All Politics is Relative

In my wanderings around North America, I have always been struck by my movement along the political spectrum.  Or actually, my standing still but the political spectrum moving around me, more or less.  Sure, my views have changed, but not so radically that moving from place to place alters my political views.  I ponder this as my move approaches:

• In high school, we had little awareness of politics.  I knew I was a Liberal (American spectrum) but not so much where everyone else was.
• At Oberlin, I was not very left-wing.  Indeed, I still had the same values except that I gained better appreciation for them.  That is, I always believed that men and women should be treated equally, but Oberlin helped provide the logical glue between my starting point and the positions.  As I mentioned early, I became less homophobic at Oberlin, but I never bought into political discrimination--I just understood my position better.  Still, I joined an organization that was trying to foster less knee-jerkiness and more discussion--the Moderate Caucus.  Sure, we had some token Republicans but mostly liberals that were disaffected with the hard left.  So, I was seen as being right-wing, as my views did not conform to socialism (real socialism, not the fake accusation levied these days).  Oberlin's distinct tilt (tilt as in leaning so far over the tower fell) meant that I actually thought Mondale had a chance.
• In San Diego, I was back to being a liberal, as the town was fairly conservative as a military town and what southern California used to be.  But as a grad student, my nose's proximity to the grindstone meant I didn't pay as much attention as to where I stood relative to the area.
• In Vermont, well, I was somewhere in the middle between the Oberlin-esque granola-ness of Burlington and the gun rights folks of the hills.  No accident that Jerry of Ben & Jerry's was an Obie and then helped to establish the quintessentially Oberin-esque lefty company not far away.  Vermont had a nice balance at the time: socialist representative, establishment Democratic Senator with a giant head (Leahy), and a moderate Republican (Jeffords).
• Then Texas.  Ah, Texas.  Where I went from being centrist or slightly right compared to the locals to hard, hard left, perhaps commie, as Lubbock was viewed as the most conservative district in the country.  Fun teaching American and Texas Public Policy to students who thought that government had no role in doing much public policy.  Of all the places I lived, including French-speaking Montreal, Lubbock was the worst fit especially when it came to politics.
• A quick year in Virginia.  My self-perception was more driven by my time in the five-sided building than in the suburbs because I was spending 12 hours or more per day in the building.  I was the shaggy leftie academic, raising questions about God in the Pledge of Allegiance (oops!). But I was not the only Democratic in the room, but perhaps the only one who was not a closet Democrat.  
• In Montreal, I came to be known as the go-to guy for the media if they wanted a pro-war position.  Not that I am a big fan of war, but that I did think that the Canadian participation in Afghanistan had some justification.  It was hard to explain my ambivalence which has varied about that.  Of course, these days, my opposition to the student protests about tuition make me a right-winger even as I am not thrilled with how the provincial government has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with its latest moves.  I am still opposed to the student movements' main goals--tuition should go up--but I am also opposed to the government's handling of the crisis.  Which makes me what?  Confused

So is all politics relative?  No, not at all really.  I have mostly been

• economically moderate:free trade, progressive but not insane taxes, programs to help the poor, reform of social security (progressive taxation), etc.
• liberal on social policy: 1st amendment >>> 2nd amendment, equal protection, smart solutions for redressing segregation and discrimination [magnet schools), etc.
• realistic (small r), pragmatic on foreign policy:  the use of force as an instrument of foreign policy but not the only tool in the box, skeptical about the power of norms, and so on.  

Folks on the left are annoyed by my free trade stance and by my takes on foreign policy where I don't always see the US as evil and where I am not a pacifist.
Folks on the right are annoyed by my social stances and my non-hate for taxes.

In my classes, I try to make fun of everyone although Bush was a far easier and amusing target than Obama, and his administration a far more hated target because of its awful, awful, awful blunders.

The fun part is trying to imagine voting in Canada (easy to pick in the US, with the ruthless elimination of moderate Republicans) where the Conservatives are crappy on social policy, not so great on economic policy, and not entirely sketchy on foreign policy (although not great), compared to the NDP, which are crappy on economic policy, good on social (except for Quebec if that counts as social), and lousy on foreign policy, and the Liberals are what?  Oh yeah, exactly.

Anyhow, this journey into my political attitudes is probably only of interest to Lil Steve, but there you have it.  For me, the question is--where will Ottawa position me?  My guess is that I will feel pretty middle of the road there, but only time will tell.

How is a NATO Summit Like an Academic Conference

How is a NATO Summit like an academic conference?  A summit is like a conference in that it sets an artificial deadline so that the various actors can try to complete their products whether it is a communique or approval of a policy document by NATO or a conference paper for an academic.  We can possibly have these outputs without summits/conferences but these events create incentives to make progress. In the lead up to a major meeting, talking points and documents are vetted thoroughly by each country's inter-agency process (bureaucracy).  Once at a summit/conference, there is lots of schmoozing/networking/business conducted but not on the major planned outputs.

So, no one should be surprised that nothing concrete was settled about the French departure from Afghanistan or changing the timing of transition nor any progress on Pakistan and the supply route problem.  All progress on contentious issues is made ahead of time, just like all research and writing for a conference paper is prior to the conference.  Sure, this means that sometimes papers are incomplete or quite flawed, and sometimes summits have less to show than expected and contentious issues are kicked down the road.  But we should also realize that just as the informal networking at the conference hotel bar actually is quite important for setting agendas, opening up new possibilities down the road, and so on (here I am rationalizing my own behavior), the various meetings and exchanges among NATO and partners are also productive even if they do not lead to a new agreement/treaty/policy documents.

Obviously Not in Tennessee

As there is hugging and other gateway stuff in this video.  But I post this as I am a sappy sentimentalist and always wonder why people usually criticize TV shows and movies that are sentimental (with Parks and Rec being a noted exception to this rule.


My second reaction--damn, it is hard to ask folks out to prom in the 21st century.

H/t to CNNSI's Hot Clicks (where I get a fair amount of stuff I would not find in my twitter stream).

My Ultimate Strategy Revealed

Ok, this is a Pepsi ad, but it reveals my ultimate strategy--look old, play old, and then surprise:


Sure, Kyrie Irving has far more talent and speed, but all I need is that first step.  Ok, a few steps....

Academic Geek Question of the Day

Which do I find cooler?  That the President has decent form throwing a long pass or that the NATO symbol is cut/painted on the football field?


The latter, given how much time I have spent on researching NATO and living la vida NATO.  But I am sure my wife would say the former.

