Confused About Syria

NPSIA just started a program where we have an CAF officer as a Defence Fellow.  This means we mentor him (in the current case) on his research, he learns how we think, and we get to learn how such folks think.  There is more to it than that, but his weekly presence is fostering a weekly brown bat that pushed me on how to think about the Syria bombing last week (the annual bombing?).

I have been reluctant to blog about it because I have been confused.  Why?  Because I see some merits on punishing those who cross a very important line, but I also have problems with who is doing the acting and how it is being done and the reality that Assad can just go along and keep killing people.  Let me explain as I think through this.

Impeachment: Should Or Should Not

I have long been arguing that impeachment is not going to happen:

But the question of should or should not is something different.  I am not speaking here of whether Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors (whatever the jargon is), but whether it would be a good or bad thing to impeach Trump or just wait to vote him out.  The question is not Trump versus Pence (as Pence would be awful, too), but whether it would be better to have the American voters decide or be denied that opportunity by Congress.  To preview, impeachment > 2020.

I have been hearing the argument that the American people should decide.  That it would be best for the future of American politics that this choice is not taken out of the hands of voters.  By rendering a verdict against Trump, the US polity can move on.  This, of course, assumes that Trump loses, that the Russians don't break our electoral process, etc.  Putting those concerns aside, I see the merits of this argument.  Impeachment could create or foster a "stabbed in the back" narrative among those who voted for Trump in 2016--that the deep state got him.  That it might erode faith in American institutions because the "establishment" had it out for Trump.

I get that.  However, putting aside the benefits of not having Trump for President for the last two years of his term, the key is this: the singular message of the Trump Era might be, unless there are consequences, is that Trump and his crew are above the law.  They certainly have behaved that way--Pruitt's planes, Carson's table, nepotism, security clearances for those who can't fill out the forms, all of the emoulements stuff, and on and on.  Impeachment exists for a reason--to have consequences for a President when they do things that are illegal, immoral, and/or destructive to the interests of the U.S. (again, I am not a lawyer).  It is a political decision, of course, but, at the heart of it, it is the one way to make sure that the President is not above the law.  We expected norms to do that work, but they have failed.  Apparently, they mostly operate due to a sense of shame that the various players have, and, well, Trump and his team are utterly devoid of shame.

Which is worse for American institutions going forward?  That the people don't get a chance to throw the bums out OR that administrations are beyond the law?  I vote for the latter, once again dwelling in the tyranny of low expectations and standards.

UPDATE: this came out today:

Social Media is Bad for Your Academic Career?

Today, there was a twitter conversation about whether doing public engagement, especially blogging and twitter, are penalized or not.  The timing is good since my Ignite talk at the Duckies was very much on this stuff.  So, I thought I would share what I presented at the Online Media Caucus reception at the annual meeting of the ISA in San Francisco.

The basic theme was: there are things people tell you not to do, so let me know show how I did them.  I did start by acknowledging my privilege--that a white male straight tenured prof can get away with more stuff than other folks (thanks, Will).

I started with my theory about department politics--that every department has somewhere between 10-25% dysfunctional people, and the question is whether/how the community handles the insane, evil, criminally stupid and/or tragically lazy.  I did note that I managed to get another job after posting this one.  I forgot to mention that this did not produce even a ripple in my old place.  That I was already on the outs with the chair and most of the Fulls, well, that probably did not get in the way of posting this.

Should one avoid attacking the big names?  Well, the surest way to get lots of hits (figuring out what is viral [viral for me, not viral compared to the average meme] is pretty hard) is to go after the big names.  However, that is not why I wrote this post--I wrote it because I was triggered by a deeply flawed piece by two scholars that, well, tend to jerk my chain.  Lots of irony abound in this as I wrote an article that went through many spin cycles (two desk rejects and then R&R&R&R&R) that argued that the fears of the big names were misplaced--that grand theory is not dying out as it has always been a niche enterprise and that professionalization actually rewards grand theory via citation counts corrected with such stuff. That article is finally out via early view at ISR.  So, yelling at the gods can be good for one's publication record if such stuff inspires academic work.

Out a serial sexual harasser?  Indeed.  This post is almost certainly my most important one, as it has given a number of people some relief that they are not alone, and it serves as a signpost that will hopefully warn future generations of students away from this guy.



Should folks hide their political opinions?  My students used to ask me about my political views as they could not tell from my lectures--I would be critical of  Democratic presidents and Republican ones.  Not so much anymore.

Should one make bold predictions outside one's lane?  Um, given how it went, probably not....

Should one curse?  FFS, yes, in this age of Trump.

 

Should one criticize one's professional organization?  Well, when they screw up royally, hells yeah!  This made sense as a segue to the end of the presentation since the ISA blog mess led rather directly to the creation of the Online Media Caucus.



My big point at the end is that we notice those who get punished for their social media efforts, but the reality is that there are many, many folks out there doing stuff that is probably more controversial than what I do, and they don't get penalized.  Our confirmation bias focuses our attention on the few that are punished rather than the many who are not.  I posted a bunch of headlines and then a picture of my getting an award from Carleton for public engagement--that the place that hired me wants me to do stuff like this.  Maybe not exactly this stuff, but they seem to understand that having some personality and a particular perspective facilitates outreach.

With the recommendation that we develop herd immunity--the more, the merrier:

So, perhaps the best advice I could give is probably not do as I do, or do as I say, but do what you feel comfortable doing.  The world of social media has been very, very good to me, with some handy networking that has spilled over to help Aspiring Filmmaker Spew (aka College Senior Spew).  I know I am not alone in benefiting from social media, and, as I argued, there are more of us than there are those who have paid a price.  Join us.

Ally Rules Because Alliances Rule

In response to the US/UK/France attack on Syria and questions about Canada, I tweeted thusly:

Ally rule number 3: Don't ask allies to do things they can't do.

No CAF assets nearby, right? https://t.co/Ku4bMSGJZF

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) April 15, 2018

Which inevitably produced this tweet from an old colleague and now Naval Reservist on his way to Afghanistan (Naval Comms).

What are your top ten ally rules? I might need those for easy access.

