CDSN COVID Response Briefing Note, Procurement Edition

Last week, members of the Canadian Defence and Security Network, along with networks funded by the Department of National Defence (SPNET [Concordia-based group of engineers working on tech-related policy, like AI], the Defence and Security Foresight Group,and the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network) released a briefing note, based on a teleconference we held via zoom to discuss a series of questions that DND had given us and some we had developed.  I am discussing each piece, day by day.  I discussed Operations on Wednesday, Security on Thursday, and Personnel on Friday. Caveats: I have less knowledge of procurement issues, so take my comments here with a larger grain of salt than usual; and I did not sit in on that group's discussions.  

What are the assumptions for 10% or 20% reductions in the defence budget?
Particularly in terms of the timing and process involved in either set of cuts?
• Govt may allow departments to identify potential cuts or it may freeze spending and ask departments to find savings. Unclear whether/how cuts may play out.
• Avoid equal misery. Some parts of the CAF will have to be cut further than others, cutting proportionately leads to significant inefficiencies.
• Focus on outputs and enterprise level optimization as a means to generate efficiency and savings.

The first question was challenging as we have no idea what the government will do in reaction to big budget deficits.  It could be that the deficits are so big that cutting the defence budget is not going to happen--that the deficits will just be lived with.  The Liberals are not a party of Austerity, not these days, so it is not clear that they will feel compelled to cut the budget.  However, the DND/CAF budget is the most cut-able part.  So, the key then is to have a good strategy.  Just cutting across the board is a bad idea--it lives some projects just short of completion, the military without some crucial stuff, and other, less essential projects getting more than needed.  Real cuts would require real prioritizing--what is necessary, what is important but not essential, and what would be good  but can be foregone.  And that would require another Defence Review and another one or half dozen CDSN zoom conferences. 
Likewise, rather than just focusing on what goes into the machine, focus on what is produced and how each entity can produce more efficiency to get the most out of the budget.












How can DND/CAF help to grow the economy following COVID-19?
• As demand was cut by order of government, there is no need to stimulate economy.
• If stimulus is desired, spending on the CAF is not the best tool. Focus should be on lump sum payments to low income earners and infrastructure investments.

The economists in our group had no patience with the ideas that (a) Canada needs a stimulus post-covid and (b) spending on the CAF to stimulate the economy.
First, because the economy was brought to a stop by the disease and by governments' decisions, there is less need to stimulate the economy to get it moving.  Opening up the economy will likely suffice.  Second, throwing money at the military does not really have a multiplier effect on the economy.  The procurement projects are slow and focused so one would not see a big, quick boost across the economy.  Throwing money at personnel might help improve employment a bit, but the force is not that big and can't get much bigger without a lot of work, so, again, marginal impact.  Instead, give the $ those who don't make much money--since they will spend it--and build stuff for the long term so that the deficits today are really investments in the future.  That would probably be mass transit (even if that feels icky in age of masks and social distancing) and green projects to reduce climate change-producing emissions. 

I think I prefer economists giving answers that are not politically appealing, as the last time they gave one that was, Austerity, it screwed things up for a generation.

Tomorrow is our last post from the briefing note--civil-military relations.

Quarantine Week 8: It Ain't Summer Camp

Every summer from age 12 to 20, I spent eight weeks at summer camp.  I lived for summer as I felt I fit in better at camp than at school.  Week 7 of each summer was a time for crankiness, as people rubbed each other a bit much, the routine got too routine, etc.  But week 8 was a week where we put that stuff aside as we knew the summer was coming to a close, and I'd have to wait another 44 weeks to feel really alive again.  So, when I realize we have been quarantining for about eight weeks, my first thoughts are of those summers, that I didn't want them to end.

Strangely enough, I don't want this quarantine to end either but for different reasons.  That is, we are not ready yet.  Not in Canada and definitely not in the US.  The curves vary across each big country, but the basic tale is the same--not enough progress has been made in reducing the rates of transmission, in reducing the loads facing hospitals, and so on.  I understand that people are tired of being stuck at home, although we have had it easy compared to the Italians and Spaniards who have really stayed put.  Us?  We still run out to pick up takeout, we can still take walks and bike rides, we can still mass together in front of state capitols to take incredibly dumb stances, and so on.  Our freedom is hardly restricted.  Well, except for those entities that want to compel people to work in dangerous circumstances.

