Band of Brothers, Hogwarts Version

Catching sporadic bits of internet as I sojourn back to Montreal from Cairns via Sydney (rain!), LA and Chicago, and I am both amused and annoyed that people are denying that Hermione was not a hero in the series and especially the last book/movie. 

Yes, the series has Harry's name, and he is, indeed, the leader of Dumbledore's Army, but there is not a single hero in the series but many, many, many.  Sure, some lit major will say that there is only one hero and anti-hero, but I don't really care.  The book shows truly heroic behavior by girls and boys, men and women, downtrodden species (a.k.a minorities/ethnic groups such as house elves, centaurs, hypogriffs, etc), and so on.  Even those who did indeed find the dark arts attractive can find heroes within themselves for the right cause (love, of course).  Even girls who are too clingy may give their lives for their school and their friends.  Parents were willing to orphan their kid for the cause (Remus and Tonks, a far better orphaning than that by Jin at the end of Lost).  I could go on and on.

The point can be best made by a quote that Band of Brothers used to close the series: "I was not a hero.  But I served in a company of heroes."  Sure, BoB was real, and Dumbledore's Army is not, but both can serve as inspirations, particularly in these challenging times.  It is the choices we make, and these folks made difficult decisions, screwing up often but willing to risk much for the cause.

So, is Hermione a hero?  Um, duh.

Dive! Dive! Dive! for Real

Day 2 of Cairns was almost entirely at sea, and I mean that in a good way.  I had my first diving experience and I learned many things.  First, don't dive and then fly.  Apparently, one could die in a  pressurized cabin with bubbles doing magical things to one's circulatory system.  So, instead of two dives, I went on one so that I could fly 18 hours later.  Second, it really was not hard to keep breathing.  So much easier to dive than to snorkel.  I did a fair amount of snorkeling after my dive, and I sucked in more and more salt water as the went along.  Third, it was a heap of fun.  Saw plenty of colorful fish and even some colorful coral even if the reef is not what it once was. 

I only realized while walking back to my hotel how similar this diving experience is to skiing.  The boat took 1.5 hours to get to the reef, just like it takes about the same amount of time to get to good skiing near my house.  Both require heaps of expensive equipment, and both can kill you.  Oh, a big difference: no whales on the way home from skiing: thar be humpbacks.   Pretty stunning. 

So, a good couple of days after two days of conferencing.  Tomorrow, I get to live through Friday, July 21st twice--makes me think of time travel every time I come back from Australia.

Regret #27 Not Taking Psych

I wish I had taken psychology in college.  This science is really the art of @$#$% with people:


This one experiment demonstrates why politics can be so messed up--we are all about short term gratification.  I have no clue as to how valid or widely accepted this stuff is, as I am not going to read a heap of psych stuff.  I am just going to accept the youtube clip as valid social science.

and thanks to Grantland's youtube hall of fame of the week.

Making Mine Marvel in the Future

I liked Maguire as Spidey and thought Raimi could return to the heyday of Spidey 1/2, but this new reboot does not look half-bad:

And more Emma Stone is, indeed, more Emma Stone.  Seems like her backstory changes much and she will have more spine than the comic book version, but that would not be hard if I remember correctly.  I still think Emma would have been a perfect MJ. 

I do wonder if making the death of Peter's parents a central mystery is a good thing or not.  I guess it depends on execution.

Maybe JFK Was Not That Smart

thanks to xkcd.com

Australia Tourism Redux

I have been in Australia since Sunday, but today was the first real day of tourism.  I spent the past couple of days at a workshop on civil-military integration in the various efforts by the outsiders (and some insiders) in Afghanistan.  Of course, we disagreed about what we meant by civil-military stuff.  The fun part was when my paper was entirely ignored since it shared the same session as a paper on the New Zealand effort that most of the audience found to be too positive.  I guess I hit the sweetspot of being critical yet not entirely negative.

Anyhow, I spent this morning flying to Cairns and this afternoon walking around the town.  No crocs seen thus far.  I did see a lot of places for backpackers and even a few actual backpackers.  the weather is a nice change from "winter" in Canberra, which did get somewhat cold. If I was not not acclimatized to summer in Montreal, I would be laughing more at what they consider to be winter.  Still, Cairns is a very nice contrast. 

I do have a few questions about Cairns and about Australia.  First, why is the second biggest language here German?  Is Cairns a major destination for German tourists?  Just curious.  Second, why was John Travolta introducing the Qantas safety instructions?  Do Aussies have too much respect for American accents?  I ask this because Simon Baker, an Aussie, is in various ads for a bank, dressed like his Mentalist character and using an American accent.  Why would an Australian actor be using a non-Aussie accent for an Australian audience?  I am confused. 

One thing that does not confuse me: why Richard Branson is rich.  Virgin Australia airlines charged for water since all they had was bottled water and for the TV programs.  I guess I prefer having no choice and free entertainment than charging for it.  The other strangeness of travel today was having to walk through the "car park" to get from one terminal to another in Sydney.  Good thing it was not raining.  Oh, it was.  Never mind.

Still, minor complaints as I am squeezing in some fun tourism after a productive and interesting workshop.  Especially since tomorrow I will be diving for the first time and exploring the Great Barrier Reef.  Of course, the Aussies have been telling me that I should make sure that the diving boat does not leave me behind, since there have been a few recent stories about such things happening.  Open Water apparently was not sufficient to scare dive boats into keeping track of their divers. 

Going Native, Eh?

I am humbled by being on a list of prominent tweeters ofCanadian foreign policy.  

I never expected to be working on Canadian defence issues.  I thought it was very funny that I had a title, Canada Research Chair, where I was neither Canadian nor studying Canada, but then again, the hard scientists are not just studying Canadian microbes….  But Afghanistan has been the gift that has kept giving to me anyway, as my work on NATO and Afghanistan led to an interest in Canada’s effort, which in turn led to much interaction with the Canadian Forces and folks within the Canadian government (and probably a book on Canada and Afghanistan after the current project is done).  While I have now interviewed over two hundred people for the Dave and Steve project on NATO and Afghanistan, perhaps a quarter of these folks are Canadians.  I have had the opportunity not only to talk to the Canadians in Ottawa and Montreal, but also a trip in 2007 to Kandahar and Kabul.  And this effort has led to a proliferation of questions about Canadian foreign and defence policy, including:

• the CF effort in Libya, as an extension of the Afghanistan experience;
• the impact of the world upon Canada and vice versa; 
• the role (or lack of role) of parliament in overseeing the Canadian forces, where Phil Lagassé and I spend much time with warring tweets about Crowns and prerogatives and accountability and oversight;
•  the effort to develop a whole of government approach where civilians and military folks are supposed to be working together (the subject of my presentation in Australia);
• larger questions about the future of the Canadian Forces
• Can Canada afford all three branches?  I say nay;
• My deep skepticism about Arctic Sovereignty;
• What is the place of the Canadian military in the making of foreign policy;
• applying IR scholarship (theories, models) to understanding Canada as well as putting Canada into a Saideman-specific context given my interests in ethnic conflict and in civil-military relations.

I have also developed friendships with other folks on the twitterati list [especially Stephanie Carvin (@StephanieCarvin), Philippe Lagassé (@pmlagasse), Emmett MacFarlane (@EmmMacfarlane), Taylor Owen (@taylor_owen),  Roland Paris (@rolandparis), and Mark Sedra (@msedra)],  so that I end up responding to their tweets  with “vigour” as the aforementioned list indicates.  I guess that means I lack a filter, especially a politeness filter.  Well, we knew that already, eh?

To be clear, I am still most ignorant about other parts of Canadian foreign policy, such as soft-lumber disputes, trade agreements in general, and so on, and my knowledge of Canadian history is mighty thin and selective.  Going to Vimy can only do so much.  

Tweeting, like blogging, allows me to speculate, ruminate and react, building upon my previous research and also blundering into areas where I have no research experience but opinions nonetheless.

