since I long ago reached the point where I do not agree with everything Israel does. So, I am very struck by this stance, and must remember that this is a marketing effort.  Clearly, the PR folks behind this think that playing up this identity will play to the parents while the pics of the cool stuff will probably play to the boys.  Of course, I may just be noticing this more given my own discomfort with all things religious.

* There is the view that attending Jewish summer camps is a key part of the American Jewish [non-Orthodox] experience that keeps folks, well, Jewish.  And some social science [logit!]has been applied to this question, suggesting the system works.  Of course, in my family, the two kids that did go to such camps are fallen/lapsed/un/whatever, and the two that did not go Jewish summer camps are observant, more or less.  I could spend all day looking at the results of this one survey, but will just note that Jewish camp had a very small impact on marrying within the faith, which is probably the most important outcome that many (most?) Jewish parents obsess about.

Of course, the real reason I cannot go back* is that the people I was with at the time are no longer there with a few notable exceptions (the executive director held all kinds of positions during my time).  Facebook has allowed me to re-connect with some.  I missed an opportunity last summer for a big alum event in the middle of the summer as I was committed to a family vacation. I am glad that my friends are sending their kids there to keep the experience going.  We send our daughter to a camp much closer to home and much more basic (and cheaper).  This summer, she is going for twice as long, and her first day is exactly the same day as Airy's (and Camp Louise's).  So, I will not need the countdown clock at the bottom of the camp webpage, as my daughter is counting down the days, as I used to do so. 

*  I also cannot go back because I am not sure I could handle the internet-withdrawal.  Notice there is nothing in the ad to suggest that the mountain has wifi.

Anybody But Him!

Why does Robert Kaplan get all of the attention?  Balkan Ghosts was an awful book and had a big impact.  His other stuff was much the same.  And now he is getting quoted for saying that Germany's rising power is the big deal in Europe.  First, this is hardly original.  Lots of fear-mongering about Germany since 1989.  Second, it is hardly right.  Yes, Germany has more power because of the debts owed by the rest of Europe to it.  But Germany is imprisoned by that debt as well.  Not unlike the China-US relationship, where mutual vulnerability limits the power of both.  Germany's well-being depends on its cooperation with the rest of Europe, whether it is within the EU or beside it. 

Oh, and, while we ponder the awesome power of Germany, we must not forget how marginalized Germany was in Afghanistan--the third largest contributor of troops spending nearly all of its time on the defensive.  Defensive in two senses--not engaging in offensive operations until mid-2009 and having to defend the value of its contribution to allies paying in blood (that would be the US, UK, and Canada).  As a result, Germany was not a mover and shaker in Afghanistan except at the beginning. 

And what do we see with Libya?  Is Germany leading the effort?  Or, is it like 2003, where Germany failed to stop something that it found to be problematic?  Merkyl has received much criticism not only abroad but also at home for Germany's stances on the Libyan uprising.  Once again, Germany is watching from the sidelines.  And then there is the flipflop on nuclear power.

Germany will be relevant and a major player in Europe (but beyond?), but we ought not to overestimate it.  And the general rule applies: if Robert Kaplan says x, then expect something other than x. 

There is Wrong and Then There Is This

Ok , it is easy to say Obama when you mean Osama, or Iraq when you mean Iran, but this is beyond.


Where did Palin go to school?*  There is little that is more basic in American history than Paul Revere's ride.  Sure, it has gotten mythologized and all, and you can confuse whether it was one light or two, by land or by sea, but it was about warning the colonials about the British, not warning the British about a second amendment that would not exist for another couple of decades.

* and yes, she does look kind of stoned in this clip.

Didn't Sarah Palin see National Treasure? It is not as if we expect her to have read Gladwell's bit on Revere in Tipping Point. 
Ok, she needs remedial schoolhouse rock:

Be Careful When Choosing Metrics

I am writing a paper on Canadian civil-military integration on the ground for a workshop in Australia (tough life, yes, but someone has to do it), and I was struck by this sentence in the third quarterly report in 2010:

Tellingly, insurgents did not manage to conduct an effective, complex or spectacular attack in either Kabul or Kandahar City during the July to September quarter.