UPDATE: On the Obama campaign site, they wisely and amusingly entitle this: Clear Eyes, Full Hearts.  This invokes Friday Night Lights without sounding too cocky with the "Can't Lose" finish.  Nicely played.

Canada and NATO

My latest post at CIC is about the give and take between NATO and Canada.  In time for the Chicago Summit.

Political Will? Will Not!

One of the most annoying and empty phrases in the IR biz, especially when it comes to intervention, is "political will."  X didn't happen because there was no political will.  What does that mean?  Well, I guess it means that x didn't happen because people/countries/whovians didn't want something to happen or did not want it enough to make it happen, right?  Why no intervention in Syria yet?  No political will. 

But the problem with this is that it really does not answer any question at all.  If the problem is that countries didn't want to do it, this raises two questions: why not? and if you want something, does it always happen?

Ok, first: if countries are not sufficiently motivated to overcome the various obstacles to cooperate to do something of significance (which is probably costly and/or risky), then saying so really sheds no light.  To shed some light, one ought to focus on the motivations and their absence/competing interests AND the obstacles, as motivations, competing interests, AND the possible costs all may vary systematically (or not).  Those are the things we need to understand: why intervention?  Because of oil, because of ethnic affinity (see my first book), because of fears of immigration (see my second book), because of security concerns, because of the interconnections between commitment in place A and commitment in more important place B (that last one not only covers Vietnam/West Europe but also Bosnia/Europe.  If intervention does not occur, the answer is not the lack of political will, but perhaps the economic costs, the likely response of public opinion, the fear of using up scarce resources, the difficult of the task, because of the consequences of uneven burden-sharing (see my next book when it exists)and so on. 

Second, I invoke the Rolling Stones rule of International Cooperation: You Can't Always Get What You Want.  There have been many efforts made in human history to cooperate, but these efforts sometimes fail because the tasks are really hard or because the solution was not the right one.  Piracy still exists, right?  Somalia is still a failed state.  Afghanistan is still a mess.  The idea that if you work really hard, you get what you want reminds me of the students who insist that they worked really hard, but didn't get an A.  Well, sometimes trying really hard is simply not enough.  Sometimes you need the right idea with perfect oversight over well-designed execution.  How is that Egyptian democracy working out?  Containment of the Soviet Union required more than just political will--it required creativity, it required insight, it required patience, it required tolerance of failure and of overreaction, and so on. 

Not only you can't always get what you want, you don't always get what you need.  But sometimes, if you try real hard (and get lucky), you get what you need.  To conclude, political will is not the end of an answer or explanation--it is, at best, a start, but mostly it is the step two in the underwear gnomes' plan--a shoulder shrug.

NATO This!

As NATO folks arrive and start chatting in Chicago, I am struck by the wonderful ambivalence that always occurs when the topic NATO appears.  Some folks say we should expand NATO or replicate NATO while others ponder why NATO endures and whether its time is at an end.  Today, I want to focus on the former--NATO is so good, let's create NATO's elsewhere.

For instance, we have Robert Haddick saying "The Persian Gulf Needs Its Own NATO."  What does that mean?  How does the concept translate without breaking?  Well, that depends on what we mean by NATO: a thorough institutionalization of multilateral military cooperation?  An agreement that an attack upon one is equal to an attack upon all?  What makes NATO NATO?  What is its essence that is so desirable?  NATO is definitely not built to keep down rebellions, which seems to be the Persian version's raison d'etre, yes?  Indeed, one of the rules for NATO membership, which is violated only rarely (Greece and Turkey before, Hungary now) is democracy.  Democracy tends to have far less need for and use of repression, so NATO has never been imagined to be used to put down dissent in any member.  NATO members also have much more state capacity than the average victim of the oil curse (whether the curse exists or not, state capacity in Gulf is pretty limited). 

If the idea is to cement the American commitment to the area, a P-ATO is both unnecessary and about to become obsolete.  That is, the US will defend countries in the Gulf now because it has strong interests there, so a multilateral treaty is unnecessary; and the US will not be interested in defending folks in the region in perpetuity because with the rise of other sources of oil and with other energy sources besides oil, the Gulf will eventually decline in relevance in a way that Europe will not so much.

Fundamentally, there is a reason why various regions do not have X-ATO's and the North Atlantic does: folks have tried and failed.  Remember SEATO?  ANZUS is just the three and cannot be expanded, because the members, the US, Australia and New Zealand, cannot agree to the defense of some other country or countries.  The US has an interest in developing a multilateral security organization that commits the US to its defense in one place--Europe.  It has an interest in something similar in Asia, but that is not going to happen because the Asian countries have not gotten over their histories as well as the Europeans.  South Korea will not commit to the defense of Japan and vice versa.  We can think of all of the other possibilities, but one of the things that makes NATO special is the generic language in Article V--an attack on any one is an attack on all.  Of course, countries can and have disagreed about what that response should be, but name me a spot on the earth where all of the folks there can credibly agree to mutual defense? 

One could argue that failures to form enduring alliances are failures of political will. But that means nothing since we would need to explain the presence or absence of this will thing.

Update: For another set of criticisms of Haddick's piece from a different angle, see Caitlin FitzGerald's piece at Gunpower and Lead.

Friday Festivities and Fun: Chainsaw Edition

We'd Be Bogus, Too

The key quote from Fast Times at Ridgemont High comes to mind today.  Why? Because the Quebec government's response to the tuition protests, well, are bogus, too.

As I have made clear here repeatedly, I am no fan of the tuition protests or the tactics of the various groups.  The key challenge of late has been the willingness of protestors to ignore injunctions and the lack of willingness of the police to enforce the injunctions.

But the new law seems to suck on multiple grounds.  First, it suspends the school year, which is pretty much what the protestors have been doing themselves.  Is this giving them what they want?  I think just cancelling the semester might have been more powerful--it would have imposed a financial cost.  Still, any response needs to take quite seriously that there are plenty of students who would prefer to get an education this spring but have been denied.  Maybe they voted for the non-strike/non-boycott (I really need a term to cover a situation where folks buy a service and then refuse to consume it) because they believed in it, but have changed their minds now that the costs have increased; maybe some felt coerced since many of the votes were by shows of hands (not secret ballots); maybe some didn't show up to vote because they were not mobilized/radicalized or just lacked the imagination to see what was going to take place this spring.