One of my themes of the week has been the realization that the hotzones in this pandemic in North America--prisons, eldercare facilities, meatpacking plants--are precisely the places that have not and largely could not close down.  Imagine if all the other places where people are close together had stayed open--universities (yes, they come
first in the mind of this professor), offices, restaurants, bars, churches, etc--the disease would have spread much farther, ultimately not just testing the hospitals and health care systems but breaking them.  So, before we open things up, let's think a bit more and let's not waste the eight weeks of restraint, shall we?

On the bright side, it was a productive week for the Canadian Defence and Security Network.  We produced our Briefing Note from the conference we had last week.  The leadership team met to discuss how to operate as the pandemic limits the kinds of things we can do.  My team in Ottawa brainstormed some ideas about what we can do to help younger scholars in this time of isolation, and we will be rolling out one initiative in the next week.

And we found yet more flour.  The only thing we still can't find is yeast, but we have plenty to last us... about eight more weeks of weekly pizza.  And then after that, I can still make another 20 or so weeks from ye old beer-based pizza dough.

I am less stressed about shopping and such with a helpful post I saw about how it is not just one quick whiff of microbes that gets one sick but something a bit more substantial.  Which means I am not going to catch it while biking or while shopping.... even if the same findings say that it is bad for the clerks.  The way I summarize it is: airports are ok, but planes are bad.  Oh, and no matter how you try to do it, getting universities started back up is going to be mighty, mighty hard.

I think it would be easier to be patient in the US if the government was making decent policy.  In Canada, the response has not been perfect, but the government is putting out large amounts of money and getting it quickly in the hands of the newly unemployed.  I am one of the least patient people I know although, of course, it is easier for me to be patient given my job, my financial situation, my cool house and family, and the endless supply of silly stuff on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney +.  The good news is that the polls in both countries show that most people are willing to wait it out a bit longer.  Which means that even if the governments open things up, many stores and businesses will remain sensibly closed.

Always, the only way out is through:

CDSN COVID Response Briefing Note, Personnel

Last week, members of the Canadian Defence and Security Network, along with networks funded by the Department of National Defence (SPNET [Concordia-based group of engineers working on tech-related policy, like AI], the Defence and Security Foresight Group,and the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network) met via zoom to discuss a series of questions that DND gave us and some we developed.  I am discussing each piece, day by day.  I discussed Operations on Wednesday, Security yesterday, and now Personnel. Caveats: I have less knowledge of personnel issues, so take my comments here with a larger grain of salt than usual; and I did not sit in on that group's discussions.  

How does Op Laser impact preparedness and readiness? Do we need to think of an increased role for the reserves as we think of potential future pandemics? How is Op Laser impacting the willingness to deploy of both the reg force and reserves?

• The regular force and reserves are impacted differently. One key consideration here is the lack of job security reservists might have in their day job & how that impacts deployability.
• Deployments during pandemic creates additional stressors on military families as usual resources are not available, plus kids are not in school. It is harder to deploy when your own family is not safe and secure and is exacerbated for dual-military couples.
• Reservations were expressed about the CAF stepping into eldercare. This drains the CAF of its own healthcare capability and is not a sustainable solution.

The challenge, as always, is that the Canadian Armed Forces throws at a problem two different groups of people, who have different assets and constraints.  The reservists have all kinds of regular jobs that give them skills that help them interact with civilians and do the non-kinetic stuff mostly better than the regulars.  However, the Regulars live mostly apart from society since their bases tend to be away from the cities, which in a time of pandemic gives them less exposure to the disease.  Deployments, while still disruptive for regulars, are part of their normal cycles.  For reserves, deployments are far more disruptive.  When deployments happen at a time of high unemployment, the reservists are under even greater stress. So, the CAF needs to take seriously how the economic crisis is affecting the reservists (even though it may lead to a boom in recruitments) differently than the Regulars.

The Regulars themselves are under great stress, as schools and day cares being closed means that they do are parenting and schooling and working all at the same time.  And if they are sent to do stuff, like work in elder care facilities, there is far less support for their families than normal.  Like everywhere else, if you want folks to work, you need to find ways to take care of those for whom they are responsible.