— Grant Neeley (@grantneeley) April 15, 2018

I may not have ten, but here are my rules for ally management (if I had elaborated the rules before the tweet, rule number 3 would probably be a bit further down):

1. Allies have similar but not identical interests--never forget this as nearly all follows from this rule.
2. Allies have much fear--whether they might be abandoned or entrapped or both (h/t to Glenn Snyder and Patrica Weitsman as well as Jack Snyder and Thomas Christensen).  They will never be completely reassured.  And remember what Yoda said about fear.
3. Don't ask allies to do things they can't do.  It just raises the cost of participating for the ally.  So, don't put the German navy on the inner ring of a blockade where the job is to fire on the violating ship--put them on the outer ring where they can alert and coordinate. 
4. Allies do not always tell you what they can or can't do, what they will or won't do.  So, work more with those you know best when the stakes are high.  Tis why it is ok for Canada to be operating in Latvia with countries with whom they have never been deployed--their job is mostly to exercise and, if the balloon goes up, to die. Unstated caveats matter more when combat will be an on-going thing (Kandahar).
5. Some allies will almost always be more reliable than other allies. If one is being positive, then this would be the British rule, if one is being negative, then this is the Greek rule.  Whether it is because of domestic institutions (see the Dave and Steve book) or very compatible positions in the world or shared histories or whatever, some countries simply get along better again and again. 
6. Personalities/relationships matter in alliances. Despite the structure of agreements and the institutions that tie the countries together, how the intent and rules of engagement are interpreted and obeyed depends on the commanders on/near the ground and how they get along.  We can call this the Monty rule if we are being negative or the Ike rule if we are being positive.
7. Burden-sharing is always uneven.  It may not always be very politicized, but countries will always vary both in what they can bring to the fight and what they actually bring to the fight.  Realize that haranguing one's allies has limited effectiveness.
8. The intersection of international relations and domestic politics can make alliance management easier or harder.  Unpopular American presidents make it politically difficult for other members of NATO to commit more to joint efforts, and popular ones make it easier.  Was the Bush rule but now the Trump rule.
9. Napoleon is still wrong--he said it is better to fight a coalition than be in one.  Churchill is still right--the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.
10. Insisting on ten rules is a sign of silly devotion to even numbers.

Teaching US Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump

I just finished my last class meeting of my MA seminar on US Foreign and Security Policy.  I had feared this class since January of 2017: how to teach this class now that Trump is President.  I decided that I would mix old and new--spend the first two hours discussing a particular institution or aspect as we always have (what are the powers/interests of State, of the Pentagon, etc) and then discuss how it applies under Trump.  Lots more reading about personality/leadership (thanks to Elizabeth Saunders) and more blog posts and short articles. 

As always, we had several sessions where groups of students would take on roles in and around the US government and address an issue.  The various groups picked: Iran deal, Yemen, China, and North Korea.  Speaks much about contemporary US foreign policy: no European stuff, no Africa or Latin America, no climate change.  Not surprised about the lack of international trade or finance--my blindspot is their blindspot?

Today's concluding seminar asked a couple of key questions:

1. Is Trump really that different?  What policies are similar or different, compared to previous USFP?
2. Will Trump have temporary or deep impact on USFP?

The list of similar foreign policies was not as short as I might have expected:

• support Israel, 
• investing in NATO deterrence mission [pretty sure Trump is entirely unaware]
• stay in every forever war
• etc.

The list of different foreign policies:

• NK, war or no war
• TPP
• Climate change
• etc.

  Obviously, how you answer one affects how you answer two.  And answer number two also focuses on how changed the US foreign policy process is--gutting of State, eroding norms of civ-mil--and on how the bad decisions now create path dependencies.   Obama was able to reverse some of the international diplomatic damage of the Iraq invasion/occupation BUT the Mideast remains destabilized and Iran ascendant. 

We just had a discussion rather than a debate--something I might do next year if we live that long.  Overall, it was an excellent although depressing way to end my first shot at teaching this class in the new Trumpian world.

Progress? Not Fast Enough, ISA 2018 edition

I have been in this business for more than 25 years, and have gone to about 25 or so annual meetings of the International Studies Association (and about the same number of APSA's).  Over the years, I have been struck by how much has changed since I started.

Besides the disappearance of polyester and leisure suits (yes, they still existed in the early 1990s), one of the big changes has been the gender balance.  It used to be the case that it seemed as if the only young women at these meetings were those representing the book publishers.  There are far more women (although not that many seniors) than there once was.

This time, I was struck by the increased ethnic diversity.  Sure, I know from the TRIP studies (including my own) that 21st century IR is mighty white.  But it is less so than it was.  So, I could be pleased by the improvements. Yet....

Oh my.   The only person I heard of getting badged--checked to see if they belong in the sea of ISA goers--was an African-American woman.  The same woman was also asked by multiple participants to get their drinks or clean up the lobby.  I will not go into the details, as it is her story to tell, but FFS!!!

So, I am reminded of many conversations with Teen and now College Senior Spew:
Me: sure, things aren't perfect, but we have made progress (on gender, race, LGBTQ, etc).
Her:  NOT FAST ENOUGH!!!

And, yeah, she persuaded me that she was right.  This ISA was mostly a super-positive experience for me, but it is easier since I am a white, straight, male with an endowed chair and heaps of tenure.  It is easy for me to look around and notice that there is more diversity.  What is less easy for me is to see how the women and the African-Americans and the Latinx and the Asian-Americans and all the rest of the folks are treated and how they experience the event.

Which reminds me of something that happened at the airport.  On my way out, I sat next to a white woman who left her bag behind and walked off.  See something, say something, right?  After waiting a few minutes, I did so.  And then moved far away from that bag.  Twenty minutes later, she returned--that bag had acted as a seat-saver, I guess.  Oh, and security didn't show up in that 20 minute interval.  Hmmm.


So, see something, say something and then some, right?