Second, the law overreaches.  You do not need to deny various basic rights to address this problem.  Just enforce the damn injunctions. Maybe increase the penalties for blocking access to schools, roads, etc, but put the onus on the protestors--let them protest anywhere but in places that disrupt life too much--roads, schools.  Free speech in parks should be fine.  The law also ignores one of the basic problems in this particular outbreak of dissent and in most of them--there is no unity of command.  No one is really responsible, unlike, say Charest is for the government.  So, how do you hold an organization responsible when individuals throw smoke bombs into the metro?  Unless you can prove it is an organized event (and there are probably laws on the books on this, right), you cannot punish an organization for crazy stuff in the streets.

While we can expect the student leaders to be immature and ignorant of what their responsibilities are (with some power comes some responsibility), we should expect more of the government.  But I have lived in Quebec too long to have much in the way of expectations for good governance in Quebec.

Update: Jacob Levy addresses the law and the events of the past 14 weeks here.   It may be the longest paragraph he has ever written.  Perhaps even spoken!

NATO Question Du Jour, Pre Summit Edition

Why?  Oh why are folks obsessed with getting Georgia into NATO?  This morning, Senator Sheehan was quoted as saying this:

Sen: @Chicago NATO must "demonstrate, through the formal summit communiqué, some advancement toward the country's ascension to NATO" Georgia
— NATOSource (@NATOSource) May 18, 2012

Shoot me now!  Why this rush to get Georgia in?  Could someone explain to me the domestic politics, the political imperatives, that causes Senators and others to ask to admit a country into NATO that would erode Article V?

What I mean by that is the challenge posed by this combination: (a) a country willing to provoke conflict with Russia (even if Russia is very much a bad guy in all of this; (b) a country so far away from the rest of NATO that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that NATO would come to its defense.   In Georgia, you get an ally that is most likely to trigger a crisis that will most likely reveal that the promises made to it are empty, undermining NATO credibility.  Oh, and by making these incredible promises, NATO might actually encourage Georgia to provoke more conflict. 

So, what is the urgency here with Georgian membership in NATO?  I can understand that no Senator has read anything in Alliance Politics, but perhaps one of their aides might have bumped into someone who has read such stuff.  Or perhaps just have some common freakin' sense!

Yes, I get why someone from Ohio or other part of the US with a significant Ukrainian diaspora population would want Ukraine to get membership, but is there a Georgian diaspora of note that I am simply overlooking?

I would much rather buy into the hopes and dreams of Smart Defense than consider membership for Georgia (or Ukraine).

écureuil, part deux

Squirrel!!  Yes, it is time for that game-y flavored distraction sauce.  Yesterday, two major news events occurred in Montreal/Quebec: Jean Charest tabled an emergency law that will suspend the classes for those colleges and programs where students have been not attending,* levying new penalties for disrupting classes, requiring more notice for protests and so on;** and several people close to Montreal Mayor Tremblay were arrested for corruption charges.

*  I have decided not to use "strike" or "boycott" to describe what the student groups are doing.  They are not refusing to work nor are they refusing to buy something.  They have already paid for a service--an education--and are refusing to partake.  I don't know of a word that describes that well.

** Folks on twitter this morning say that the law overreaches, especially as the problem in Montreal is mostly an "enforcement" problem.

I am not saying that the mayor's office has been helping the student protests along.  No, not at all, but I am saying that the corruption problem in Montreal and Quebec has often been a side show, overlooked as we focus on issues that are actually less significant in terms of costs, in terms of the quality of service--in terms of good governance.  Yes, the students are upset that they have to pay more for their education, but we forget that that they are also upset because they have witnessed heaps of money wasted on things like construction at UQAM that goes on forever (hmm, any corrupt contractors involved?), new satellite campuses for schools not based in Montreal, new campuses for schools based in Montreal (UdeM with a billion dollar project in Outremont), schools blowing heaps of money on firing elite officials and giving them big severance packages (Concordia), and schools spending more money than appears warranted on the travel of their boss (McGill).

To be clear, these spending scandals are, in total (with the exception of UQAM and UdeM) are pretty small compared to the other rising costs of education and to the costs to the university system of the tuition freeze.  Moreover, the costs to the city and province of corruption is much, much greater than the costs of the student protests.  Construction in Quebec costs something like 30% more than in other Canadian provinces even though wages are lower here, yet the construction projects almost always seem to produce crappy work.  Indeed, we are now going to be paying millions and billions to replace infrastructure (roads and bridges) that were built not that long ago.

But the corruption scandal, clearly touching the mayor, is going to be pushed out of the news by the student protests and the reactions of the Charest government.  I can only guess that Mayor Tremblay, who was complaining of the protests earlier in the week, is now secretly thrilled that these events have come so close together, even if it means that Montreal is a battlezone for police and students.  I guess it is a good thing that the roads resemble World War I trenches.

Star Trek in the Rear View Mirror

I am a fan of both Stars Trek and Wars, but I do really enjoy this take:

Why The Star Trek Universe is Secretly Horrifying -- powered by Cracked.com

Apparently, no creativity in the future as all of the holodeck sequences are pre-1940?
Oh no, the ST fan just broke out the Prime Directive (which I never thought about in the same context as Spidey!).  A losing argument, of course, since it is violated far more than it is respected even by Picard.
Best line makes one thing of Apple stores and North Korea in same context!

Equal time for Star Trek fans who mock Star Wars:

Why the Ending of 'Star Wars' is Secretly Kind of Dumb -- powered by Cracked.com

Oh, what the hell, a third thanks to Charli Carpenter:

Quick Hits on Quebec's Prolonged Agony

I am hitting the road this morning to get my daughter registered for classes next fall in Ottawa, so I don't have a heap of time to ponder Quebec's ongoing trauma.  So, just a few hits and runs:

• the Quebec Premier, Jean Charest, has a package to pass in the National Assembly (province's legislature).  We don't know all the pieces, but he is suspending the semester for those schools and program that have been boycotted.  The idea is then to finish the terms in August.  
• Can I repeat that I am glad that McGill students did not join in this mess?  
• What about the profs and students who want to go to class and had plans for August?
• Will this really cool things off?