I look forward to more tweet-ersations about this incredibly large yet incredibly small country.  Please join the conversation so that I can @reply with vigour.

Cannot Tell Your Murder Victims Without a Program!

Much is astir in Afghanistan with Karzai allies getting whacked in quick succession.  Ahmed Wali Karzai, who was the Capone of Kandahar (and beyond), was killed by a person with whom he was well acquainted.  AWK has been a big challenge for the folks in Southern Afghanistan, especially the Canadians before they left (well, they are still at the base, holding a garage sale) and the Americans.  Why?  Because he was a corrupt power broker who could get things done.  Working with him meant tainting the effort, working around him was pretty close to impossible.

So, what does his death mean, as well as that of Jan Muhammad Khan?  Hell if I know.  I am not an Afghan expert, just an expert (more or less) on the forces shaping the intervention and why the outside actors are doing what they are doing.  But a roomful of folks who study elements of Afgahnistan don't have a clear idea, either.  I am currently in Australia, participating in a workshop on the effort in Afghanistan.  Lots of Afghan experience in the room, but not any clarity on what is going on with these assassinations.  Is it Taliban?  Maybe, but probably not as AWK did enough to alienate plenty of folks.  Is someone systematically trying to undermine President Karzai's support network?  Seems to be the case, but who would that be?  The Taliban, who are increasingly likely to get a better deal from Karzai than from a replacement?  The folks in the north who fear a Karzai deal with the Taliban?  Could it be a rival tribe?  Is it because Karzai has been seeking to change the constitution so that he can have a third term?  The outside actors?  Probably not the last, as it would be way too, um, nuanced and risky.


With AWK, can the governance effort work better now?  Well, given that Karzai replaced his brother with another brother, probably not.  Nepotism is usually not correlated with procedural government, democracy or otherwise.


As Andrew Exum tweeted the other day, anybody who tells you anything definitive about this is talking out of their ass.

Those Damned Shippers

Thinking about HP some more as I rant about relationships (spoilers below for those who did not read the books and have to yet to see the finale):

Harry Potter and the Box Office Bonanza

I managed to catch the final Harry Potter movie in Canberra.  I was surprised that it was not much more expensive than in North America, but I compensated for that with the really high cab fairs to get there and back.  But it was worth it.  I really enjoyed it, of course, and not surprisingly so with such positive reviews and how I ranked the books.

My preliminary thoughts below as I look forward to seeing the movie again once my daughter comes back from camp.

Carmegeddon? Montreal Scoffs

LA develops a bit of panic over the closing of 405, a key freeway through the city.  I was flying to and beyond LA as this weekend of construction was approaching.  Apparently, it was not as bad as feared.  As I heard more and more about this, I could not help but be amused.  Why?  Because LA was reacting to an announced closing while Montreal was just reeling from a closing of a key part of a highway that surprised even the government.  Contractors went ahead with a project without the government agency being too clear about the timing.

Indeed, Thursday night I was driving home from the Nasty Show (which was very funny, although we think last year's might have been funnier) and was gleeful to just make it on to the highway as they were closing the on-ramp.  Otherwise, I would have had to drive around looking for other entrances to the highway that might have also been closed.  A fun Montreal game--looking for the random on-ramp that is still open.

So, LA prepares the public, and the public reacts by staying home.   Montreal does not even know what is going on and tends to message poorly.  But the Quebec folks would say--we cannot learn from LA.  Montreal is unique, they would say.  Oy, I would say.

Latest Panic Faces Science

I love any graphic that shows that the dependent variable seems to be changing before the independent variable.  Of course, this will not change the minds of those that are committed to this belief.

Infrequent Blogging Ahead

Later today I am headed off to Australia for a short workshop, a quick bit of tourism and then back.  So, I may not have much to post as I hop from plane to plane.  And before I go, I must rip out the carpet out of my bedroom (the easy part) and the staples holding down the foam pad underneath (the hard part).

In lieu of deep thoughts, here is a funny bit from this blog:

EMBED-Slave Leia PSA Starring Kaley Cuoco - Watch more free videos

Full Hearts Indeed

I just want to thank all y'all who have been making this show:


I watched the finale last week, as the show was on Wednesdays this spring and was not interrupted for the hockey playoffs ironically enough.  So, I have spent the past week catching up on the old podcasts that were released when FNL finished its final run on DirectTV.  For a nice history of the show, go here.  And you can find the Sepinwall/Feinstein podcast and the Sepinwall/Sports Guy podcast here:  http://bit.ly/ghljUn (w/@hitfixdaniel) http://es.pn/pIldQZ (@sportsguy33).

Thoughts about the finale and the show dwell below:

HP vs Nasty

The new and final Harry Potter movie is getting, unsurprisingly great reviews.  However, I will not be seeing it as soon as I would like.  Why?  Because tonight I am going to our first event of the Just for Laugh Festival (one of my favorite parts about Montreal)--the Nasty Show hosted by Roastmaster General Jeff Ross.  Questionable priorities?  No, just limited time.  I head off to Australia tomorrow for a workshop on civil-military integration (how did each country do at the so-called "whole of government" effort) in Afghanistan.  The Nasty Show only has a few spots this week, with the rest of the fest over the next few weeks.  So, I had to choose The Nasty Show, plus I didn't quite realize that I was leaving the same day that HP8 was coming out. 

Oh, and yes, Mrs. Spew and I enjoy some pretty harsh humor.  Previous Nasty Shows have been quite delightful.  I recommend them highly to visitors to Montreal this week.  I will discuss the highlights tomorrow on the blog before I get on the first of many, many planes.

I will try to see HP8 in Canberra as soon as I can (Sunday Aussie time?).  Do enjoy the movie.  I am sure I will have the same feeling with that as I did with the end of Friday Night Lights (to be blogged later today): I cannot wait to get to the end but then don't want it to end.  And Star Wars has taught us it may be better for things to end than to be re-visited.  Alas.

Giving the French Their Due

On a day where the French women's soccer team lost a big game to the US team, I feel that we should give the French their due.  When folks talk about NATO and Afghanistan, the French get lumped in with the Germans, Italians and Spaniards as a heavily caveated contingent that didn't see much combat.  That label fit in 2007 but not now.  Today, four French soldiers lost their lives in Eastern Afghanistan, and this is not that unusual, as President Sarkozy re-deployed the French contingent from safe Kabul to dangerous Kapisa (even though they are close to each other on a map).  This comes on the heels of both Sarkozy's visit to the troops and an announcement that France will be cutting its commitment by one quarter by the end of 2011 and may be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2013. 

We have very conflicting images of the French--aggressive to the point of recklessness in Libya and passive in Afghanistan.  The truth, as always, is in between with the French clearly now among the burden bearers (as opposed to merely consuming rations) in both Afghanistan and Libya.  The question remains--is this Sarkozy or is this a significant change in how France sees NATO?  Given the budget cuts facing the French military and given how unreliable the Germans (and the EU as a NATO substitute) have been, it may be the case that even a less Atlanticist French President will see that there really is no alternative to NATO. 

And, I will repeat, NATO's demise is exaggerated. 

A Brady Kid

The kids of the past twenty years don't know how good they have it, and saying that makes me quite the fuddy duddy.  But they have so many channels and so much media to consume.  In the old days of the 1970's, all we had were ABC, NBC, CBS and a few UHF stations that played repeats of old schmaltzy programs.  Which ones?  Besides my favorite of Hogan's Heroes, the other two that were endlessly repeated and endlessly watched were Brady Bunch and Gilligan's Island.  Neither would be confused for excellent television, but they were consumable and repeatedly so.  Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of these two shows, died today.  For that, I owe him some thanks for the hundreds of hours I spent watching Gilligan screw up and Marcia be cute. 

And as it turns out, he is a model for any graduate student!  Not a bad transition from failed grad student to uber-successful producer.

Horrible Boss?