The most visible role played by the CAF has been the deployment of troops into eldercare facilities.  Why them?  Because who else can you train and send in significant numbers?  No other organization in government has the numbers to send people into situations like this.  Are these troops trained to handle the challenges of taking care of old, fragile people including many with varying degrees of diminished mental faculties?  Surely, they are not as trained as those they are replacing.  And it also brings in intersectionality--that young men are replacing older woman.  That may have unexpected impacts in the facilities.  Obviously, this is a short-term solution.  One that raises some risks for the force since these folks are being sent into the hottest of the hotzones in Canada (other than prisons and meatpacking plants).  So, this might be the most significant contribution the CAF has performed thus far in this crisis, but it is not without its challenges.

There are more personnel issues that this pandemic has produced, but this is what we had time to discuss.  Why?  Because we were sensitive to the personnel issues of our network--we can't expect large numbers of people to hang around online for many hours when they have kids at home.  Next time we do this, we will probably aim for smaller groups and more focus as we cannot expect people to dedicate lots of time, especially women who are bearing the brunt of the dependent care.

Considering the Fall: Many Options, Few Good Ones

This piece delineates 15 options for the next academic year.  Some seem impossible, some seem awful, and some might be possible.  I am not an expert, but, unlike other areas I stray, I have some stakes in this one. 
1. Back to Normal
Nope. 
2. A Late Start
The big question is whether moving the start of the term back a month or two is going to make much of a difference.  Maybe in places where there is extensive testing so that we have lots of confidence about the curves and where we are at, but I can't help but be skeptical that moving from September to November is going to change the risks to students, staff and faculty.

3. Moving Fall to Spring
This makes a bit more sense--moving the entire school year back four months may make a difference, again if the testing, tracing, and all that starts to pick up.  This might be possible in states/provinces with more modest outbreaks that have quickly flattened out. 
4. First-Year Intensive
"How a student begins their college experience may be the best predictor of how their college experience will end ... this plan brings only first-year students to campus in the fall."  Um, hmmm, will such students then take care not to hang out with their grandparents, with their older faculty, etc?  Also, how many dead Freshman is too much?  This reduces the number of folks on campus by something like 75%.  So, more space in dorms, more space in lecture halls, more space in dining halls.  I am sure the newbies would not violate restrictions regarding distancing, nope, not at all.  As someone who was residential coordinator back in the day, I am confident that these students would respect any and all regulations.  Insert sarcasm emoji here.
5. Graduate Students Only
This makes much more sense as one of the keys of social distancing is smaller groups.  Most grad classes are smaller than 50, so this would help limit the spread.  Likewise, large social gatherings are less important for graduate students.  They can happen, of course, but grad students are not quite part of the fraternity, large party, big sports life-style.  One of the challenges of most of the other models is that separating students in the classroom is very much just the tip of the iceberg.  Grad students tend to be self-isolating much of the time, so this has some potential. Plus labs for the hard sciences and access to technology are so much more indispensable for graduate training.
6. Structured Gap Year
Hey, give us money to keep the lights on while you guys ... do some stuff.  We can call it experiential learning.  While we can debate whether students should pay full tuition for online classes, this approach is much shakier.  And given that the students can't do that other stuff--travel, work--during a pandemic, the gap year will be "what did I learn on the internet today."
So, nope.
7. Targeted Curriculum
"One approach option for fall is to reduce the number of courses being offered to limit on campus density and to prioritize support resources."  The only way this makes sense to me is: lab courses on campus and reduce the role of labs in first and second year classes.  Otherwise, what is the point?
8. Split Curriculum
"In a split curriculum scenario, courses are designed as either residential or online. Students who are able to come back to campus (up to the population in which social distancing rules can be enforced) can choose to enroll in either format. Requiring a defined proportion of enrollments to be in online courses for residential students may increase the number of students that can return to campus."
Anything that brings back a significant number of students brings huge risks since they will not social distance while on campus.  So, sure, this could address the problem of big classes, but I am pretty sure the simulation I saw a few weeks ago was not premised on big classes.
9. A Block Plan
"Students would take one course at a time during much shorter (three or four weeks) sessions or blocks, run consecutively for the entire semester. The advantage, besides an interesting and intensive pedagogy, is flexibility."
This would take such a dramatic change that it could only start next winter.  To build online classes is hard, to build real, short term, intensive classes is also hard.  Asking profs to do both?  Jeez.  I get the point here, but this is a heap of innovation in a short term.
10. Modularity
It confuses me, moving on..
11. Students in Residence, Learning Virtually
Hey, if the students get sick while hanging out with each other, it ain't on us approach.  No.
12. A Low-Residency Model
"Students would come to campus for intensive face-to-face experiences and then return home to complete the semester online."  Um, travel bad. 
13. A HyFlex model
"The HyFlex model is perhaps the most flexible and for many will be the most attractive. It is also possibly one of the more difficult approaches for faculty. In this model, courses would be taught both face-to-face and online by the same instructor at the same time. Students could choose to return to campus or stay home. Those on campus could be assigned certain class slots when face-to-face is an option, allowing the schools greater control of social distancing in the classroom. This model tends to privilege synchronous learning, and to do it well often requires real-time in-class help (a TA or course assistant to manage the online students), an intentionally designed classroom and a great deal of patience from both the students and faculty."
How does this suck, let me count the ways:
a) Doubles faculty effort
b) Synchronous learning is very problematic given that students who stay at home could be spread across the galaxy planet.
c) Does not address the "dorms [called residences in Canada] are the new prisons/eldercare/meatpacking plants" problem.
d) Note that whole patience thing... not a strength of faculty nor students.