• No compromise ahead.  Well, how do you compromise with disparate groups that not only are relatively unwilling to bargain but claim to have no control (but tend to condone) the folks using unacceptable means (throwing smoke bombs in the subway system, confronting students in class, etc)?
• A key challenge here is that there are multiple groups claiming to represent the boycotting students.  One is more extreme than the other two.  The other two have tied their fortunes to the extreme one, which might make sense if there was something to bargain over.  But the boycotters want a tuition freeze and the government clearly cannot give them that or else we would be going through this again when tuition is unfrozen.
• Other elements, whether is the PQ, other unions, or random anarchist types are using this for political gain/desire to cause trouble for the incumbent party.  So, there is no one actor controlling or even leading the dissent effort.  Who does the government negotiate with?  If it was just the two "moderate" movements, it would be hard enough?  Oh, and the moderates are not so moderate anymore (if they ever were), as they are saying that things will escalate, that it is the government's fault, even though I am pretty sure it was not the government that sent students through UQAM yesterday yelling at students and profs trying to learn/teach.
• If one side ignores all the injunctions and says that only their rights matter, how do you negotiate?  How do you know they will respect whatever bargain that is struck?  Not a heap of credibility there.

•  Speaking of injunctions, one of the most disturbing parts of all of this is the combination of a willingness to ignore the court rulings by students and their allies with an unwillingness to enforce the injunctions by the government and police.  Perhaps Quebec really is turning me into a right-winger, but if one violates a court ruling, they should go to jail, right? Break a law, go to jail?  Why is this so radical?  And if the students are so righteous, they should be happy about being arrested.  Civil disobedience is always far more powerful and credible if one is willing to do some time.  

•  Heaps of admiration for the reporters covering this.  They have faced threats from the students and pepper spray from the police.  Not an easy job, but I am glad someone is doing it.

NATO Survey

I got to take part in this survey of experts on NATO.  Given all of the experience of the others surveyed, I guess my effort to tweet my way towards perceived expertise has paid off.  That and four years of wandering around national capitals to ponder caveats and other means by which countries manage their participation in NATO's missions in Afghanistan and Libya.

Anyhow, the survey produced a heap of common sense, such as:

• Should NATO exist?  Duh. I finished the conclusion of the Dave and Steve book (not to worry, we still have other holes to fill with desired end-state probably not reached until end of May), and our argument about the limits of NATO was crucially conditioned by the reality that any substitute or alternative would have the same problems but worse.
• Purpose--collective defense of Europe (and the Canadians would add--the North Atlantic).  Not so much focus on "keeping Russia in check" but deterring Russia might be in the former category.  Heaps of other on this one.
• Should NATO go out of area?  Yes 56- No 3.  Too many problems near Europe and beyond perhaps.
• Unanimity that US should not leave NATO.  Of course not, as NATO manages, if not solves, heaps of European security issues and beyond--and the US still cares about Europe.
• NATO is essential to national security 50-8, 24-5 among North Americans and 26-3 among European respondents.  
• Safer now than in 1001?   41-13-4.  Lots of uncertainty about Weimar Russia back then.  Good thing Russia is such a stable democracy now ;)
• NATO's missions ranging in success: Bosnia > Kosovo > Libya >Anti Piracy > Iraq training mission (yes, but not in Iraq) > Afghanistan.  No brainers, really. 
• Would European members be able to do a Libyan type op in three years? 34 No, 11 yes, 4 DK.  Hard to see how Britain could do the same with the massive defense cuts.  Same for much of Europe. 
• Should NATO intervene in Syria?  11 Yes, 36 No, 10 maybe. 
• Do folks agree with former SecDef Gates that NATO's future is dismal if countries do not devote enough to defense?  40 Agree, 12 disagree, 5 not sure.
• Should NATO have both offensive and defensive Cyber capabilities: 52 yes, 6 no.  I am pretty sure that most of us experts have the least amount of knowledge to apply to the Cyber questions.
• France still in integrated command in five years?  Yes 54, 2 unsure, 2 false.

The Students are Really Revolting!

The latest moves are really disgusting.  A large group of students entered classrooms, confronting those who wanted to go to class, canceling classes through their physical confrontation.  Apparently, these folks are fighting for a fundamental right to education--for free tuition--and find it necessary to violate this right to education for those who are interested in partaking of that "right" right now.


The key here is that today's events are not driven by random protesters but by some significantly organized group--there were apparently more than a hundred students that were in this effort to shut down classes.  They knew their way around UQAM.  While the student groups that have been doing most of the bargaining and protesting can claim that they are not responsible, their refusal to condemn these activities, their refusal to respect the court injunctions, and their refusal to, well, have a decent grip on reality have created this environment.  It is time for them to "seize the moral high ground" by calling for their supporters to step down and stop protesting.  Otherwise, they will continue to be blamed for the efforts of what "a few" who are clearly tied to the movement.  This is not four folks throwing smoke bombs but a much larger effort.

Today's protest involved assaulting students and violating injunctions.  These protesters should be arrested and do more than a few token days.  It is time for them to face some severe consequences in $$ and jail time.  It is one thing to be in the streets for weeks, but it is another thing to break the law repeatedly (violating injunctions) and intimidate classrooms of students and professors.  

This is getting out of hand.  If the goal of these folks to to alienate everyone, then they are accomplishing their mission.  But there is no way that the government can give into this.  If they do so, then their sole claim to their current standing goes poof.

And, yes, I am glad I am getting out of here.

I Love Charts (Political Ones especially)

Check out this depiction of American presidential elections from the I love charts tumblr:

Just so cool.

Landing the Comic Book Way

Three point landings, all the time?

Thanks to Roger Ebert.

I think the answer is--when you land from a height, you need to absorb the fall, and it is better to almost fall forward, stabilized by one hand (with another on your weapon) than fall backwards.  But that is just a guess.

Who Goes to the Prom?

There will be heaps of posts about NATO in the next two weeks as things ramp up for the summit in Chicago and not just by me.

There has been much debate about who gets invited to the summit and who attends.  Russia said no thanks, even though much of the previous 20 years was spent developing the NATO-Russia council, which allowed Russia to have some kind of impact even though it was not a member of NATO (because that would really @$#$Q@#$ things up.  France and Greece are hard enough, but bring Russia inside the tent?  Nyet).

Then the story became Pakistan--that it was not invited.  To be clear, if one looks at the list of non-NATO members invited to the summit:
1. Australia
2. Austria
3. Finland
4. Georgia
5. Japan
6. Jordan
7. Republic of Korea
8. Morocco
9. New Zealand
10. Qatar
11. Sweden
12. Switzerland
13. United Arab Emirates
 (source: NATOSource)
 one feature becomes quite clear if you consult this:

most of the invitees participated in NATO's mission in Afghanistan, a few in the Libyan effort (Jordan, Qatar) or both (Sweden, UAE).  Japan has been supporting NATO via re-fueling in the Indian Ocean, I believe., which leaves Switzerland as an outlier.