The Spew family saw Horrible Bosses this weekend and enjoyed it immensely.  Best comic use of cocaine in quite some time, just to name one highlight.  Perhaps not as painful for the ribs as the first Hangover movie was, but a very funny movie (have not seen Bridesmaids so I cannot make the comparison to rank funniest summer movie).  So, now our movie ranking for the summer is probably Super 8 > Horrible Bosses/X-Men > Thor > Green Lantern.  I will assuredly be putting HP8 up near or at the top as soon as I can see it in an Aussie theatre.

Anyhow, it reminded me of why I got into this business of academia, despite the limited ability to choose where I live (six years in Lubbock, for example): limited hierarchy.  Yes, department chairs/heads matter and so do the senior faculty before one has tenure.  After that, well, academic freedom is mighty freeing.  So, I have never imagined the deaths of my bosses since I do not really have bosses. Have I imagined some folks retiring? Um, sure.

Rank Rankings

One of the enduring themes (if one can have an enduring theme in a blog that is about two years old) is the questioning of rankings.

Well, that stops now.  McGill was ranked as having the 25th best political science program in the world!  So, from now on, all rankings, regardless of methodology will be not be questioned.  Or not.

This ranking puts us just behind Johns Hopkins and ahead of Duke and, most importantly for the Canadians, ahead of U of British Columbia.  The rankings are a combo of academic reputation, employer reputation and citations.  I actually cannot really buy into these rankings for a lot of reasons, not the least of which UCSD is ranked 15 places behind McGill despite being much higher on citations because of "employer rankings."  Any ranking that is a combo of reputations is going to be pretty flaky and pretty resistant to changes over the past five to forty years. 

The category of those departments between 50 and 100 include several that are clearly top programs, as in top 30 in North America (I cannot really say much about departments elsewhere--ignorance is, um, ignorance).  So, Dartmouth, which pound for pound has one of the very best programs in the country despite the absence of a grad program (which might effect rep a bit), Emory, GW, Indiana, Ohio State, Maryland, and UNC are all much closer to McGill than this portrays, if one can figure out what "best" means. 

I think that I have some wonderful colleagues, and they are doing mighty fine political science, but 25th in the world?  Um, sure, I hope the provost believes that.  The Dean will not because, well, he's a political scientist and has a clue about North American political science.  I think that we have one of the top three programs in Canada and a program that compares well with American programs, but can we possibly have a better reputation than departments that have more stars and more depth and more resources and more citations?  I don't think so.

To be clear, I will invoke Wuffle's Law and use this ranking until there is one that comes along that ranks McGill even higher.

Update: the Montreal Gazette had an article about how well ranked the McGill Law school was in rankings done by the same folks.  Perhaps it matters more there since hiring law students for law jobs probably depends much more on the school's reputation and less on what the student does (publish, research, etc.) 

Steve Does Conspiracy Theory updated

Canada turns over Kandahar to the Americans and then the King of Kandahar, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the President's half-brother, gets assassinated.  Coincidence?  Well, it might be fodder for conspiracy theorizing except for a few inconvenient facts:

1. The Americans already took over much of Kandahar before the recent formalities.
2. The Americans have mixed views towards Karzai with some agencies making use of him (CIA) and others seeing him as an obstacle to progress.
   In late 2009, when the New York Times first reported that the CIA had for years been working with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's half-brother and a major player in the heroin trade, Major General Michael T. Flynn, the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, told the newspaper, "If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," he said. "The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone."The Atlantic*

*  Check out the rest of the short piece--it summarizes the challenges that AWK presented to the outsiders quite well.

What does this mean for the future of Kandahar?  I don't know.  Depends on who killed him?  Who replaces him?  Can we finally focus on institutions rather than individuals?  Um, maybe.  Probably not since the key individual is still President Hamid Karzai and he is determined to undermine institutions.

So, does this matter?  Yes.  How?  I have no idea.

For a good piece on who killed AWK, see here.  And this article does suggest a bright side--this should end any talk of making AWK governor.  Such an appointment would have been incredibly embarrassing.

More as we figure things out.

Defense Outsiders Disagree

This poll of defense insiders indicates that the legacy of Robert Gates is Iraq, more or less.   Steve Metz and I disagree.  Metz tweeted: "repairing the relationship between the SECDEF and senior military leaders."  Mine was: "rescuing OSD and SecDef's rep after Rummy's mess."  Perhaps Iraq kind of addresses those to a certain degree, but I definitely think that Gates made a huge difference, and perhaps we appreciate him all the more because his predecessor was the worst SecDef in US history. 

The survey then identifies what should be Gates's successor's priorities--getting out of Afghanistan and cutting the budget of the military.  Both are important, but are subsumed by this: figuring out what will American military power be used for in the next generation and preparing the military for that.  How?  By reducing current commitments (Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe) and shifting spending so that the declining budgets will be well spent. 

Of course, politicians will seek to send troops and ships and planes where the military might not want and where the SecDef did not plan.  But that is why plans include contingencies.  The question that should be asked of each line of the defense budget is: how does this commitment of scarce dollars affect the choices down the road?  If a certain plane is so expensive, that it reduces the flexibility of future commanders, that would be a good reason to downsize or cancel a program.  If a certain system increases flexibility and the ability to exert influence, that would be worth spending money on.  We face an era of tradeoffs, and the SecDef's job will be managing those and recommending to the President the best ways to manage (not eliminate) risk. 

Americans Have a Lot of Gumption

Mila Kunis said yes!  So, that is one Marine who has a date for the Marine Ball.

And, yes, this is my civil-military relations post of the day,

I Missed It, She Did Not!

Didn't catch the game except on twitter.


What a story, down one player, in stoppage time, what a pass, what a header!

Montreal Rocks!

Ranked third best summer city in the world!  By whom?  By folks who love Montreal.  "The study polled summer travellers who’d loved visiting Montreal."  Really?  Holy selection bias, Batman!  Or something like that.

To be fair, as the article enumerates, Montreal in summer is actually quite wonderful.  Lots and lots of festivals, for one thing.  We have tickets to a handful of Just for Laughs festival events, hosted by Jeff Ross (the Nasty Show), Craig Ferguson (one of the galas), and Kevin Smith (Smodcast).  The Jazzfest just ended with a big free concert by the B-52's. 

Summers here are also quite sunny without being miserable a la DC or NYC.  When the folks complain here of hot and sticky, I just laugh.  The article cites great food, which is quite true.

I do kind of mind that it makes a virtue out of Motnreal's rocks roads--that the town is gritty.  Um, less grit would be just fun.  I have cut down on my ultimate this summer as I will no longer go to games across the city that require me to cross a bridge or venture through and past downtown.  Luckily, there is a new league in the West Island suburbs--the Lakeshore Ultimate League, so I can get my ultimate without too much traffic/construction/headaches.

The article cites Montreal's diversity, and last night, I had an amusing remind of the joys of bilingualism.  We had just seen Horrible Bosses (which was most amusing),* and on our way back to our car, I spotted a car with a note on it.  The car had been parked in the middle of two spaces, taking up half of each.  So, the note on the windshield insulted the obnoxious parker--in both English and French.  Now, that is, as they say, some mad language skillz!

We do appreciate summer here in part because it is so very short and winter is so very long.  The city does very much come to life, and Montrealers are already a lively bunch to begin with. 

Sappy Spew

While the Spew tends to be silly, satirical, and/or sarcastic, folks who know me know that I can be sappy.  This clip is pretty moving:


Of course, another perspective--what mean parents to set her up.

Good to prepare my final Friday Night Lights post with this bit of reality to keep things in perspective.

Germany, Confused

Germany opposes at the UN the Libyan mission and refuses to participate in the NATO effort.  This is actually consequential since the AWACS planes that control the airwar include one that is jointly staffed by many NATO members, unlike other purely national assets.  And the Germans had been one of, if not the, biggest contributors to the NATO AWACS program. 