ISA 2018, Post-Conference Report

I had little time to provide daily updates, so I posted once and then reported the news from the Duckies.  Much happened on the last two days of the conference:

1. Heaps more conversations with new and old friends.
2. The Online Media Caucus business meeting.  The caucus is thriving--its membership is growing, it had eight panels (an allotment of three and then much co-sponsoring), and the new regime is ready to rock.  The incoming chair happens to be my first McGill phd student--Brent Sasley.
3. The Duckies!!!
4. The Poker Game!  We had to find an empty conference room as a very sensitive neighbor complained 5 minutes into our gathering.  The game ended when the power went out.  In between?  Many bad decisions, some good luck, and much mirth.
5. Saturday involved more conversations, including with an Oxford grad student who sought to talk about the international relations of ethnic conflict.  
6. The last panel for me was a roundtable on military deployments and parliamentary votes.  I kind of wore two hats--as the Canadian guy to talk about the Canadian experience (I mostly repeated what Phil Lagasse has told me/written over the years) and as the comparative civ-mil guy.
7. Dinner with Cullen Hendrix, who used to be the young hotshot from my old grad school.... and now the next director of the Sie Center at U of Denver, so I admired the gray in his beard stubble.  
8. A whiskey lesson from an expert:
   

Twas one of the best ISA's I can remember--lots of fruitful conversations, heaps of useful feedback, met many new people, saw most of my old friends.  Very much worth the trip.

1. asdf

McGill Mess MeToo?

While I was at the ISA, I heard about an effort by the McGill undergrad student society to compel the university to do something about the problem of sexual harassment (Yes, the media are approaching me again since I have been blogging about this for two years).  I was pointed to these reports of the SSMU making public a letter that was sent to the head of the university: "The letter says complaints resurface “year after year” about professors in the departments of history, philosophy, political science, psychology and world Islamic and Middle East Studies."

The university insists that they take this stuff seriously, but they can't provide specifics about complaints or processes.  I think they could provide one stat that would be meaningful: how many professors have been fired for sexual harassment?  If the answer is not zero, then folks might be more willing to buy the assertion that they are doing something.  If the answer is zero, well, that is an answer.

I did tweet that McGill is stuck in a catch-22: that they can't punish without complaints, but why should anyone complain if no one is punished.  The problem that journalists have in covering this is that no survivor is willing to go on the record, and that makes complete sense.  The MeToo movement in Hollywood and now elsewhere broke through this when multiple survivors came out simultaneously.  The women who did come out against Weinstein, for instance, knew they were not alone and that they might be believed BUT they still faced much abuse online and elsewhere.

So, I am pretty thrilled that this student group is focused on this incredibly important issue and providing the collective action that is hard for individuals to organize.  SSMU is putting significant pressure on McGill.  This is a good thing--how does McGill respond to this pressure?  I don't know.  I have kept saying that whatever assertions McGill says about taking this stuff seriously will only believed if they do something very visible, rather than covering things with a cloak of confidentiality.  I have invoked Machiavelli by suggesting that McGill should figuratively take one of the harassers to a public square and, well, draw and quarter them.  In the modern day, firing a harasser would be the visible demonstration that something has changed.

My guess is that this will happen, but not to the guy I know of.  I have heard enough about the stuff at Islamic studies that I would bet one of the offenders there being the demonstration of McGill's seriousness.  But maybe not since the catch-22 might get in the way.

Duckies 2018!

Will and I welcome folks to the Duckies

Twas quite an eventful Duckies.  The Online Media Caucus threw a great party with the sponsorship of Sage!  I am proud that the organization that I founded is continuing to be a fun place for social media types to be social.  The three Ignite talks were great, and I say so since I did one of them.  The idea is to either comment on social media or to essentially live blog. 

ISA 2018: Mid Conference Quickie Update

I haven't blogged much while at the ISA because, well, this happened:


Actually, there are Alcatraz themed displays in a couple of the conference hotels.  I have no idea why.




Anyhow, so far, ISA2018 so very good.  Lots of stuff has happened in a short time, which probably explains the blogging outage, so let's just quickly listicle:

1.  I got turned around trying to find the waterfront, but successfully saw a bridge.
   
2. I met up with two of the funniest, sharpest, and outgoing senior women in IR--Laura Sjoberg and Sara "the Storm" Mitchell.  Always a good way to start a conference.  Sara found an amazing Thai restaurant for the two of us, which meant I started breaking the Pence rule from the very first evening I was in SF--a trend that has continued.
3. I had coffee the next morning with two young women from the Naval War College, who have heaps of very helpful things to say about both my big project (the Dave/Phil/Steve book) and small (although getting larger--see below).  Jessica Blankshain was new to me, but  I had met Lindsay Cohn at the most recent APSA.  The future of the NWC is in good hands.
4. I had my usual amazing lunch at a nearby Indonesian place with my former student and now co-author Ora Szeleky.  The amazing describes the food and the company.  I love Indonesian food, and, of all my research and teaching assistants, Ora was the best--I am bad at providing instructions to those I delegate stuff, and Ora always knew how to take my vague intent and do the right stuff with it.  The paper we have now (with Philip Jones of Carleton) and the spiffy presentation (more below) are much to her ability to figure out what I want and do it better than I could have.  
5. I met with Tanisha Fazal over beer in the lobby--a recurring theme.  She is doing incredibly interesting stuff about military medicine that is so very relevant as we ramp up to war in Korea.  I am perhaps the most pessimistic about the war--I think it is very likely.  But Tanisha is very pessimistic about how it will play out--we have taken too much for granted and our medical system will not be able to save the wounded from dying at the recent  rates.
6. I had a beer at a different spot with JC Boucher, a Canadian partner in crime.  Always a pleasure although he made me nervous about the big grant project.  
7. A quick beer with Patrick Mello was great as we are working on a special issue on the realities of coalition warfare.  
8. The evening ended with a dinner held by the Journal of Global Security Studies, run by Debbi Avant.  It served as editorial board meeting and a chance to catch up with a lot of old friends and meet the young folks who do the heavy lifting of running a journal.  
9. Yesterday started with two panels.  First, the one where  I discussed papers on coalition warfare, with some/all perhaps ending up in the aforementioned special issue.  It was really fun to see people build on the Steve and Dave book and do that stuff with clearer concepts and different angles.
10. The second panel was where  I chaired and Ora presented our paper.  I will blog more about the paper when I have more time, but it went over really well--a paper that was spurred by my experience in the Pentagon, started in 2008 and finally written due to the deadline of the ISA.  Our paper got lots more questions than the others--I felt guilty but enjoyed the attention and interest... because  I am a bit of narcissist and because I think we hit on something.
11. I spent the afternoon meeting younger women who are doing super interesting work. Of course they are younger since (a) I am older than the median these days; (b) when I started, there were very few women in the biz, so there are few women who are older than me.  I didn't mean to violate the Pence rule all day long, but I learned a lot, and got heaps of help on my research. 
12. The evening involved some survivors of twitterfightclub and associated folks drinking and eating.  A very good day.