Um, un-check with the recent prison break.  I have been wondering whether the spate of spectacular attacks the past month or two across the country are Tet-like ways to score some big PR points and undermine the coalition's claims rather than a real indicator of increased Taliban capability.  Of course, as Tet showed us, the PR points matter a great deal, much more than the capability.  But I am still trying to figure out what the real trendline is.  Lots of mixed messages coming out of Afghanistan, so it is hard to figure out the patterns.  Still, the idea that the surge is "working" to reduce violence is hard to see right now.  Perhaps at the end of the summer, we can count IEDs, suicide attacks, and where the people are standing to figure it out.  

Irony or Hypocrisy

In my second column at Current Intelligence, I ponder Pakistan's protests over its violated sovereignty.  Consider this my monthly plug.

Libya Clarification

This piece on what Harper needs to say about Libya rubs a sore-spot for me.  It poses regime change and civilian protection as entirely separate enterprises.  Yes, one can slice and slice to come up with distinctions, but the reality has always been that the only enduring way to protect Libya's rebellious civilians from the government is to change who runs it.  Since only gullible intellectuals can possibly imagine Qaddafi as being a credible guarantor of any agreement, how could the civilians of Libya be protected with Qaddafi still in place?  With UN/NATO occupation of the rebellious zones?  Um, the UN resolution prohibits that.  And NATO has no troops or patience for that.

So, this is a very artificial distinction that might make sense to politicians who want to hedge or criticize, but civilian protection logically and realistically implies regime change of some kind. 

If you can imagine a situation where there is no regime change and the civilians can be sustainably guaranteed their own security, please let me know how that would work. 

If A Tree Falls on a Mailman in a Forest, Will We Notice?

Canada is bracing for a postal strike.  Sort of.  The possible strike is both caused by the decline of first class mail and is mediated by this development.  In the US and Canada (and elsewhere), the bread and butter business of postal services, the first class letter, is waning as people now communicate via email, skype, and all the rest.  This is putting pressure on the postal services and thus onto postal workers.

So, the Canadian postal workers are going on strike, but will we notice with our paychecks being direct deposited, with our bills being paid via electronic banking, and so forth?  I already feel as if the mail here is only delivered four days a week (it is a rare Friday that we get any mail),* and most of the rest of the mail is crapola.  Bills, checks, and stuff we don't want. Except for magazines, which are dying as well.  So, will we notice if the mail stops being delivered?  A bit, as some of those checks are delivered by mail still.

* The Canadian postal service does not have the same ethos of through rain and sleet and all of that.

Like the existing delivery patterns of the post, the strike is spotty.  This time deliberately so, focusing on one city at a time, starting with Winnipeg.  So, I guess this means that Winnipegians cannot write each other to celebrate the return of professional hockey to the city.

The good news is that I can continue to post through a strike, and, if the strike becomes painful, I will whine about it.  You can always count on that.

A Fan of a Fan

There is a long profile of Bill Simmons, ESPN's Sports Guy, in the NYT.  I have been a fan of his stuff for about a decade now--his columns, books, and podcasts.   He is about five years younger than me so that his pop culture references work for me, although he has paid far more attention to 90210 and I to Hogan's Heroes.  To be clear, my lecture style of using pop culture at times to explain concepts precedes my fandom of Simmons (Footloose as a model of chicken was way before ESPN.com).  But I am clearly influenced by Simmon's in my sports fandom and in my blogging.

His power resides in the overall effect of his columns, the mix of honesty, enthusiasm, smart analysis and an implicit recognition that for fans, anyway, the sports experience is bound up with moments in our lives.

 I now pay far more attention to basketball due to his columns, podcasts and his book.  I even sort of root for Boston teams in part because I know more about them than I did before (even though that betrays a basic Sports Guy set of values about fidelity).  That and because Montreal is essentially in Boston's sports market except (and this is a huge exception) for hockey where Boston is very much the enemy. I enjoy his discussion of gambling on sports even though I restrict my gambling to poker. I do now think of odds, lines, and prop bets thanks to Simmons as well as Chad Millman's blog.  Indeed, I have become a fan of some folks who appeared on Simmons's podcasts, such as Millman and Alan Sepinwall.

In terms of blogging, I use some of his terminology, like chill scenes or Tyson zone (referring to Mrs. Spew is a direct rip-off of his Sports Gal); integrate twitter and blog to react to live events (as opposed to dead ones); build on his fantasy sports fixation with my Lost fantasy league; rank movies; and lots of other ways that may be less obvious.  Perhaps I am more accepting of my narcissism since Simmons has parlayed his into tremendous success?