But Germany sells tanks to Saudi Arabia as the Saudis are helping to repress the folks protesting in Bahrain.  This is bad timing, bad optics and perhaps even bad policy. It undermines German claims about valuing human life, democracy and all of that when the profit motive matters more than principles. 

I have been seeing a lot of of pieces out there about the rise of Germany and so forth, but as long as it continues to stumble, Germany is not going be leading anybody anywhere anytime soon.  Too bad because the country has a lot to offer.  But then again, it is now ruing the whole Eurozone thing anyway, so it is not clear that past leadership was all that terrific either. 

Just don't over-estimate the wisdom or the power of German foreign policy for the next few years.

The New World Map

With a new country, South Sudan, we have a new map thanks to the Guardian and to Roland Paris for tweeting the link.  I always enjoy looking at maps and trying to figure out when they were made, given the changes in the world. 

The new world map on Prezi

What are most notable are some of the lists at the bottom:

• First, no big pattern of new countries.  Recognitions of one or two have not lead to a cascade.  The big wave of the end of the Soviet Union/breakup of Yugoslavia/velvet divorce led to what?  A dribble of Eritrea and Palau in the early 90's and then East Timor did not lead to many new secessions.  Montenegro and Kosovo finally gained independence after the de facto breakup of the rest of Yugoslavia more than a decade earlier.  South Sudan is not going to cause a cascade of new secessionist movements either.  What would a potential secessionist learn from SS's experience: fight for more than forty years, endure a few broken treaties, and happiness will come your way?   I don't think so.  I will stand by my anti-contagion argument, even if it does not hold up so well for democratization/authoritarian demise.
• Second, Bahrain is among most densely populated countries?  That might help to explain its particular path the past six months or so.
• Third, Afghanistan is not among the ten poorest countries, in terms of gross national income per capita.  I don't know if it is the poppies or the international assistance or both.  Almost shocking that a country with so much resource wealth, Congo, would end up 2nd, but that is what a few civil wars and heaps of corruption can do.  Depressing.  Diamond are not oil as Sierra Leone has learned.  
• Fourth, that Vietnam is eighth on the list of refugee senders is a bit surprising.  Aren't there other countries that are worse off, producing more refugees (other than the first seven)?  I guess less people returned to Afghanistan than I had thought.  
• Fifth, Germany has received almost 600,000 refugees?  This is the most of any non-neighbor (Pakistan, Iran, Syria lead), the most of any developed country, more than twice that of the US despite having less than a third of the population.  Germany gets heaps of abuse for all kinds of reasons (caveats in Afghanistan, opposing the Libya mission, selling tanks to the Saudis just as they are repressing protestors in their neighbors, see forthcoming blog post), but taking such a large dose of refugees is pretty impressive.  Of course, as social scientists have long known, refugees tend to end up mostly in places that are less well off: Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Kenya, and CHAD!  China, US, and UK round out the list.  No, not Canada, but probably close to the top ten.

Oh, and BBC re-posted their interactive Sudan maps (I discussed this set of maps in January).  Yes, once again, Sudan really screwed the folks in the south. 

Thinking Sigil-ly

I am reading Game of Thrones after falling in love with the TV show.  The book is good, but not that different from the movies.  Kind of like the first Harry Potter movies which did not leave that much out.  GoT the book is almost identical thus far to the series, but I expect more deviations down the road.

Damon Lindelof of Lost and Star Trek has been tweeting what would be his sigil (sign of his house) and the motto of his house, such as the Starks who have the direwolf as the sigil and "Winter is Coming" as their motto.  It got me to thinking about what would be the equivalents for my house.  Of course, if I followed the GoT tradition, I would have to adopt the sigil and motto of my father (yep, GoT is patriarchal, don't blame me).  Which would mean that our motto would be: Keep It All!  Alternatively, Don't Throw It Out.  The sigil would be a scrap of paper with hard to read markings on it (my father tracked every order at every restaurant we ate at for as long as I can remember).

If, on the other hand, I could re-invent my House and come up with a new sigil and motto, as I rebel against my father (in GoT, my fate would probably be the Wall as I am the second son), my motto would be "Nothing Said, Nothing Ventured" since I have almost no filter.  And my house sigil would be a puppy because attention seeking is the way of our House.

What would your House/Sigil/Motto be?

Canada Out of Combat

Some additional thoughts and comments in the aftermath of the transfer of authority ceremony marking the end of the Canadian combat mission:

1. The coverage is so very Kandahar-centric.  It ignores one of the key realities of Canada's first few years in southern Afghanistan and one of the ways in which the Canadians were distinct from most other countries operating in Afghanistan--a willingness to move outside of one's area of responsibility to help out others.  Canadian Forces went to Helmand to support the British, to Uruzgan to support the Dutch (before they left) and Australians, and (I think) to Zabul to help the Americans and Romanians.  The only other countries with sizable contingents to be this flexible were the Americans, Brits, and Danes.  But this myopia is endemic not just to Canada but to most of the countries who say not so much Afghanistan but just their piece of it.  This did lead to tensions within the Canadian effort as the civilians kept focusing on Kandahar whereas the military became more focused on what NATO command wanted them to do, which could be both beyond Kandahar and only a chunk of it.
2. I was probably too quick to say it was worth it, as Matthew Fisher suggests that the verdict can only be assessed down the road.  But the media and others will be asking that question now, as one can see in heaps of pieces written the past week or so. 
3. It is still stunning how few Canadian soldiers died in ordinary combat.  The stats show IED's (improvised explosive devices or land-mines) were responsible for ninety-eight out of 137 combat deaths, with gunfire for twelve.  I don't know what this means exactly except that the enemy cannot shoot straight, that the modern armor these soldiers were is pretty good, that the doctors, medevac and other folks in the medical chain are outstanding, and that the soldiers are trained quite well.  Given that the Canadian Forces did go out on patrol and did not hunker down just in the big base and did engage in operations all through out southern Afghanistan, this outcome is most striking.  The IED threat was the hardest problem to tackle, something that was pretty clear in briefings in Kandahar in 2007, and was the impetus for much of the Manley Report's military recommendations--more troops, more helos, more UAV's. 
4. These results are suggestive.  It is understandable why countries are reluctant to deploy ground troops to Libya, but it does seem, after the Afghan experience, that one Canadian battle group with allied air support could do a lot of damage to the Qaddafi forces.  Still, the politics both domestic and international make that impossible.  

What next for the Canadian Forces?  Some of the media coverage is predicting a new "decade of darkness" with heaps of budget cuts.  Well, cuts are coming, but they will be unequally felt.  With big plans for expensive air and naval equipment, the army is likely to face some serious cuts, and, as Fred Kaplan reminds us, the fastest way to cut costs is to cut people.   The funny thing is that this one way in which Canada might imitate the US, by cutting army personnel, will probably not face the same epithet that is often used in such circumstances of being "too American" or "Americanized."

And that is the last point I will consider this morning--that some will look at how kinetic the Canadian Forces were (how much combat they engaged in) and say this is a product of spending too much time being with and wanting to be like the Americans.  I think this entirely misses the point.  One of the key attributes that the Canadians brought to Afghanistan was a better grasp initially of what it means to do combat in a populated area.  The Canadians used force but seemed to be more restrained than the Americans.  Not that all Americans are cowboys, but that the Canadians always took greater care, especially when it came to detention (where accountability was always going to be much higher).

This suggests that we might seek to reverse Uncle Ben's famous dictim: it may be the case that with greater responsibility, comes greater power.  Canada had more influence precisely because it acting most responsibly--meeting its alliance commitments, helping to protect folks in a truly difficult area.  If it were easy, anybody could have done it.  Because it was so very hard and so very costly, it tested the Canadian Forces and Canada.  Leaving earlier than the countries does diminish the "grades" the Canadians will receive for the effort, but Exceeds Expectations absolutely.  Outstanding, mostly, especially in the realm of Defence Against the Dark Arts.*

* Yes, I am now contemplating grading all aspects of the Canadian effort in Afghanistan with Hogwarts' grading system.