I list all of this because I have heard much about profs wasting carbon, that they should just do things via virtual conferences.  And I say bullshit.  There is too much good stuff that can't be planned, that is unlikely to happen if it is all online.  We need the yearly or semi-yearly opportunity to meet new people  (which almost always occurs via happenstance), see old friends, hear about new work, get fresh perspectives on the work we have been doing in our solitary silos, and do some business (editorial board meetings, for example).  Schelling told us a long time ago that focal points matter, and conferences are focal points that allow all kinds of folks and stuff to converge.

So, woot!  Now off to meeting someone who is completely new to me.  Enjoy!

A Few Clues About the Primary Audience

We just saw Pacific Rim: Uprising, and I have only one reaction--strange to see a movie so clearly aimed at the Chinese marketplace from a North American franchise.  Some clues beyond the  spoiler break:

The SecDef and US Civil-Military Relations

One of the things that drove me crazy during the first part of the Obama Administration was the complaint that he mismanaged American civil-military relations--the relationship between the government and the US armed forces.  Why did it drive me crazy?  Because Robert Gates tended to get little blame even though the most important job a Secretary of Defense has is managing this relationship.  While the President is the commander-in-chief, the Secretary of Defense is the one whose day job involves civilian control of the military.

What does that mean?  It means conveying not just the commands but the intent and the preferences of the President to the military AND to be the principal adviser on defense matters, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the President. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is the primary overseer of the US military (Congress is a key overseer, but, again, not their focus), meeting with the military, especially the Joint Staff and those at the various combatant commands, every day to develop, implement and monitor policy. In doing so, OSD and its boss, the SecDef, deal with the friction that comes with having two distinct worlds collide every single day.

Why talk about this today?  Because this story seems to be more on Mattis than on Trump: that the Joint Chiefs were not briefed about the new transgender policy.  Sure, when Trump tweeted out last summer, that is on Trump.  But this policy stance?   The waffle or denial of responsibility in this article is that the Chiefs had reps on the panel advising Mattis, so they knew what might be in the memo.  Really?  No, not good enough.  No senior official likes to be surprised--providing situational awareness is something that one does to those immediately above you and, yes, to those below you who are key actors.

Mattis should have alerted the Chiefs, even if he was just giving advice and not giving Trump a clear policy to ratify (not sure which is the case) precisely because we have had a year of watching Trump, and Mattis should know by now.

I tended to overestimate Robert Gates since his predecessor was so very crappy (the tyranny of low expectations at work).  That changed when I realized he had failed to keep the military in line when they implemented Obama's surge--the Marines went to the wrong place if one wants to do population-centric warfare: Kandahar, not Helmand.  I read Gates's bio, and found it very frustrating as he blamed Obama much of the time and took responsibility for the state of civ-mil in only a page or two.

Well, I have been skeptical of Mattis since he was appointed because:
 (a) I don't think it is appropriate to have very recently retired generals serve as SecDef--they aren't civvie enough for me.  A lifetime in uniform creates a military mindset.  A few years out of uniform doesn't change that much.  So, Mattis still says things that are inappropriate for a SecDef "I am not kept awake at night by what others do, I keep others awake at night," he refused to engage the media the way past SecDefs have--which might be good at avoiding trouble with Trump but is bad for civilian control of the military.
(b) the whole cult of personality around this "warrior-monk" made me nervous.  It is either that or the aforementioned tyranny of low expectations that has allowed Mattis to go largely uncriticized.

So, yeah, Mattis is the only adult, he's the only restraint, he does seem opposed to a  new Korean war.  Woot! But he is also doing some damage to the norms governing civilian control of the military.  It may be worth it if he manages to steer Trump away from new wars BUT it is still a price we are paying now and will pay in the future. 

The Best Way To Deal?

When seeing something like this:

🎶Pimps all over this world...🎶👶👶🌎🌎 pic.twitter.com/7n5eQZinkV

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) March 31, 2018

Is to dance?

Shy? Sometimes

Shy in my backyard

Yesterday, I blogged about the ISA and gave some tips about how to meet people even when one is shy.  The only disagreement that post has received thus far is the assertion that I am shy sometimes.  I get it--I am loud online and pretty loud and extroverted in person.... among folks who know me.  But when it comes to strangers, I am not so comfy.

I never did go up to the big names and say, "hi, I am Steve, I love your work and you should love mine."  Ok, not a great opening line.  So, maybe I am smart not to approach big names with strategery like that (and tis a good thing I have not been single for 30 years).  But one reason I advise networking sideways or down is because networking upwards is something I don't feel comfortable doing.  The only big names I know well in the discipline are those who were at the place I went to grad school or who I met in smaller meetings.  I can't think of a relatively big name I know that I approached without a smaller context that caused us to meet.  But as the late Will Moore reminded me, I could get away with this because I am privileged, and as Christian Davenport argued, one can go up to big names successfully.  So, this sideways and down approach is one I prefer because I am shy in this particular way.

People think I am not shy because I approach folks online quite eagerly.  Yes, I engage strangers,
including famous ones (Henry Winkler and Morgan Fairchild engage back!), on twitter because it is a conducive environment.  I have spent this week contacting young civ-mil scholars to meet up at the ISA, which is a not-shy thing to do, because the wheels are greased by some twitter interaction and because it is actually a one to one kind of thing.  Which presents an irony: I teach best in large rooms but interact best in small meetings.

To be clear, I was very nervous when I first started public speaking.  For some reason (mostly to meet girls at the girls camp), I started getting involved in drama--plays, that is--and that helped a bit.  But I remember my very first day of teaching--I forgot to bring the syllabi (pre-internet, yeah, we brought 30 or 50 copies of syllabi to the first class) not just to the first class on my first day, but to the second class on my first day, and yes, my third class on my first day.  After a while, I stopped being nervous about speaking to undergrads and to grad students, but remained nervous when speaking to professors.  That declined after much experience, including job talks that ranged from terrific experiences to awful..