Inviting Pakistan, which is apparently happening, would mean NATO should invite Kazakhstan (and a few other stans), India, and Iran as it involves the regional dynamics of Afghanistan.  Pakistan has not (nor should it) provide troops to NATO.  Its support of the alliance effort has been fickle, with questions currently raised about whether the invitation is contingent upon Pakistan opening up the supply lines from the ports to Afghanistan.

Anyhow, the more and more I watch the prep for the Chicago Summit, the more and more I am reminded of academic conferences.  Yes, there is much consternation about who gets invited, but most of the real work for this summit and for an academic conference is ahead of time. The documents/statements/talking points, etc. have all been vetted ahead of time and get stamped at the conference.  In academia, we use conferences to set artificial deadlines so that we feel compelled to finish projects (which works some of the time).  In summitry, the same thing occurs--the appearance of a summit on the schedule sets a deadline for when the various bargaining efforts must end.  The Presidents, Prime Minister and other Principals do not really negotiate much at these affairs--it is a matter of schmoozing.

Which is why I feel less guilty at every ISA and APSA these days where I spent far more time in the bar than attending panels.

Sit On It and Rotate

In the course of researching NATO and Afghanistan, I was surprised to see so much variation in how long any contingent stayed on the ground, as some countries would rotate their troops out after four months, others six, and only the US troops would have a year in country.  Why is this important?  Because Afghanistan was/is a particularly challenging place to operate, that COIN is all about development relationships, and having very short-term focus is a bad idea.

Commanders would want to be able to show that they made a mark in a very short time frame, which means a temptation to opt for the visible but not the sustainable.

I got to thinking about this issue this morning thanks to the end of General Allen's tour in Afghanistan, and folks on twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/joshuafoust/) pointing out that none of the last four American Generals did an entire tour.  McKiernan was replaced by McChrystal because McK was not seen as being as COIN-focused/skilled.  McC got fired for his Rolling Stone fiasco.  Petraeus got shifted to head CIA (I spent part of this morning arguing with Josh about whether this was a promotion or just a slick political move--I tend to think of it as the former, Josh not so much).  Now, Allen is being promoted to head US forces in Europe--EUCOM and ... head of NATO's miltary as SACEUR.  Perhaps one is most likely to get promoted if one facilitates cutting back rather than ramping up?

This all points to a larger issue--even if each general served their full tour in Afghanistan, the job seemed to have a one year term in practice even if formally it was supposed to be two years (still perhaps too short?).  While it is an exhausting job, generals in previous wars served longer than one year.  The turnover meant a new strategy and a new style every year, which made it hard to have cumulative progress.

Allen, for instance, had a different interpretation of transition than Petraeus.  When Petraeus started the transition process in Afghanistan, the idea was to turn over the most fit parts of Afghanistan to Afghan control.  For Allen, perhaps because the clock has been sped up, advocates turning over the more problematic places to the Afghans earlier so that the Afghans will have back up as they work through it.  If those spots were transitioned later, the Afghans might be facing challenges with  little outside support.

The length of tours is not something that will probably get much attention at the Chicago Summit or in the future, but the constant spin cycle of modern military deployments obviously does not facilitate efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness or any other relevant e-word.  It would be nice if NATO tries to develop more compatible schedules, but NATO has other, bigger fish to fry so don't expect any progress on this.

And, yes, Happy Days inspired the title to this post:

No Betting Considered

I just went through a series of short clips for the shows that NBC is adding to their schedule.  Mostly, they are not impressive and I doubt that they will help lift NBC.  But there are one or two exceptions.  Let's go to the videotape, as they used to say:

• Animal Practice: Hijinks at the Vet.  Well, my sister-in-law works at a veterinarian's office and I like the lead, Justin Kirk from Weeds, but this show just reeks of 1980's lame.
• Chicago Fire: A fire department series that cannot be as depressing as Rescue Me.  The one scene was pretty tense, and it is not a law/doctor/police show, so it has some potential.
• Do No Harm: Hospital series run apparently by Mrs. Cosby-Phylicia Rashad.  Meh.  I am tired of hospital shows, not sure what distinguishes this one, although I do like Ms. Rashad.
• Go On: Matthew Perry vehicle.  Group therapy with a sportscaster (Perry), so Sportsnight meets Newhart?  Could be good.  Depends on the group.
• Guys With Kids: Divorced guys with kids, it seems.  Meh.
• Infamous: A soap of some kind.  Perhaps Revenge knockoff.  Not interesting.
• New Normal: Gay couple and the woman they hire to have their kid.  The scene is fine, but is this a sitcom?  If so, not so much funny.
• Next Caller: Dane Cook as an obnoxious radio call-in show host. It could be ok.  Kind of a Dark Frasier.
• Revolution:  The Lost of this season--JJ Abrams show with a killer concept.  All modern power production ceases to work--batteries, electricity, engines, everything.  In nearly an instance (why the cars seem to lose power in sequence, I have no idea).  So, 15 years later, with governments fallen and militias rising to take their place, with the cities covered in foilage and so on, what happens?  Well, the things that intrigue me are swordplay (guns may work, but I guess there are ammo problems, so we have crossbows, bows and swords prominently featured) and Giancarlo Esposito (Gus Fring of Breaking Bad) as the bad guy, leading the relevant militia.  So, I will watch this one--much more interesting than the high concept shows of this season (Alcatraz, Grimm, etc.)
• Save Me: Anne Heche has a near death experience.  All I can think of is that the critics will ahve a field day with that.  Bleh.
• 1600 Penn: West Wing meets Kumar?  A sitcom based at the White House.  Amusing glimpse thus far, but not sure how sustainable and how non-annoying it might be.  But worth watching an episode or two.

I will follow the coverage by Alan Sepinwall, Daniel Feinberg and Tim Goodman to see what I missed or what more there is to these shows.  As it stands now, I might watch: Chicago Fire as I am a sucker for a fire dept show until it depresses me too much;  Go On, as I have fond memories of the old Newhart show; Revolution as the one show I am actually excited to see although I have no clue if it is good in the long run; and probably 1600 Penn.

I am no longer in the business of teaching large intro classes to undergrads so there is little need for pop culture references.  But I am a sucker for more TV.  Too bad NBC does not seem to be doing enough renovation.  The good thing is we have at least one more season of Community and Parks and Rec. 

Image Bias

What is Newsweek up to?