Romeo and Gryffindor

What if JK Rowling had really enjoyed Romeo and Juliet more than ethnic conflict?


Oh, and yeah, I did spend an entire lecture last year suggesting how the implications of my Intl Relations of Ethnic Conflict class applied to Harry Potter. 

Just part of HP-final-ebration 2011.  H/T to Mrs Spew for finding this video for me.  Which, of course just raises the question: is she Gryff and I Slytherin or the reverse?  Actually, we are probably both Ravenclaw, although I probably wish more than she does to be Gryffindor.

and, yes, way too pop-ie for me but fun nonetheless.

Why I Blog

After a few years of blogging, I was asked recently while in a professional situation (that is, not asked by family or friends) why I blog.  And the funny thing is that I tend to blush when I get asked about my blog while in professional circles.  Perhaps it is all the Harry Potter references.  Anyhow, it got me thinking about why I do it now. 

1. I have no patience for the op-ed submission process where you have 800 words or less (I sometimes rant longer than that) and you submit and if you do not hear within several days, you can submit elsewhere.  But then the story may have been overcome by events.
2. I like that a blog can follow themes and events over time.  Gives me a chance to either develop and deepen a point of view or backtrack and contradict myself.
3. It allows me to think and write about stuff without having to go through the process of formal research--reading all of the literature, reviewing why it falls short, gathering data, analyzing, submitting, waiting months for reviews, revising and resubmitting.  I would like to publish about Quebec, for instance, but there is so much stuff out there that I would have to read to get past reviewers but would otherwise not want to read.  The blog allows me to write about Quebec separatism without subjecting myself to the piles of books and articles addressing it.  I can simply apply my theoretical background to the question at hand.
4. A blog is elastic--a post can be as short or as long as I want it to be.  
5. I am impatient--it bears mentioning twice.  It allows me to comment on events as they are happening.  
6. The audience is different.  Mostly my family and friends, but anyone who is interested can find the blog.  
7. It reminds me how not to write in jargon although I probably still do it way too much.
8. I can be as serious as I want to be.  Or as snarky as I want to be.  My original audience for the blog was myself, so there is still an element of doing it to entertain myself.  I had an article titled nixed by a journal a while back.  It was on irredentism--when will groups seek to join their mother country--and I wanted the title to be "Reuniting: When Does it Feel So Good" or "Four out of Five Irredentists Agree".  But nope, not professional enough.

I will try to blush less at conferences and workshops when I discuss the blog.  

Leaving The Same Way

If you follow my twitter account, you know I spent this morning griping about the Canadian International Development Agency or CIDA.  This article was the inspiration.  The main punchline was that nobody really noticed when the civilians pullout out of Kandahar, especially CIDA.  This was not terribly surprising for a couple of reasons.

First, the Canadian government, specifically the Privvy Council Office, has had much tighter control over what the civilians can say than what the military can say.  So, media folks, I guess, tend not to look to the civilian government folks for their views since they cannot give them or can only give them after being vetted by Ottawa.  This has been a recurring theme in most of my conversations with civilians and military folks over the past several years.  Note in the article that of three people who talk, one is a former and quite disgrunted CIDA person, one is a current CIDA rep, and one is outside of government.

Second, the CIDA culture is one of centralization and long-term planning, which makes me giggle when I see this:

Meanwhile, the Harper government decided to centralize control over the mission within the Privy Council office, in an attempt to be able to better oversee its cross-departmental nature and the stories being told about it from the ground.
But it added another layer of complexity to an already complex process. Decisions that use to be made quickly on the ground now had to get signed off on by Ottawa.

CIDA was never agile and always centrally controlled.  I would be a bit more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they had ever permitted someone to meet with me (yes, it really is about me).  The approval process to meet with a random academic seems to be very slow, so much so that their point of view will not be in the piece I have written. 

Third, when the military head of NATO (a.k.a. SACEUR) was meeting with the Canadian command staff a few years ago, a group of academics was able to attend the roundtable, including myself.  CIDA got wind of this and asked the scholars to go to their offices.  Instead of briefing us or letting us ask them questions, they really just wanted us to tell them how to message better, as if we scholars have any clues about how to communicate to the Canadian public.  It was pretty surprising and not very useful for us. 

Finally, those who were with me on the trip to Kabul and Kandahar in late 2007 remember my interaction with a CIDA representative quite well.  I was basically making the point that with Afghanistan being very corrupt, perhaps the best idea is not to fight all of it but recognize that some forms are worse than others.  Worse meaning some alienate the people more than others.  Abuse of power by the police may be worse than kickbacks from construction companies.  The rep's head spun, as she basically argued that Canada would not condone any corruption in Afghanistan.  Um, good luck with that.

Anyhow, the good news for CIDA is that it can now return to doing what it wanted to do all along--long term development work, not tied to any other government agencies or policies, in random spots around the world.

All You Needed to Know About the NFL Lockout

Field of Dreams 2: NFL Lockout with Taylor Lautner from Taylor Lautner

I watched too much football last fall. May not be a problem this year. 

Residual Categories Make for Tough Social Science

One of the basic realities in any effort to categorize things is that a bunch of stuff is left over.  They are put into a separate category of other stuff.  Any effort to give it a sense of unity is likely to stretch the concept so far that it bursts.  The exemplar would be Clash of Civilizations where "Sub-Sarahan Africa" does not fit into other categories and is thus considered being one civilization.  The problem is that it does not actually have any real unity is akin to the stuff that unites all Hindus, Westerners, Muslims (Clash is mostly about religion), and so forth, opening up the author (Sam Huntington) to charges that he is was racist.  That and Central and South America are seen as a civilization distinct from other Catholic countries (Italy, Portgual, Spain, etc) because the folks there are .... um, brown.

Anyhow, this clip illustrates the challenges of the residual category:

Raining Mud

This site has a nice time lapse video of massive dust storm hitting Arizona. 
Reminds me of Lubbock. Except there would be no mountains in the background.  Just more plains.

When Friends Jilt Friends

Funny video (with some un-family friendly words):

Water Park from Brian Chandler on Vimeo.


Reminds me of the time I waited for a ride to go skiing the one time I had a chance in Colorado.  Glad there was no video.  I would have produced more family unfriendly words.

Why Do We Suck at Nation-Building

Andrew Exum answers his own question thusly (bold/color is mine):

Why do we suck at nation-building? A lot of reasons. Here are just a few:

(1) We are ignorant. We do not know enough about the cultural, political and social contexts of foreign environments to fully appreciate how our interventions will affect those environments. Thus our aid and development spending (and military operations, to be fair), meant to ameliorate drivers of conflict, often exacerbate them. 

(2) We do not provide enough oversight and accountability for the projects we initiate. This is boring but important. We have spent ungodly sums of money in both Iraq and Afghanistan and have not provided enough contracting officers to effectively oversee the money we have spent. How do we just give tens of millions of dollars to agencies and departments in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan without any oversight? Lack of contracting officers. How are contracts in Afghanistan divided up between shady sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, with tax-payer money falling into the hands of the Taliban and warlords? Lack of contracting officers.

(3) We do not have any patience -- and we have limited resources. Nation-building takes time. Where we can nation-build at relatively low-cost over an extended period of time, as in Colombia, we can be successful. But asking Americans to spend massive amounts of money for an extended period of time in Iraq or Afghanistan is a recipe for ... turning your average U.S. tax-payer into an isolationist. 

Cannot really add much to this.  He is on target with all of this.

Second Canada-Afghanistan Rant of the Day

Paul Robinson, a prof at U of Ottawa, has claimed that Afghanistan has upset Canadian values by privileging the military.  There are some decent points in the piece, but I think it is mostly vastly overstated.

Again, as a foreigner who has only lived here for about nine years, I may not be that familiar with Canadian values, but I think that multilateralism, responsibility to protect, and wanting to make a difference in the world are Canadian values.  How can one be responsible if one avoids doing the hard work, which often requires violence to be deployed?