Anyhow, this gets to where I am still quite shy: larger groups.  Just a few nights ago, I was at a reception at an embassy, and I ended up mostly hanging out with the one guy I knew.  I have never been comfortable approaching strangers in person, unlike my brother who strikes up conversations with everyone he meets, and so at cocktail parties and receptions, I tend to cling to the few people I know or I do not stay very long.  Mostly, I don't stay long.

When I am really shy,
I wear camoflauge

People who know me now think I am not shy because they didn't notice me in the corner at the big receptions. They notice me now chatting with a bunch of people every time they see me.  Now at the big receptions at the ISA or APSA, I am not in the corner because I have been at this for, gulp, 25 years.  So, despite being very bad at remembering names and faces, I have accumulated many friends and acquaintances over the years as I have attended two conferences a year, worked at four places, participated in numerous workshops, etc.

Yeah, I have always been loud among my friends, and I am definitely not shy about sharing my opinions and my advice online. And, yes, the years of submitting articles to journals, manuscripts to presses, and grant applications, not to mention job applications and many failed job searches, I have developed a thick skin about much stuff.  But put me in a larger group of strangers, and I turtle or I scamper.  My friends don't see it because when I am with them, I am not alone.  And I am so very thankful that I am rarely alone at conferences these days, unlike my first five or so APSAs and ISAs.

See you at the Hilton bar next week.

ISA Tips: SF, Some Not

Given how often we have been to San Francisco lately for APSAs and ISAs, we probably should know by now all the places to eat and drink and such.  But my memory is lousy, so I will focus on mostly on some things to keep in mind as one gets on a plane or train or car or boat to get to the International Studies Association meeting.*

* When I was trying to get to Seattle last summer for a vacation, the planes did not go where they were supposed to, so we had to drive the last leg. As a result, I am open to all forms of travel as being possibilities these days.

I was inspired to write this as I saw a bunch of tweets fly by about presentations and discussanting and such, so:

Paper and Presentation Stuff:

• Aim for ten minutes if your chair says you have twelve, and aim for twelve if you have fifteen. It almost always takes longer to present than you think.
• If you have many words on your slides, have only a few. 
• If you have numbers on your slides, make them legible (bigger fonts always better than smaller ones), and use color to illustrate stuff, like blue for positive results and red for negative.  If it works here at the Semi-Spew, it might not be a bad idea.... ok, never mind.
• If questions are collected from the audience before you respond, you don't have to answer everyone nor should you.  Pick the ones that are least picky and most interesting. 
• If your panel answers one question at a time, don't filibuster.  Other folks will want to talk--either to ask questions or to answer them.
• If you don't know the answer, then you can say so--the ISA is a low risk environment.  It is not a job talk.
• Don't write an 80 page paper and expect the discussant to read it.  No more than 45 pages or 15k words or so.  Don't just hand over a dissertation chapter if you can avoid it.  
• But don't worry about the paper being perfect--the idea is to get feedback. Sometimes you get, sometimes you don't.
• If you can possibly avoid it, don't put "Don't Cite/Don't Circulate" on your paper.  Doing so is a great way to avoid citations.  Better to be cited wrongly or cited for something that you change your mind about than not to be cited at all.  One of my favorite moments in an audience was to see my different works in two different boxes of a 2x2 as I had produced over time conflicting results about federalism's impact on ethnic conflict.  
• If you haven't gotten your paper to your discussant by now, do so immediately.  Don't expect a discussant to read your paper at the conference--they have stuff to do.

Discussant (I have said some of this before):

• Don't be cruel.  It should go without saying, but, well, sometimes it needs saying
• If the papers are entirely unrelated, don't spend too much time drawing false connections
• But if you see connections, tell the authors how they talk to each other--they may not have realized it.
• Don't just list the negative stuff--find a positive thing or two to say.  
• Treat the papers fairly--don't focus on just one and don't exclude just one.
• Oh and about fairness, try not to engage in the one habit we all have--think about how you would have done the project.  Instead, try to figure out how the person can do a better job of executing their vision.

Chair:

• There really is only one job requirement here: stopping the long winded.

What else is there to an ISA?

• The Hilton lobby can get super-crowded, so if you arrange to meet someone, especially someone you have never met before, mention a specific spot.  The pre-dinner mess of people can make it hard to find the person you are looking for.
• If you are a grad student or junior faculty person who does not know many people, go to a business meeting for a section close to your interests.  Volunteer to help out.  These usually are modest service requirements, but help you get to know people and be known.  These meetings are usually easier for meeting new people than receptions, which are often very loud, very crowded and more than a bit intimidating.
• Speaking of receptions, go to the Online Media Caucus's (Friday night, 7:30), as the Duckies (the awards presented to best work in online media) are fun, and the folks are pretty welcoming.  If you follow people's blogs or twitter accounts, then I think it is easier to approach them as you already know something about them.  I don't think there will be an organized tweet up for twitter folks to meet each other, so let the OMC reception serve that role. 
• I always advocate networking sideways and down partly because I am shy (really) and don't feel comfy approaching the big names but also because the old stars are not going to be around that much in 10 or 20 year.  On the other hand, the younger folks you hang out with now will be your pals 20 years down the road.  I used to roam conferences looking for people that I might now.  Now, I just have to stand still.  I like it much better that way.  
• While you may want to go to all of the panels, do get out of the hotel and its immediate area.  It is, alas, on the edge of some of the less nice parts of SF (the city reeks of awesomeness but our area also reeks of pot and poo and pee).  The city is not large so it is not super expensive to uber or taxi to the waterfront, to the Presidio, to Chinatown, or wherever.  I hear the town has a pretty bridge or two. Yes, cable cars are really cool, but it is easiest to get on it a bit up the hill than at the base station.  

I am sure there is other stuff to think about, so remind me what I have forgotten.  If you have good SF tips, share them. 