I think Simmons's greatest asset is his ability to make him the conduit of our vicariousness.  Ok, that is not well phrased, but we get to experience what he experiences.  We get to be the fan talking to William Goldman, Charles Barkley, Chad Millman, and his cast of friends.  We live sports and pop culture through him.

And most importantly, he majored in Poli sci.

The Man, The Myth, the Legend

I had friends who attended this ceremony, mostly because of the biggest honoree, and the are in the background of the video below.  The Spaceman himself, William Shatner:


I wonder who wrote the Dean's (my former Chair) speech.  For the text of the speech by the actor known for playing James Tiberius Kirk's speech, see here. 

Shatner is, indeed, McGill's most famous alum.  The students even named the student center building after him, even though he did not donate anything for it.  Indeed, the university does not recognize the building's name.  Still, it is known as the Shatner building, proving that the man, the myth, and the legend have far more power than university policies.  And for that, I admire him all the more.

Something to Build On

Lots of storms in the US and Pakistan over their relationship, but, as it turns out, they may be more alike than we thought:

"Strategy is very un-Pakistani," noted one western official. "You kick the can down the road and hope it lands in the right place." source

Who Cares About Iowa and New Hampshire?

Presidential candidates do.  Why?  Because they go first?  Why do they get to go first in the process for selecting nominees?  Because they do and have done so.  Last time states tried to jump in line, IA and NH sought to penalize the candidates that had the temerity to challenge the Iowan/New Hampshirian entitlement. 

So, check out this post by 'lil Steve which builds on some other stuff to show how wonderfully anti-democratic and distorting this process is.  And that the alternatives are not so great but certainly better.

I have always been annoyed by the increased power of two largely unrepresentative states.  Probably not going to change soon, but not a bad time to vent a spleen or two.

When You Hear Military-Industrial Complex, Duck!

This piece complains about the incorporation of the universities of Canada into the military-industrial complex.  Yes, industry tries to manipulate politics so that it can get more money to build more stuff.  The F-35 is part of that process.  Yes, academics take money from the government and study military stuff.  Does that mean that we are agents of the government in persuading the Canadian public of the righteousness of its military efforts?  Um, no.  Given reactions to the op-eds I have written about Afghanistan, I would say that we academics are not swaying the public all that well.

And to be clear, using academics as your stalking horses is a bad idea.  When I went to Afghanistan with seven or so other academics in 2007 to learn more about the conflict and what Canada and NATO were doing, we were aware that we were part of an "information operation" aimed at the Canadian public.  So, we were not dupes.  And the folks I was with carried with them their skepticism about the mission.  Herding cats not only describes department chairs trying to run a department but any effort to get scholars to say what you want them to say.

This author should actually look at the SDF research and see if it is biased and cheerleading the military. Some of it does, but much of it does not.  I do not have a dataset on what has been funded, but I can tell you that my research, funded by SDF, raises questions about the quality of oversight and ponders whether the absence of any real parliamentary oversight over the military is such a good thing.  Is that what the military wants to hear?  Another SDF-funded project of mine considers the politics of early departures, comparing the Dutch to Canada.  This is probably not what the military wants folks to focus on, as there is less glory in taking off than in other parts of the mission.  My third SDF funded project ponders whether the efforts to un-fail states by creating strong militaries (as we are doing in Afghanistan) may be causing problems down the road in the form of coups and repression.  Most of the rest of the McGill/Montreal research funded by SDF is far more focused on broader security issues than on Canadian defence issues. 

The only roadblock I had in my research was not SDF, which did help me meet with military officers to interview them along the way, but other parts of the military that opposed a survey I wanted to conduct.  SDF is about outreach--the idea is that ignorance is not bliss.   I have had no instructions on how to do the research, what to say or what to publish.  The military, in Canada and the US, mostly just wants to learn any way they can since bad information, poor strategy and the like will get people killed.

The funny thing is that military officers, because of the heavy responsibilities, are actually far more open-minded than the folks who write pieces about the military without doing the research to actually figure out whether there are any infringements of academic freedom.

PS  See Stephanie Carvin's blog for some piling-on.  And h/t to Phillipe Lagasse's tweet that started this ruckus.