Is Canada more militaristic?  Since Canada has left Afghanistan due to the pressures of party politics and political competition and public opinion, I would say nay.  Yes, the Canadian Forces get more respect, but is that over-compensation for the "decade of darkness" after Somalia or about the right level of respect for one of the truly national institutions?  After all, we have had a series of Quebec-based units fighting and dying for the Canadian effort in Afghanistan, with little controversy despite expectations (including mind to a degree).  What other national institutions get respect in Alberta and Quebec?  The Supreme Court?  Uh, no.  The RCMP, I guess.  Who else?  Exactly.  So, having the CF be viewed positively across the country is almost certainly a net good for Canada.

Robinson claims that the "support the troops" mantra has undermined civilian control of the military.  Yet the civilians did manage to stop the Afghan combat mission.  The opposition has opposed the F-35 and have confronted the government and military on detainees (which I continue to believe is a distraction from more central questions, but that is just me).  There is no real parliamentary oversight over the Canadian military today because this is the way British-style systems work.  The question really is whether the Prime Minister, cabinet, and the civilian side of DND have control over the military?  Civil-military relations are dynamic with power among the actors changing in response to events and personalities.  Harper chose Natynczyk to replace the more outspoken Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff, when he could have either renewed Hillier or appointed someone else like him.  He did not--exerting civilian control.

Do not blame the military for the demise of DFAIT.  Blame Harper and his series of less than stellar Foreign Ministers. 

Regarding: "The distorting pull of DND is also warping spending priorities elsewhere ...Foreign aid"--that was temporary.  Afghanistan aid dollars are being cut.  CIDA will again return to its long term focus that tries to be as un-tied to Canadian national interests as possible.  Not sure that is a good thing, but CIDA bureaucratic culture will overcome "Canadian mil superiority."

Finally, Robinson and I have a big disagreement.  He likes the myth of the Canadian peacekeeper.  I believe that we need to understand the reality of post-Rwanda peacekeeping: that militaries sent to had to places will have to kill and risk being killed as the rebels/opponents will not meekly obey those in Blue Helmets.  Indeed, being prepared to fight in such situations makes the fight less likely.

End of Combat for Canada: Was It Worth It?

The Canadian Forces have ended their combat role in Afghanistan, as of the past few days.  The Mandate passed in 2008 ends at the end of July, with Canada already starting its new training mission that is "Kabul-centric."  I just had a radio interview on this topic, my first Afghanistan-related media opportunity since December.  It used to be the case that I was talking Afghanistan with Canada's media folks a couple of times a month.  But with that decision in 2008 and with Harper using that decision as a shield from having to think about extension (he could have, he chose not to), the media lost interest.  True, there has been a flurry of stories over the past month, pondering what it all means.  So, here is my first take at this big question.  Or second, since I gave it a shot for the radio interview (See two Canadian academics consider this here).

What is worth it for Canada?  157 soldiers, a couple of aid workers, one diplomat and one member of the media lost their lives and billions of dollars were spent.  If one thinks that there is nothing that is worth the life of a Canadian, then the answer is easy.  It is hard for me to answer this question, as I am not a Canadian although I do pay tax dollars.  I have no relatives and few friends from here who put themselves in harm's way.  Still, as a scholar of International Relations and having researched the NATO mission in Afghanistan (plus my ten days in Afghanistan make me an expert, right?), I have some opinions.

Academic Action Figures?

Yes, they exist.  But there is a critical flaw--we do not do "action."  I remember a few times when I had TV crews in my office to interview me, they would seek an action shot.  What would that be?  Me typing.  Woo hoo!?  So, action figures make little sense for folks who mostly stand and talk or sit and type. 

Ironies of Innovation

I focused on American innovativeness the other day when I considered a list of what is great about America--more so than Geico commercials.  This piece, where an American army officer develops an app that allows him to target the enemy quickly and effectively, illustrates that American spirit.

His answer was to create the Tactical Nav app, which troops can download to their smartphones. The Tactical Nav app combines a compass, a map, and a camera
"It combines three components," he said. "A compass, a map, and a camera. It's pretty simple - but obviously it does a little more than that."
He said he's tested his app against everything currently in use in Afghanistan - and claimed it is just as accurate.  The app is designed to give soldiers exact co-ordinates for where enemy fire is coming from.They can then send that information to their command centre, who will decide whether to call in an air strike, or send a rescue helicopter to help wounded troops.
"The first time I tried it for real," he said, "I sighed with relief. "I could have got into trouble - but it worked. "As a fire support officer, I take into battle a compass, binoculars, a map, a protractor, a GPS device - a secondary GPS device in case one fails - and batteries. "What this does is, it combines all these components, and throws it into just the one app," he said.

What is even more American is that the when he faced an unsupportive army bureaucracy, he went out on his own to develop the app and then find some financial support. 

Blame Aplenty

The Dutch have lost a lawsuit--some Bosnian Muslims were suing the Dutch for failing to protect them when the Bosnian Serbs overran the UN safe area of Srebrenica.  The Dutch already blame themselves in a 2002 report that led to the fall of the government for events in 1995.  This is most striking for a variety of reasons.

1. The Dutch were under UN command at the time, so one could blame the United Nations for failing to give the Dutch the necessary support to defend the sector.  Specifically, the Dutch called for air support, which NATO was willing to provide, but the UN leaders said no.  As a result, the Dutch now always bring their own air support with their own rules so that their troops on the ground never are left with such dire choices.
2. Ratko Mladic is now at the The Hague for instigating, planning, and leading the attacks and the killings.  So, the timing is interesting and raises questions of who should get the blame: the international community or those who commit the crimes?  The answer apparently is: both.  I would weight more heavily the guilt of the guy driving the car directly into a crowd than the police officer who fails to get the crowd out of the way.  Yes,  a gross simplification, but the Bosnian Serbs led by Mladic are the folks who are most responsible.  But, yes, this was a failure of the international community as well.  But suing the Dutch may only discourage other countries from joining UN operations since they, too, may be left hung out to dry.  
3. The Canadians deftly escaped responsibility.  They had peacekeepers initially deployed in Srebrenica but re-deployed to another part of Bosnia because they knew the situation was fraught with peril.  The Dutch were in place to face this horrible situation--fight despite having no UN support or surrender the Bosnian Muslims--because the Canadians could see further down the road (or game tree). 
4. The Canadians were not alone.  Lots of other countries could have done more and acted earlier.  So, should everyone be sued?  Should the Belgians be sued for their failures on Rwanda?

The one striking thing in all of this is that the court did recognize something that the Dave and Steve project on NATO and Afghanistan emphasizes--the key decisions are in the national capitols, not within international organizations.  BUT, to be fair, the Dutch decisions in 1995 were critically constrained by the lack of UN support.  The Dutch could have fought in a hopeless situation rather than essentially surrender to the barbarians.  Might not made much of a difference, except where we point the finger.

Captain Update!

I already mused earlier about the movie folks trying to play down the American part of Captain America the movie.  Well, now it appears that the First Avenger (the non-Captain name for the guy wearing red-white-and-blue with a star) will be Captain America everywhere except..... Russia, Ukraine and South Korea.  South Korea?  Um, given that there are still 20,000 American troops there to help deter the crazy folks from the North, they aren't used to seeing stars and stripes in South Korea?

Though it is common for American blockbusters to feature less US-focused titles in foreign markets, Paramount largely decided against the alterations for Captain America, and instead gave foreign countries  the choice of two titles, Captain America: The First Avenger or The First Avenger.
Interestingly, most international distributors believed the franchise name was so identifiable that not using "Captain America" in the title could risk losing ticket sales.

Well, yeah. So, the South Korean distributor felt First Avenger was better than Captain America?  Um, I think the Koreans (the ones in the South that is) have access to the internet and such.  I think they are already hip to where Captain America is from and that he is not a General or a Lieutenant or a Corporal.