A Blogging Gap: Grants, Conferences, Taxes and Exhaustion

I haven't blogged in a week!  No, I am not dead. But it has been a long time that I have gone that long without a desire to semi some spew.  Part of this is that I was crunching on the latest iteration of a Canadian Defence and Security Network grant application.  I thought I was done with that for a while after submitting the latest SSHRC Partnership Grant application, and then the Department of National Defence issued a call for a proto-network.  The good news is that I could use the structure and partners of the SSHRC grant for this application; the bad news is that I had a month to re-direct it towards DND's priorities and for much less money and time ($100k for one year as opposed to $2.5m over 7).  The bet is that if we get this money and do it well, then we can compete for the big enchilada down the road.  We shall see--I am definitely hoping that my +5 Hammer of Diligence means that we get a decent enough result on the 20 sided die to get the proto-money. 

The ISA is next week, so I have been revising a paper, preparing for a roundtable and trying to open up sometime to read the papers that I will be discussing.  Look for a post in the next day or two about ISA prep.  

I have also been working on several sets of taxes--US, Canada, NY (my daughter), etc.  And I got a fun gift from the IRS yesterday: a letter saying we owed heaps from last year's taxes.  So, had to clean that mess (resolved quickly and with much good customer service) just in time to fix my tax return for this year.  Good times. 

So, no blogging.... because there has also been no news, right?  What has happened in the past week?  Here's some quick hits on the news de la semaine (du jour x 7):

• Go Team NATO! I was very surprised that Trump's US managed to coordinate with many (not all) friends to react to the Russian use of chemical weapons on a British village. Sure, the Russians have retaliated, but the reaction was proportionate and justified and surprisingly well-coordinated.  There must be someone still manning the European and Canadian desks at State?  Of course, this speaks to the tyranny of low expectations: this is something that should not be that unexpected.  Still, some credit to folks within the Trump administration for making this work.
• Um, Bolton?  Aw, FFS.  There might be a worse person to become Trump's National Security Adviser, but it is hard to imagine.  As my US Foreign Policy class studied this spring, the person in this role can vary from coordinator (Scowcroft) to advocate (Kissinger) to out of the loop (Condi Rice)* and Bolton is very much an advocate.  He shades intel to support his arguments, he kicks down and kisses up, and is unlikely to present Trump with a complete picture.  Oh, and he is a first class warmonger.  So, whatever the odds were for a Second Korean War, they shifted at least five percent in the more likely direction.  NOT GOOD.  Bolton may very well be the last person to talk to Trump before he makes a decision, and that is NOT GOOD.
• Xi and Kim Jung Un?  I have no idea as I am not an East Asia security expert yet (once I come back from a two week trip to Seoul in May, then I can be an exert).  But I don't think this is KJU being vulnerable nor do I think it means that China is constraining him.  I think they were probably trying to figure out how best to play Trump.  After all, it was Xi who had a Mar-lago dinner conversation with Trump that changed how the latter viewed Korean history.  So, hmmm is all I can say.

So, if you have any suggestions for topics for new Semi-Spews, you know where to find me.

Sesame Street Ultimate

I saw this on twitter

Happy birthday to me friend @BigBird! Remember dat one time we played Frisbee and me ate it… yeah me sorry about dat. Me won’t eat any games on your birthday! #HappyBirthdayBigBird pic.twitter.com/nSZQDBi3NH

— Cookie Monster (@MeCookieMonster) March 20, 2018

and I could not help but consider who I would want on my Sesame Street ultimate frisbee team (just SS, not the entire muppet community).

First, I wouldn't want Cookie Monster on my team.  Not only does he eat the frisbees, but he is so easy to distract: "hey, do I see a cookie on the sideline" and suddenly you are playing 6 against 7.  On the other hand, Big Bird might be slow, but, as we can see in the clip, he can throw and I'd love to be throwing the long high pass to him as he outskies the competition. 

My second teammate would be Aloysius Snyffleupagus.  Why?  Because he is always open on offense and always in the way on defense.  The other team just does not believe in his abilities, so Snuffy is really the number one draft pick for this team.  He is really mellow, helping to maintain the proper spirit of the game.

Third is Fred the Wonder Horse.  Not only is he fast, but he is among the most sensible muppets, which makes him a good handler--he knows what he can do and he knows what his teammates can do.

Fourth, of course, is Grover.  A good ultimate team needs enthusiasm and optimism.  And Grover's lankiness suggests an ability to stretch around the mark, layout for the disk, and go up for the high tosses.

Fifth, Rosita, as she is both smart and good spirited and, despite efforts to stop her, she can still fly.





Sixth, Telly, whose obsession with triangles pays off on offense via how he cuts in the horizontal stack and on in defense in spacing the zone.  





Seven, Zoe, who is deceptively strong and feisty.  She reminds me of a number of my teammates of the years--folk who are willing to layout for the score but throw perhaps too many hammers.




I could go on, but this is a strong starting seven.  No, no Count as he too is easily distracted.  Once someone starts counting stall, he would join in and then his focus is gone. 

The New Canadian Mission to Mali: More than Meh?

Yesterday, the government of Canada announced a new peacekeeping effort: sending an Aviation Task Force to Mali.  Ta da!  There has been much impatience in Canada and probably at the UN as Justin Trudeau promised that Canada would return to peacekeeping and, until yesterday, has not.  Indeed, one stat floated around recently--that Canada had the fewest number of peacekeepers in UN operations since the 1950s.  So, does this new mission satisfy?

Well, that depends on what one considers to be "back" or enough or whatever.  The Canadians will be sending six helicopters (2 chinooks and 4 griffons) to do medevac and transport and the personnel needed to maintain them. That's it.  Something around 200-250 CAF members, staying largely on base except for those staffing the helos.  So, it is more than the 40-odd currently deployed but is far under what were the average deployments of yore.

Is the UN satisfied?  Maybe.  They needed someone to replace the Belgians who have replaced the Germans.  Having a helicopter task force is important especially given how "kinetic" things are--160 UN peacekeepers have been killed in Mali, so having helos that can get people to a hospital quickly is quite important.  But it is only 200 troops in a 13k person mission.  So, it fills a need, one that few countries can provide, but it is a small part of the mission. 

Does it satisfy Canadian voters who so heavily identify Canada as a peacekeeping country?  Maybe. Surveys will have to tell us that. 

Does it satisfy the government wanting to do peacekeeping but not risk many lives?  Apparently.  Given that most personnel will likely be confined to a secure base and given that the various violent actors have not been shooting down helicopters before now (as far as I know), the biggest risk is that Canada loses a helo due to accident (which happens fairly often) in some place where there are no friendlies on the ground.  That would be very bad.  So, there is risk, but it is not as risky as sending in a battalion or two to patrol.