14. A Modified Tutorial Model
"Students would take a common online lecture session. Faculty and or TAs would then meet with small groups of students in tutorials that would allow for social distancing to be employed."
Again, the focus here is on how to teach smaller groups, ignoring the plague potential that is the college campus, classes or no classes.

15. Fully Remote
Until we get a vaccine, much better treatment, or real testing/tracing, this is the world we are living in.  Damned near anything else poses too much risks to students, to staff, to faculty. 


What is missing from all of this:
Whatever we do will need to be flexible since we will have at-risk faculty, at-risk staff, and at-risk students.  With diminished budgets, will universities be able to ramp up health support--for those who get the virus and for those suffering from mental health problems that are exacerbated by the pandemic?

Oh, and liability concerns--places are now getting sued for providing lesser education amid the pandemic.  How about places that open up and then have mini-epidemics?  Will the threat of that deter opening?  While the US dynamic right now is awful--Republicans seeking to give protection to firms which ultimately coerce workers into risking their lives, some thought about liability for universities is required if we want them to open.

CDSN COVID Response Briefing Note, Security

Last week, members of the Canadian Defence and Security Network, along with networks funded by the Department of National Defence (SPNET [Concordia-based group of engineers working on tech-related policy, like AI], the Defence and Security Foresight Group,and the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network) met via zoom to discuss a series of questions that DND gave us and some we developed.

This week, I am discussing day by day a part of the briefing note we produced (available in English and French here). Yesterday, I discussed Operations.  So, today, I will focus on Security.  The Security Theme of the CDSN focuses on some of the bigger questions--what are the threats to Canadians?  Do Canadian defence efforts make Canadians and those we seek to protect elsewhere more or less secure.  There is some overlap with Operations, but the perspective is somewhat different.

The first question was: How has COVID-19 changed the geopolitical landscape? What are the likely short-term impacts of the pandemic on international relations, defence and security?
• Gives hostile players—Russia, China, Iran, etc—additional leverage in their regions with more fodder for cyber/hybrid efforts.
• Create openings for cooperation and institutional adaptation of the WHO where Canada can offer leadership & promote civil-mil expertise development for pandemic collaboration.
• Human security dialogue shifting – a non-military threat is creating great harm. Global and national level social inequalities will be exacerbated by the crisis, given that women, minorities and poorer individuals appear to be among the most affected.
• Globalization threatened as local production of PPE, vaccines, treatment become imperative.

I won't discuss the first one since it overlaps much with yesterday's discussion.  The second one reminds me of something I learned in grad school thanks to Peter Gourevitch--that crises shake things up, especially coalitions, providing opportunities for reform.  The WHO is facing a firestorm of criticism for its handling of the pandemic, so it might just provide some opportunities for Canada and other countries to push for reforms.  Of course, what those reforms might be is not clear.  I did discuss this with Kelley Lee, a scholar of the globalization of health, for next week's #BattleRhythm podcast.  To preview, she points to the lack of teeth the WHO has.  I am most doubtful that the WHO will get World Trade Organization-like panels that have some heft to them.  What Canada should do is figure out what reforms it wants and start building a coalition of like-minded countries.

Human security has been a different way to think about security issues, focusing on the security of people rather than countries.  Its adherents have often had a tough time driving international agendas, but this crisis may finally change minds about what are the greatest threats to countries and to people--conventional war and insurgencies or pandemics and climate change.  Canada's diplomacy has focused at times on human security--the fight to ban landmines and then cluster munitions and more recently, the efforts to deal with Child Soldiers.  The Canadian Armed Forces has a new Centre of Excellence, the Dallaire Centre for Peace and Security, focused on the Vancouver Principless that aim to address the Child Soldier challenge.  And, yes, this centre is the latest to join the CDSN!