I wonder if countries changed Green Lantern to a less environmentally correct color as one could see the title as a subtle rejection of industrialization.  Ok, that's a reach, but then so was the movie (I'll be here all night).

Seriously, for just a second, if you are willing to show the movie, it seems silly to deny what it is.  Captain America is intrinsically American.  The Hulk can be from anywhere.  The X-men could be gay.  Spider-man does not have to be from New York (although it helps).  Thor has to be from Asgard, and Captain America has to be from, well, the U. S. of frickin' A.

Oh, and for those playing at home, the superhero race still has X-Men in front of Thor and Green Lantern, with Natalie Portman edging out Blake Lively simply because they dressed NP normally while Blake was wearing fancy duds all the time.  Just too much unintentionally comedic wardrobe.  Plus Thor had a better backup cast with Heimdall, the Warriors Three and Sif.  Green Lantern had some CGI friends.  Well, 3599 Green Lantern friends of all shapes and sizes.

And Super-8 still has the lead for best movie of the summer. I will have to watch Harry P from Australia and see how he does with an Aussie accent.

Ritual 4th Post

And, yes, a chilling scene despite the fact that, as Bob Dole would put it, the average American is dead.

Getting Perspective on some Academic Truths

Dan Drezner and his wife have parallel columns in the Chronicle of Higher Education addressing the experience of tenure denial.  It is still shocking to put Dan into that category of a tenure denial-ee, as he has been consistently one of the most productive, influential, and, indeed, successful political scientists of his generation.  But his experience (and that of another excellent scholar rejected by the tenured folks at Chicago that year) reflects an enduring reality in the academic world: you will get tenured and promoted if the tenured folks want to do so, and you will not if they do not. 

That is, merit sometimes has something to do with it, but often not.  Departments will grant tenure and/or promote someone even if they fall short of contemporary standards if they want that person tenured and/promoted  And departments will ignore contemporary standards and deny tenure/promotion if they don't want to give it.  Dan's take on his past and his wife's reflections do a great job of showing how one deals with such a career reversal.  I have friends who have been through worse experiences as Dan landed on his feet immediately.  Given the investment of time and effort to hit a wall after five or six years in a place is just very tough, especially when the job market is particularly bad.  Smart departments will hire such folks.  My old place was smart enough to do that on at least one occasion, and my current department took advantage of another bad decision made by Chicago that year. 

But the feelings do linger.  Is Dan still bitter?  Just a bit.  Am I bitter for him?  Sure.  Do I understand what he has been through?  Just a bit.  Someday I will blog more directly about flawed promotion processes.  Just not today.  Dan has ably taken the floor, only to be out-classed by his wife.  Do take a look and see what they have to say.

How the Declaration of Independence is Like The Bible or Clausewitz?

It is read selectively, of course.  The Tea Party folks and more extreme actors out there use key clauses to justify themselves, especially: "-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

They, of course, forget the next lines: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

While we live in a time where institutions seem so frozen that government cannot operate, with the threat of filibusters and now divided government, the reality is that changes to the existing order can still be made within the system.  If the Democrats had the courage of their convictions, they could have overcome the filibuster threats.  When they did act, things did happen--a compromised health care bill.  The debt crisis we now face is something that can be managed, but there are games to be played still.

This Independence Day I ponder not the sacrifices made by soldiers on battlefields around the world (Memorial Day and Veteran's Day foster such reflections) but rather the state of the union and what it means to be an American.  Are we over-consumed with decline?  Can we bounce back from the current situation?  What has happened to the American dream?

I don't think the US will ever return to its dominance of the planet in the 1950's and 1960's for the simple reason that we will not have another war that decimates all of the other great powers while leaving the US barely touched.  Iraq did heaps of damage to American leadership not just through over-extension but also through a loss in legitimacy.  It is one thing to go it alone essentially, and another to go alone based on lies.  I remember being asked by the Montreal media in early 2003: what if there are no WMD's in Iraq?  And I remember being stymied by the question.  I didn't think WMD programs justified the war, but I had expected something, anything, to get turned up.  But no, the intel was pre-cooked, and then the country that could go to the moon proved that it could do everything wrong in a post-war phase that just created more war.

Still, the Libyan effort shows that American leadership is still necessary.  Yes, Obama now has US forces playing a supporting role, but it took the US to get NATO to agree to the effort, and it continues to take US assets to make the effort sustainable--refueling, intel, reconnaissance, etc.  I don't think too many folks are looking forward to Chinese leadership, not even the Chinese.  So, yes, the US is declining relatively, but it still possesses a fuller portfolio of power than anyone else: conventional power projection, nuclear weapons, a large albeit semi-broken economy, a large population, an appealing set of ideas (back to that Declaration and Constitution), and so on.  While some datasets have China having more power than the US because of the role of population in the calculation, we need to remember that power is relational.  To get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  While China is good at gobbling up resources around the world, the US still manages to get others to do stuff they would otherwise not do, like fly over Libya or contribute to Afghanistan. 

I will ponder the state of the union and the American dream some other time as this post is getting long and I have some work to do on this non-Canadian holiday.  To preview, I still think that Americans, even in this relatively dark time in our history, are dreamers and innovators.  If we can recover from the Civil War and from the combination of Vietnam and Watergate, I think we can bounce back from the financial crisis and from the Bush Administration.

Evaluating American Assets

CNN Money has a list of the top 100 great things about the US.  I guess we cannot blame them for their patriotic pontification given that tomorrow is the 4th of July and, aside from the Bin Laden raid, Americans have not had that much to cheer about lately.  Anyhow, the list ranges from on target to pure padding (should have come up with a top 10 or 25).  So, just to have fun with it, I am going to assess the list.

1. Opportunity.  Yep, the US remains the land of opportunity although wages by most of the country have stagnated.  Still, immigrants continue to come to the US, do well, and improve things for their kids.
2. Interstate highway.  Um, don't other folks have good highway systems (the autobahn?)?   Sure, there is some great history there, but not that super-special.
3. Sears Tower.  Um, ok.  Tall building, but great?  
4. Wal-Mart Employees saving lives in Joplin?  Ok. We do have bundles of stories of Americans doing great things in times of great hardship.
5. Navy Seals.  Sure. All of the Special Operators are quite, ahem, Special.
6. ESPN?  Um, I do like some elements of it (Bill Simmons and the new Grantland are pretty cool), but isn't the network also responsible for some of the worst elements in sports, like the focus on ego gratification and big hits, rather than good team play.
7. Fedex.  The Canadian postal service and their ox-carts certainly make Fedex look good.  Too bad it led to what's-his-face owning the Washington football team.
8. Steve Jobs.  Sure, as a PC user, I can respect what Mac has done, and I do like my Ipod.  This goes to larger hunk of what makes America great--a good environment for innovation.  Perhaps not as unique as it used to be, but still we have some of the most successful college drop-outs.
9. Whole Foods.  If you say so.
10. Microsoft Word.  I am not sure there is a consensus on this one, especially as every new update causes people to get upset at the new formats.  
11. Ford F-150.  Bestselling pickup.  11?  Really.
12. Rockerfeller Family?  heaps of good works apparently.
13. Caterpillar construction machinery.  Whatever happened to Tonka?
14. Detroit.  I guess buying low, right?
15. Kindle?  Too soon to say.  
16. Duct tape.  You mean, this is an American thing.  What do the Germans and Japanese do with their ducts?  And their kidnap victims?
17. Bill of Rights.  Um, #17?  These should be at the very top.  This land o opportunity would not be such without freedom of speech, assembly, from religion (yes, I am putting it like this to antagonize folks) etc.
18. Wall Street Bull.  Given the past several years, nothing on Wall Street should be on this list, but this is CNN Money's list. What else can you expect?
19. Carlos Santana.  Sure, first immigrant listed.  
20. Pappy Van Winkle Bourbon.  A beverage that is really hard to find and drunk by a few?  I would go with Coke here or Microbrew beers.
21. LinkedIn.  You have to be kidding me.  Thus far, an annoyance with not so much merit.  Down the road?  We shall see, but not the best social networking hunk of internet around. 
22. Colin Powell.  Nice immigrant story, sure.  But he enabled the Bush Administration and was the face of the US when it was lying to itself and the world.  Heaps of demerits here.  
23. Bill and Melina Gates.  Microsoft and now macro-good-doing.
24. Geico commercials.  Um, is that the best we got?  Mad Men before Geico.
25. Mississippi.  Yep, cool river, big, and all of that.