Oh, maximizing controversy and thus perhaps selling more magazines.  I should have guessed.  I wonder which will offend more people: the halo, a rainbow halo or the word modifying President??  Religious types can upset that Obama is depicted as holy: Saint Barak?  They can be upset that the halo has gone from gold, representing .... the sun (or riches?).  Or both. 

The funny thing is that calling Obama "The First Gay President" is not the insult it once was, in part because of Obama's stands (however revised/belated) on gays in the military and same sex marriage.  Calling something gay is now a sign of immaturity--something twelve year old boys and bad poker players (as witnessed in online poker on a regular basis) say.  Sure, Cartman says it, but since when has he been a role model? 

Of course, the other question is whether Newsweek remembered to consult historians.  Given the 10% rule (or whatever the guess-timate of the % of gay people in the population), isn't it likely that we have had a gay president?  Buchanan?  Anyone else? 

The other funny thing is, of course, that the homophobes seem to be populated with men who are attracted to men.  When was the last pro-gay rights married man who was discovered to have affairs with men?  Oh that's right, it is because science tell us that homophobia may actually be related to folks who are insecure about their own sexuality. 

So, I am pretty sure that Obama will not be horrified by this cover, but I am pretty sure that other folks on the other side of the political spectrum will overreact.

Nice Dose of Perspective Sauce for Gay Marriage

NYT

Sunday Silliness: Some Star Wars

    CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

Just brilliant.

People Evolve

Perhaps Obama's "evolve" line was an excuse to address the fact that he spent about a decade or so saying something that was wrong but politically necessary.  But there is something to it.  When I left to go to college, I was the typical boy of the mid 1980s--fearful of being thought of as gay and using the word gay as an insult--disco is gay, for instance.  I never assaulted a person I thought to be gay or threatened them with an unwanted haircut (indeed, I was threatened with "shave-rape" during my summer in London by an asshole who was also on the program who did not like my beard), but I was homophobic, no doubt about it.

Then I met gays and lesbians and lived in an environment where these folks were just as normal and accepted as everyone else.  I got hit on once by a guy.  It surprised me (I was apparently as clueless about the same sex as about the opposite sex), but I didn't get angry or upset.  I guess I had evolved in college.  Not that I was necessarily any more secure about anything, but I guess I developed some empathy for people who were different and who were living difficult lives as a result.

I never found any reason to support efforts to craft laws to give gays and lesbians less rights.  I do not know when I started buying into my favorite amendment, the 14th--it just seems natural, logical, reasonable, sensible, fair, and just:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 It should have gone without saying, and it would have been nice if it did not require a civil war, but this one aspect of the Constitution is very much worth fighting a war.  Equal protection.  I cannot think of another way to put it that would be more fair, more right, more (dare I say it?) American.

I grew up in a culture where gays and lesbians were supposed to hide, and I am glad to see that "it gets better."  That one's sexuality need not be hidden, not even in the armed forces.  It is clear that society is still evolving, as gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted, just as inter-racial marriage was once rare in many places and illegal in others but now accepted.  My daughter developed her attitudes from Buffy, which was revolutionary in a variety of ways but particularly when it came to treating a lesbian as normal teenager and as a hero.  For that Joss Whedon earned all of the money that the Avengers has accumulated.

While Obama may have taken his new stance because of political calculations, it is quite clear that the politicians and the party seeking to stop the flow of history are very much in it for political gain as well.  I would rather be cynical and doing what is right than be cynical and do what is wrong.  What is the difference?  Equal protection.

My views evolved on this awhile ago.  If you need help evolving yours, check this out.

Students and Tourists

We often think of students and tourists in the same light--folks actively trying to observe and learn from their surroundings, people are not really doing a job, and people who drop a fair amount of money wherever they go.  Educational institutions and tourist traps serve the local economy in ways that are often underestimated.


However, according to the US Embassy in Canada (the helpful folks who turned out my wife's passport app in two weeks--thanks, guys!), tourists in Montreal need to be alert to the dangers posed by student dissent.  Yes, Montreal 2012 is, to the US government, risky, not unlike Cairo 2011. 

The U.S. Consulate in Montreal alerts U.S. citizens traveling to and residing in Quebec Province of the potential for continuing student protests, some of which have resulted in violence and arrests. The U.S. Consulate urges U.S. citizens to avoid the areas of demonstrations, and to exercise caution if within the vicinity of any protests.
For several weeks, there have been large demonstrations in Montreal and outlying cities protesting university tuition increases. While the majority of the protests have been peaceful, some participants have incited violence, by throwing rocks and engaging in other acts of vandalism. These demonstrations have varied in size, with some attracting thousands of protestors to downtown Montreal. Businesses remain open although vehicular traffic patterns and public transportation may be temporarily disrupted due to protest actions. Most of the protests have been well-publicized and announced several days in advance, while others have occurred with no prior notice. While the demonstrations are intended to be peaceful, some can turn into confrontational or potentially violent situations.
There are no indications that foreigners or U.S. citizens are being threatened or targeted. Nonetheless, U.S. citizens are advised to remain alert to local security developments and to be vigilant regarding their personal security. The local police service, Service de Police de la Ville de Montreal (SPVM), provides frequent security updates in French and English via Twitter (@SPVM).
The Department of State strongly urges U.S. citizens to avoid demonstrations, as bystanders can quickly be caught up in unforeseen violence and in some cases detained by the local police. If you believe your security is compromised, call the police at 911

However, that is as far as I go.  The idea of Quebec Spring is rather quite appalling since the students are asking for less tuition, not democracy.  The government has used some repressive force but not in any way on the scale or intensity as folks in the Mideast.  The student groups, having not distanced themselves sufficiently from those sending smoke bombs into the metro and doing other dangerous deeds, have lost heaps of support.  Whatever they wanted is not worth it for the rest of Quebec society--the damage, the inconvenience, the costs to business and to government. 

But given the multiplicity of groups and how unrepresentative they already are of the students, it is unlikely to end soon.  The government cannot really negotiate much further since it would look like they are giving in to terrorists. 

Statute of Limitations on Politicians' Past Mistakes

In the aftermath of the revelations of Mitt Romney's behavior back in prep school, folks on twitter wondered about the relevance of such stuff.  People change, lots of folks were douche-bags in high school.  Yep and yep.  My snarky reply was this: "my guy's statute of limitations is yesterday; yours is pre-birth."  We will tend to emphasize the sins, no matter how distant, of those we dislike, and we will focus on the circumstances that explain away the mistakes of those people we like (see Mercer's book on Reputation and IR).  This is not just me--this is basic social psychology... a.k.a. the fundamental attribution error (there is a band with this as its name)!