Does it satisfy the opposition? Of course not.  They would never be satisfied even though the Conservatives put Canada on the glidepath to 40 or so peacekeepers.  Westminster politics means short memories and opposing things that one supported when one was on the other side. 

Does it satisfy the aspiration to have more women do peacekeeping (the Elsie Initiative)?  Maybe a smidge?  As far as I know, there are women flying Canadian helos, and women involved in the maintenance of helos.  Are women more represented in these military trades than infantry?  Maybe?  My hunch is that is the case, but so far I have received no answers via twitter or from the government.  Even if there are a higher percentage of women in this unit, say 20%, that won't move the needle much since the Canadian task force again is 200 out of 13,000. 

By having such a finite, contained, constrained contribution, Canada makes a "smart plege" by filling a niche capability at relatively low cost and risk.  But if it is obvious to me, it is also obvious to informed observes so does it help Canada in the competition for a Security Council seat?   No.  I haven't heard from insiders, but I have to guess that the Trudea folks have given up on that dream.  If they were as consumed it as I previously thought, the latest budget would have had far more money in the development envelope. 

While I always thought the UN Security Council seat was a pipe dream (beating Norway or Ireland was always going to be very hard, especially entering the game so late), the events of the past six months or so should have snuffed out the dream.  The failure to sign the TPP in Danang not only alienated Abe of Japan but most of ASEAN plus the Aussies were mighty miffed.  Getting the deal eventually done might have soothed things a bit, but the whole thing was not a voting winning venture.  The India trip?  Well, Canada might have picked up Pakistan's vote...  Oy. 

Anyhow, this whole thing fits into the usual category of "the least Canada could do, the most Canada could do."  It has some risk, it is a valued contribution, but it does not move any needles very much.

Giving Kids the Vote?

I have been hearing stuff lately about whether 16 and 17 year old should vote.  It has come up in both the US and Canadian contexts.  In the aftermath of the activism of the Parkland kids and the protests around the country, it seems like a good idea.  These kids are just so sharp, so passionate, so well organized. 

But to be clear: #notallkids.  That is, we are seeing a very select view, and those of us on the center-left are fans because these kids are pushing for gun control. Would we be so happy if the kids were right wing folks who were pushing for whatever it is that right wing kids would want?

I can't help but think about something that happened at Texas Tech long ago.  When I first got there, anyone who TA'ed had a vote at department meetings, which meant that the grad students had more weight than the junior faculty.  I thought this was pretty cool, as the graduate students could be a voice of reason, and swing towards the more reasonable stances.  I guess I was projecting from my time as a graduate student where I thought I was reasonable (not much self-awareness, I know).  The reality was much different--the evil (and I do mean evil) profs would drink with the students and persuade them to vote for the stances of the evil profs.  A new chair (from outside) came in, and helped to creatively interpret the rules to disenfranchise the students.  The one time in my life I rooted for disenfranchisement (easier to fix than the evil people--although that got partly resolved by one guy leaving and the other dying). 

Of course, that was about a group of folks in their 20s.  But the basic point is this: expecting 16 and 17 year olds to swing your way reliably is probably not a great idea.

What is the difference between 16-17 year olds and 18 year olds?  The law treats them very differently--not just who can vote, but who can fight/be drafted.  Indeed, if I remember correctly (I was very young), one of the big arguments for moving the voting age to 18 was that the US was at the time sending 18 year olds to fight in Vietnam.   There are other legal differences as well--this line between 17 and 18 is fairly deep and wide.

There are other differences as well--either finishing high school or being closed to it, and one might not think much of an additional two years of high school, but that is pretty much half of the experience.  Also, 16/17 year olds are entirely dependent on their parents, whereas those over 18 vary widely but tend to have much more independence and responsibility. 

Two last points:

• The problem of under-representation of the young in democratic systems is far less about voting age and far more about turnout.  
• There are other ways to have political influence than to vote, and these kids are doing exactly that and doing it incredibly well.  

Oh, and it ain't gonna happen in the US--the GOP would never allow it as they are losing the battle for the votes of the young people.  They are already trying to disenfranchise them via #voterfraudfraud--that college id's don't count, that residency requirements are being developed, etc--so don't expect them to allow the voting age to go down.

Trump as the Political Scientist Full Employment Machine

Ok, Trump may or may not challenge all existing wisdom that we have in political science (I tend to think our theories explain much of the Trump phenomenon quite well).  But what we do know is that he is creating a lot of work for future political scientists.  Lots of research agendas are being born every day, like: are tweets policies? Do distractions work whether intentional or not?  How does a country manage to make its allies fear abandonment and entrapment at the same time?

For me, the "fun" item this morning is this notion that Trump and Kelly have agreed to a truce.

BREAKING: The @WSJ is reporting that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly is “safe” in his position after reaching a truce with President Trump.https://t.co/2kiZ8dUatJ

— Paul Szoldra (@PaulSzoldra) March 16, 2018

 The only possible response to this is Whuck?!!  As in WTF?!!!  It directly challenges the core notions of principal-agent relations (remember, I didn't start out on that theoretical track but succumbed to it thanks to a NATO book on delegation).  While we may forget, Trump is the principal--the boss--who has hired an agent--John Kelly--to do his bidding.  John Kelly's job as Chief of Staff is to manage Trump's time, information flow, and activities so that Trump can be successful.  Kelly is not a peer of or equal to Trump--he is a subordinate.  In principal-agency theory, the agent can often have conflicting incentives or interests so that they do not want to work hard or they want to do the job the way they see fit (both are called shirking).  So, much of the trick in P-A theory for the principals is figuring out ways to vary the discretion the agent has, design systems of oversight, and the provide rewards for good behavior and penalties for bad.

Perhaps a truce could be considered one of the means by which the principal makes sure the agent is behaving appropriately?   Ordinarily, no way.  Because in a normal p-a relationship, the agent can't threaten the boss.  What does it mean to have a truce?  That both sides will stop firing on the other, right?  Well, how does a subordinate get away with saying that I'll stop attacking you if you stop attacking me?  There should be no real latitude there.