Al Qaeda and Spinal Tap

The intel treasure trove from the Bin Laden raid has revealed that the folks in AQ, especially its #3, are aware that they have much in common with Spinal Tap drummers:

One of bin Laden’s principal correspondents was Atiyah abd al-Rahman, who served as No. 3 in al-Qaeda before bin Laden’s death. A 2010 message from Rahman expressed frustration with the CIA drone campaign, a source of particular concern because many of his predecessors in the third-ranking slot had been killed in strikes by the unmanned aircraft.
“He was saying in the letter that their guys were getting killed faster than they could be replaced,” the U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Um, so there is one vote against the on-going US drone campaign.  

One thought on the reports about these documents--it just might be the case that there is some selectivity in what is being released so that the stories end up supporting US policies.  Just a thought.

Joint Staff Rocks Again

Check out this interesting post by a "Feminist in the Pentagon."  Like me, she was surprised at how welcoming the folks on the Joint Staff were.  And then she enumerates why they are so swell:

1. They work as a team.
2. They encourage professional development.
3. They are smart.
4. They reward good work.
5. They don't bullshit.
6. They hold diverse views.

I pretty much entirely agree.  They welcome diverse views, but they were not that diverse.  At least, not in my one year of experience in the Balkan moshpit. 

But I wholeheartedly agree with this line: "The serious content of our work, juxtaposed with the camaraderie and humor of our office, strikes a great balance."

Of course, this woman is generalizing about the military.  It may be the case that the Joint Staff is the best part of the military--that is what they always told me.  We have examples of other places in the military where team means the boss tells you to just do what he thinks is right, that they are not that bright, and where they do not hold diverse views--CENTCOM under Tommy Franks, for instance.

Still nice to see that my experience was not unique and that today's Joint Staff is not that different from the one I enjoyed ten years ago.

Xenophobia, Italian Style

I was pleased to see that Russian racism might be serving to cool down enthusiasm for adventures in the Caucuses, but my joy for the counter-intuitive dynamic does not blind me to the reality that intolerance can, of course, also produce inhuman policies.  I mentioned earlier that France was developing policies that were undermining the EU in repsonse to the Libyan crisis. 

This piece shows that Italy is acting in ways that directly challenge the raison d'intervention--responsibility to protect--by denying refuge to the folks fleeing the violence.  It is not surprising, but still appalling.  Yes, the economies of these refugee-recipients are not doing well, but refugees usually flee to countries that are much, much worse off.  Italy can afford these folks much better than Congo, Pakistan, etc. 

Italy is clearly looking to end this conflict any way it can, changing its line on supporting the bombing campaign from refusing to strike, to participating in the strikes, to now calling for a ceasefire.  Looks pretty desperate to me.  Again, since Italy is in far better shape economically than your average third world country, it must have something to do with the perceived fragility of the Italian political scene.  I am not an expert on Italy, and the refusal of the Italian diplomats in Canada to meet with me means that I have not done that much research on the politics of Italy's deployment in Afghanistan.  So, I can only speculate.

What Italy's fecklessness does verify?  That xenophobia is a weak reed upon which to hang a humanitarian intervention.

Celebrating a Better SecDef

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has retired.  My man-crush for him continues.  He was not a perfect SecDef, and we might err in over-loving the guy since his predecessor was so very, very bad at his job.  This piece suggests that one of the most important things he managed to do was to prevent a war with Iran.  I had a running battle/bet* with a friend of mine about a war with Iran, as I didn't think we could be so stupid as to start another conflict in the Persian Gulf.  My friend turned out to be right about how motivated the supporters were, but I turned out to be right about Gates and the military. 

Gates did a lot of things right.  He developed a good, transparent relationship with the military while not being its puppet.  He cut stuff that elements of the military wanted and forced them to invest in things that mattered for the current war like drones and more IED-resistant vehicles (MRAPs).  Gates should get some credit for the mission to take out Osama.  He consistently presented arguments that made him a voice of reason (the Juliet Johnson of the US administration), including his take on wikikeaks.  Gates may have moved more slowly than folks would have liked on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but his backing made it possible to remove this blight.  He handled the firing of McChrystal as well as one can. 

What these two SecDefs remind us is that individuals and personalities do matter, even as we political scientists focus more attention on international pressures and domestic structures.  The folks manning (personning?) the machines matter a great deal.  At a key point in time, we had a special person running the most dangerous machines.  If only he had been SecDef in 2003-6.  Alas.

Gates earned his accolades, doing a tough job that had plenty of potential to alienate most folks.  Leon Panetta would be wise to keep Gates on the speed-dial.

Happy Canada Day!

While I bitch and moan about life in Canada, I would be remiss not to appreciate all that rocks in Canada.  The people have been very welcoming to my family despite our strange ways (like not using "u" hither and thither) and our insults to Montreal bagels.  Canada has been a big boon to my research as I have had great access to the Canadian military (and some of the civilians--the agency that has been least helpful knows who it is), and they have taken to remote places like Kabul, Kandahar and Bagotville.  And the ultimate here has been fantastic. 

So, today, I will hoist my Alexander Keith's white beer (the big beer companies are so much better than the American big beer companies) and toast all that is Maple, all that is Maple-Leafed (I still get a kick that a general's rank is denoted in the number of leaves on his/her shoulders), and all that is cold, eh?

Thanks again to the Canadians for having a great sense of humor/humour.

Iceland Backfill Memories

I keep coming back to this story from my Joint Staff days: that a list was handed down from Rumsfeld of American commitments around the world he wanted to end.  Supposedly to save money and stress on the troops, but mostly due to an ideological commitment that the US should not spend money on allies/multilateral commitments.

Anyhow, I have mentioned this before.  What brings this up yet again is that Rummy has a piece in the Wall Street Journal where he specifically cites the money saved from finally ending this commitment: $225 million dollars.  Perhaps the list of commitments to end (like four guys or so in a UN mission to East Timor) was really about the money, but the funny thing here is this: closing the USAF base in Iceland was not his idea.  It was something the Air Force wanted to do, not to save money (nor was the concern about the four fighter planes) but so that they could re-position the long-range search and rescue helos and planes.  How do I know this?  I was the one handling the list, and the original response memo went up the line without the Iceland commitment listed until it hit a two general in my chain of command* who was an Air Force officer.  Then, the list came back to me with a request to consider Iceland.

*  All those who know me can now giggle at the thought of me being in anyone's chain of command.

There were some difficult tradeoffs as Iceland saw this as the US/NATO commitment to its defense and essentially held the US anti-submarine warfare facilities (featured in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising) hostage.  The new deal, as I have mentioned, has NATO sending occasional rotations to represent the NATO commitment (and I believe a similar operation applies to the Baltics--occasional tours of NATO fighter planes).

The point here is that Rummy is now taking credit for cutting a "wasteful" expense when it was really not his idea at all.  Just good old bureaucratic politics.  Rummy did cut some expensive programs (the Crusader artillery system--good thing we never had it around to deploy to a Muslim country, right?), but giving credit where it is due has never been a Rumsfeld hallmark.  Steven Metz has been reading Rummy's memoir and tweeting about it (so that the rest of us can be spared, I think), and he has noted that all of the problems in Iraq where some other dude's fault (Bremer), forgetting that he,Rummy, had demanded the responsibility for the post-war phase until it got too messy.

The other point is: why are we paying any attention to the Worst Secretary of Defense in American History?  Oh yeah, nostalgia.