Anyhow, the key is not that Romney was a bully and homophobe long ago.  It is his behavior now that matters.  So, when asked about this story, he said this: “Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.”

I hate, hate, hate when people apologize half-heartedly by making it seem like the victim was over-sensitive.  "I am sorry that you are so sensitive as to be offended by my douche-baggery."  That is how it sounds to me.  Romney is not the one who makes this move of "if anyone was offended."  No, the way to apologize is to say: "what I did was wrong, and I am sorry.  I am sorry that I did something so offensive, so hurtful.  I will never do it again and will try to make up for what I have done."

My family apologizes too much for things that are not their fault.  I really just want my kid not to do x again, whether that x is spilling something, yelling at me, or whatever.  But she is a kid.  When she is a grownup, I certainly hope that she would worry not about whether someone is sensitive to offense and worry more about doing things that are objectively wrong. 

And if you are offended by this post, then I am sorry.

Update: See this piece for a more eloquent and well-researched statement on this topic. [Oops, screwed up the link, now fixed.]

Lacking a Learning Curve

As the votes are tallied against the deal that might have ended the student boycott in Quebec, the violence has ramped up with more smoke bombs tossed in the Metro system:

CTV

This is a line of folks who are taking the bus since the subway system was closed. Anarchists, I guess, don't really mind antagonizing everyone--they have no goals to realize, I guess.  But the student groups seem to have aims, wildly unrealistic ones.  Pissing away all of their political capital and alienating the province does not seem to be strategic. 

Henry Aubin has a great column today enumerating the many costs and consequences of this unending movement. The funny thing about all of this is that usually we see governments pursuing policies that hurt the young by pushing the costs down the road with higher debt (the refusal to adjust medicare, social security today).  Here, we have students saying: we don't want to pay now, assuming that the costs, in the form of more debt, will have no consequences down the road.  Bad math, indeed.  And not much of a learning curve, either.

Canadian Grand Strategy Continued

See my latest post at CIC--if there are no threats, then the focus turns to Canadian commitments--NATO and NORAD and what they require.

Ignorance Wins

The good news is that ignorance wins just the day but perhaps not in the long run.  The GOP, on a party line vote, singled out political science research to be cut from the National Science Foundation.  Apparently, they think it is better to know less than more.  That makes sense for a party that can relies heavily on a shrinking base--rural white people. 

Sure, I am being defensive about my discipline, but regardless of what I study, the fact that these guys singled out one field for de-funding speaks volumes about their desire to be held unaccountable.  The job of political science is to understand politics, right?  Why would a party want to get in the way of that?  Because it has something to hide?  The funny thing is that political scientists are not journalists--we seek to understand the broader patterns and not the scandal of the day.  However, the broader patterns might just include the impact of gerrymandering on political extremism.  Ooops.

This cut may not make it out of conference when the Senate and House reconcile the various differences, but at least this amendment is appropriately named.  Flake?  Too appropriate for parody, too perfect for fiction.  The only more perfect name for this amendment would be the Ignorance Amendment.

Update: I wanted to add what I said on my facebook stream about this:

For me, it comes down to this: political science was singled out. One can argue about public goods, one could argue about whether poli sci is more liberal, that we communicate our added value poorly, but the reality is that the other folks funded by the NSF have many of the same characteristics. The only thing that distinguishes Poli Sci from the rest of the folks getting NSF money is our subject. What is it about politics that makes it unworthy of analysis that is publicly funded? Is it less important than society (sociology)? Sure, this is among the least worst stances (least damaging) the GOP in Congress have taken but it is also, in some ways, the most revealing.

Confirmation Bias Again

Just a quick comment on the news of the day: Obama announcing support for gay marriage.  Sort of.

My twitter field is mostly on the center to left side, so mostly tweets happy this has finally happened.  The few folks I follow on the right side of the spectrum are, of course, critical, accusing Obama of pandering, of getting to where Cheney was a few years ago. 

I am not surprised as I am quite familiar with confirmation bias.  My take on this event confirms my confirmation bias: I have long been simultaneously pleased and annoyed by Obama.  He has done many good things, but he has taken some positions that I have found most awful.  His slowness to come to this side of the issue, with perhaps heaps of caveats, annoys me.  However, I also understand that this is politics, a grown up business where politicians often feel that they cannot get too far ahead of the American people.  I would have preferred that he led a bit more on some issues rather than follow.  I also appreciate that he has limited power to change things in the face of a power determined to block him in every effort, even if it undermines the country, and with a party that is feckle in the extreme. 

So, this is an important day, but it is very, very late.  It does not change how I will vote, but I will be a bit happier voting for Obama now that he finally got off of this fence.

Cognitive Inconsistency

I am so confused.  Jeffrey Simpson ranted today about the quality of Quebec education, which one can agree or disagree with, but his whole argument flies in the face of his previous stuff.  I ranted before about his column about research versus teaching (also here). Here, Simpson argues that:

For any advanced industrial society, universities are a critical element in economic development, productivity and a literate population.

I am confused--how can that be if universities are producing endless amounts of research for the private interest?   The rest of his column makes heaps of sense--that Charest should not let the students dictate the fees or how the money is spent.  I guess I will just have to like the new Simpson (quite the day for this since Robert Kaplan said something sensible today, too [not to mention Obama finally getting on the right side of history]).

Ritual Guesswork

In Canada, analysts and journalists join in a ritual every few years to guess: who is the next Chief of the Defence Staff.  Apparently, the season has begun.  David Pugliese lists these folks as candidates:

"Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the low-profile VCDS.
Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, the RCN’s commander.
Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, the RCAF commander admired in the Harper government for faithfully defending the F-35 purchase.
Air Force officers also tell Defence Watch that Lt.-Gen. Tom Lawson at NORAD is a person to watch."

Other than retired Lt Gen Andrew Leslie, who conducted the transformation study that recommended cutting a bunch of headquarters, no other army officers are mentioned.  This makes sense for two reasons:

1. Canada has had two Army officers as CDS in a row when there is usually (but not always) a rotation among the services.  But we have had air force-army-army.  So, it is the Navy's turn.  But Prime Minister's have not been bound by this.
2. Canada is turning from land-based priorities--Afghanistan--to air and sea-based priorities--the Arctic.  So, it makes sense that the CDS for the next term should be from a part of the CF that is more focused on the Arctic and that would be the Navy or Air Force.