Of course, the challenge is this: Trump is a truly shitty principal.  The evidence: normal principals do not fire, compel to resign, or lose dozens of operatives in the course of a year.  Principals ordinarily do not want to waste time and effort with the churn of replacing personnel.  What happens when principals lose their agents?  They have to find new ones, and if one picks the most suitable ones first, then one loses something when replacing generation after generation of agents--the quality of the individuals may go down, the distance between the preferences of the agent and of the principal may widen, etc.

Trump is a lousy principal because not because he delegates lots of discretion to his agents.  He is lousy in part because he revises the delegation contract all the time--giving responsibility to a person and then overriding them capriciously.  His form of oversight is rivalry: encouraging the various agents to compete with each other.  This would be fine if Trump was as smart as FDR.... but he is not.  So, instead of getting conflicting advice and then deciding which path is best, Trump requires his people to compete to suck up to him and undercut each other, which they do, leading to all kinds of communications breakdowns, policy failures, and public displays of incompetence.  Finally, Trump's main form of incentive (other than allowing his people to steal from the American people) is to humiliate them.  Not sure that works for long.  So, bad delegation, bad oversight, bad incentives.

Which ultimately means that one of his agents threatens him, leading to a truce.  This means that political scientists using principal-agency theory in the future will need focus less on why agents might shirk and more on why principals might screw up their relationships with their agents.

In short, lots of presentations start with "here's this puzzle," and Trump is providing ample puzzles for the next generation.  Good luck, kids.

Circle of Trust Narrows Even Further

I am doing a heap of media (as are other IR types) about the musical chairs at the White House: Tillerson out, Pompeo up, Haspel in.  Drezner had a sharp take, and Vox summarizes my views on Tillerson pretty well.  Oh, and the process, which continues to play out, is a shitshow.

So, quick hits on all of this:

1. Why now? Who knows?  Trump is easily triggered, and has not been happy with Tillerson since... he was appointed? Was it because of the different positions on Russia's poisoning of a British town?  Probably not since this might have been in the works since Friday.  Maybe because he contradicted Trump on North Korea and trade recently?
2. What is Tillerson's legacy? Burning down State for a generation while not making much of a dent on foreign policy.  
3. Will Pompeo be better?  He is far right (his American Conservative Union rating was 96% before leaving the house), but there were few stories of him burning down CIA.  He may or may not support State in bureaucratic battles.  He is closer to Trump, so he has more credibility BUT if he ain't in the room and Trump decides to do something, he will do it without consulting Pompeo. 
4. What about Gina Haspel at CIA?  First reaction?  Phew, not Tom Cotton. That is also my second, third, fourth and fifty reactions because Cotton would have tried to politicize the agency, perhaps destroying it and American democracy.  Haspel is a professional, so the CIA is likely to mosey along without too much strain.  However, she may be a war criminal, given her role in torturing folks under the Bush Administration.   This makes her hardly unique since those above her in the chain of command have kept on keeping on.  If she pays a price and the males don't, that would be a problem.  And I prefer a professional with, yes, some blood on her hands than a Trump zealot who has no experience at all. 
5. What does this mean for North Korea talks?  Well, since North Korea hasn't gotten back to the US, who knows?  Tillerson was utterly irrelevant for the NK talks, and had no expertise to bring to bear.  So, no loss.  Pompeo?  Not sure.  He is more likely to blow up the Iran deal since he seems to have preferences on that. I have complete faith in Trump to screw this up, no matter who is advising him.
6. What about Canada?  Yeah, that has been a question I have been getting from the media here.  My basic take: Tillerson got along well with Freeland, but Tillerson was largely irrelevant. Pompeo is not a from a steel producing state, so he probably is not all that riled up about trade.  And much of US agriculture (Pompeo is from Kansas) seeks export markets.... so I guess this does not really matter too much.  So, keep on working the rest of the US political system.  
7. I wonder if this will screw up the presentations of my students who are taking on the various roles in the US foreign policy process.  The Tillerson-players will have to get smart on Pompeo fast!

Russian Poison, Britain and NATO

Now that Theresa May has said that it is "highly likely" that the Russians used a nerve agent fairly recklessly as they sought to kill a double agent, lots of questions arise.  One could easily code this as an attack, not the first one since other Russians have been killed in the UK, but a more severe one given the number of bystanders and first responders who may have been exposed.  And once you use the word "attack," one of the first things that comes to mind is: an attack upon one equals an attack upon all--NATO's Article V.  It has only been invoked once, after 9/11, despite other attacks against NATO allies--Russian cyber attack against Estonia, Syrian shells and bombs hitting Turkey, etc.

Consulting NATO via Article IV is a natural way to proceed.  It would allow the UK to establish the seriousness of what has happened, that this is a very warlike thing to have happened.  However, bringing in NATO involves larger risks.  Specifically, the US, which has not acknowledged that Russia is "highly likely" to be guilty here, and with Trump never saying an unkind word about Putin, the danger is that the UK tries to get NATO to take a stand and fails.  That would cast doubt about the alliance itself.  It is like the US non-response to North Korean missile tests: sure, you can try to shoot them down, but, if you fail, you might reveal that the system does not work so well.  Well, with Trump being so hostile to NATO and pretty unfriendly to May, one can easily imagine the US blocking consensus at NATO probably with help from Hungary and Greece.  And then what?

With the economic fiasco that is Brexit going on, the UK has not many choices, especially with an unreliable US (today's alliance dilemma horn is abandonment), May is stuck.  What can she do?  I will agree with those who suggest new economic sanctions, the end of Russian oligarchs moving to London, and kissing RT goodbye.  Oh, and, this might sound awful, but the old spy game had some rules, and if one breaks the rules, one should pay.  So, yeah, the British should find the most guilty Russian spy, and remove him from the game.  Teach the Russians to be more careful.

So far, the Russians have not paid much of a price for their reckless moves across the globe--meddling in elections, using poisons in ways that harm bystanders, and on and on.  The US under Trump is not going to act as strongly as it should--the allies will need to do so.

Oh, and when folks say that Trump hasn't made that much of a difference in foreign policy yet, the refusal to respond to the election mess and now this are big pieces of evidence that, yes, Trump is making a difference and not in a good way.