 The article also mentions Lt. Gen Charles Bouchard, who led the Libyan operation for NATO.  He is not as tainted by the F-35 process, which might hurt Deschamps. 

Last time around, I had my favorites--that I had interviewed all three Army contenders but none of the Navy or Air Force ones, and that I had repeated interactions with one of the Army candidates.  So, I ended up getting half of what I wanted--an Army guy but not the one I knew well.  This time, I have one favorite as I have met only one of these candidates (Bouchard).  I also think, like last time, it would not hurt reaching out to Quebec to pick a Quebecker. 

To be clear, this is Harper's decision, and, when it comes to major military matters, he consults only himself.  The rest of us can only guess and wait.

Best NATO Summit Prep

We have and will continue to see a bunch of stuff as NATO prepares to meet in Chicago in less than two weeks.  I think this meeting is getting heaps more attention for a few reasons:

1. It is in the US so lazy/cheap American journalists can cover it without much sweat.
2. Chicago is just more visible than the past several at Riga, Bucharest, Strasbourg and Lisbon.  Paris, London and Berlin would all get more attention.
3. It is likely to be the equivalent of a "coup excuse" card in Junta--heaps of protests as the event provides a focal point for the mobilization of all kinds of dissent.
4. NATO is announcing a variety of initiatives including SMART defence--which is about pooling weapons purchases (hey, that F-35 is working out, ain't it?) and specialization.
5. Key items include--ratification by NATO of the "roadmap" for Afghanistan that should identify the dates of NATO's moves from combat to training and transition to the Afghans with the enddate of 2014 but much of the key milestones/benchmarks/whatever being reached in 2013.
6. This is the meeting where the French get to say they are leaving faster than previous expected due to Hollande's win this weekend.  As I have indicated before, this is not the first departure (thanks to the Dutch and Canadians), and the French, while providing one of the bigger forces, does not really own much space or a PRT.  So, big deal, but not huge deal.  

The real key here to understanding any NATO summit is that nearly all of the work is done ahead of time.  The meeting is like an academic conference in that it sets an artificial deadline to force folks to get their work done.  But there is actually very little bargaining at the meeting--mostly the talking points will have been vetted and re-vetted ahead of time, the docs that are signed will have been through the military committee and the North Atlantic Council and word-smithed by each as well as by each delegation/representative in Brussels several times over.

This is not to say the meeting is not important.  It is, but most of the business has already happened with the meeting being the rollout.  This is not unlike next week's rollout of the fall's TV schedule.  The upfronts will announce which TV shows get cancelled or moved around and which new programs will be tried out.  Those decisions have already been made but will be announced next week. And they are subject to revision as networks change their minds, as the initial ratings come in.  Likewise, NATO can revise the decisions made here--it is just hard to do so as consensus is required.  But there is nothing stopping any other country from unilaterally pulling out of Afghanistan, for instance.

Which just leaves one question: which network is the best analogy?

• FOX: whose success largely depends on one very, very successful program (American Idol), just as NATO's success in Libya (not that Libya is wonderful these days....) hinged on American logistics, drones, satellites, air power at the start, etc.
• CBS: just the steadiest network that does not seem all that innovative or hip but does it what does (procedurals, conventional sitcomes) very well year in and year out without that much fuss.  NATO is just the steadiest of international organizations in that it keeps exercising, it keeps planning, it runs occasional operations that may not be wildly successful but achieve the narrow aims, whether that is imposing peace on Bosnia and keeping it for a decade, forcing Serbia to give up Kosovo, extending the reach of the Afghan government beyond Kabul for as long as NATO is around, engaging in counter-piracy, or doing enough "civilian protection" in Libya so that Qaddafi is removed from power.
• NBC: a once proud organization that is now barely getting by, relying on efforts that critics and dedicated fans love (Parks and Rec, Community, etc) that do not have broad popularity.  
• ABC: Umm, running out of analogy power... any ideas on this one?

So, how you look at NATO depends on your expectations.  I even found myself agreeing this morning with Robert Kaplan (yes, really) as he posted a column that says that NATO ain't so bad.

Best Bad Idea

During the Iranian hostage crisis, a handful of American diplomats ended up in Canadian hands.  The Canadians managed to get them out of the country despite significant risks.  Here is the trailer for the movie:


I think this movie, Argo, is going to be wonderfully American.  That is, it will give more credit to the Americans than to the Canadians.  So, Canadians will probably end up being upset as they get slighted.  Art imitates life and vice versa, right?

Heavy NATO News Week

As things begin to ramp up for the big summit in Chicago in a couple of weeks, heaps of NATO to be found in the news, so some highlights and reactions:

• The French election produced a President, Francois Hollande, who has promised to get his country out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012.  I do not doubt that Hollande will start this process, but complete it?  France has about three thousand soldiers in Afghanistan, and taking out that many is not a trivial exercise, especially if there is any obligation to bring back the stuff they brought with them.  [Update: It looks like I guessed right--Hollande is backtracking since getting troops and their stuff home is hard.]
• France is not a lead nation--not of a province and not of a PRT--so its departure will not create a big gap in terms of leadership and infrastructure.  This contrasts with the Canadian and Dutch departures. 
• France was pretty flexible since Sarkozy became President, so this is still a significant loss especially compared to some other European countries with tighter restrictions.
•  The Visegrad group--Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia--announced they are forming a joint combat force of three thousand troops to be commanded by the Poles and to serve the EU.  I got in a twitter discussion with @Natosource about this because I indicated that I was unimpressed.  Why?  Because the Hungarians had very tight restrictions in Afghanistan, so much so that the small New Zealand detachment in the adjacent province would patrol in the Hungarian sector to get situational awareness.
• Also, I am committed EU skeptic when it comes to security.  While this force might be useful for doing post-conflict stabilization (Bosnia after 2004), I am dubious of the chances of the EU deploying any troops into serious harm's way.  That would require a common foreign policy which the EU has yet to demonstrate any place where there is significant violence.
• The Pentagon refused to support the making of the Avengers movie because its depiction of US-SHIELD relations was seen to be unrealistic.  This is so silly given how many multilateral military operations the US has done over the past two decades, so I can only assume that the movie clearance people did not bother to chat with the Joint Staff folks on the NATO desk (I could probably still find that room....).  Perhaps once they read my next book, they will understand how the US would manage its relationship with SHIELD.

Caveats in Avengers

Wired has a story that indicates that the Pentagon did not support the filming of Avengers because of questions about the US role vis-a-vis SHIELD.  I posted at Duck of Minerva my take on this.