This crisis threatens globalization as countries are acting unilaterally to develop their own production to supply themselves with medical gear and medicines.  While global supply chains have been controversial for causing job losses, they have also been instrumental in reducing the costs of various goods and in reducing global inequality.  Some friends of mine have started arguing that Canada should be less dependent on the US, and I have no idea how that is possible. 

The second question was: If deployment is increasingly ‘local’ how might this impact the relationships that CAF has with other ‘security providers’, such as local police, academics, the public, health officials, etc.
• There should be a standing committee or task force for dealing with CAF deployments in Canada so that provinces, federal departments, and other relevant actors have familiarity with CAF capabilities and procedures and for the CAF to have similar understanding of its partners with a Deputy Minister responsible for reporting to the Prime Minister. Canada might want to consider developing a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency] type organization within Public Safety or create a new agency.

It surprised me to learn that there is no Canadian FEMA.  While the American version gets lots of criticism for failing during/after Katrina and more recently in Puerto Rico, most of the time, it is a pivotal actor, moving into handle post-disaster relief.  In Canada, there does not seem to be a similar capability.  Instead, in any crisis, people call the military to help, and it is not clear how much pre-disaster coordination, communication, and such is done.  Given the increasing pace of operations, thanks to climate change, there should be more direct political attention paid to this.  We borrowed from the Afghanistan mission, where the government developed an inter-agency task force and had a deputy minister report direction to the Prime Minister.  It didn't always work great, but it was certainly better than not having it.
Again, crises can lead to innovation, so perhaps it is time for the federal government to innovate so that it can respond more clearly, more decisively, and communicate better with local agencies the next time.... because there will be a next time.

CDSN COVID Response Briefing Note

On April 27th, members of the Canadian Defence and Security Network, along with networks funded by the Department of National Defence (SPNET [Concordia-based group of engineers working on tech-related policy, like AI], the Defence and Security Foresight Group,and the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network) met via zoom to discuss a series of questions that DND gave us and some we developed. 

This week, we are giving our response to government and sharing it with the public.  The entire document is available in English and French here. In my blog, I will be discussing the document all week long, with each post focusing on a single theme (the CDSN's research is organized along five--Operations, Security, Personnel, Procurement, and Civil-Military Relations).

So, today, I will focus on Operations. 

What role is there for the CAF to support Canada during and after the pandemic?

COVID 19 is expected to change the nature of conflict in the following ways:

·         Borders are expected to matter more (both domestic and international)

·         Authoritarian regimes will both harden and may be more financially vulnerable

·         Revisionist powers are likely to engage in more disinformation operations

·         New adversaries may emerge especially as US leadership/priorities are uncertain

·         Allied priorities may change

·         The pandemic can be used as an asymmetric weapon

·         Poor humanitarian conditions will amplify existing tensions leading to more refugees and internally displaced peoples

GOC should survey the nature and rationale for allied responses to COVID and new defence and security priorities. These discussions must inform the return to a new “normal” operational stance.

This is the summary of findings from the Operations group.  It is pretty much all bad news.  Let me address each point briefly, with the caveat that I did not participate in these discussions so what I say below should not be blamed on those who engaged in the Operations discussions.

This thing could have gone in another direction--where international cooperation and globalized supply chains could have been utilized to contain or mitigate the pandemic.  But that didn't happen (although NATO, for instance, started slowly and then did much to move equipment and personnel around Europe).  Instead, we saw borders close--that Canada is flipping on its head the highest post 9/11 priority by insisting that the border remains closed for now.  We even see federal units setting up checkpoints to block the flow of people from other federal units (Quebec has done it, Rhode Island and Florida have done so as well).  Now, folks are talking about becoming less dependent on key partners.  This ain't great.  While globalization has caused job losses, reversing it will cause much stuff to become much more expensive.  Taxes will go up if governments have to subsidize domestic producers of PPE, of drugs, and of whatever else.  It seems like the 1930s are repeating--we are learning the wrong lessons of how to deal with these shocks.  

Which leads to authoritarian countries facing challenges.  Note how many doctors seem to be falling from balconies these days in Russia.  Tis not an accident that those who criticize the regime's response to the pandemic are being killed.  Such regimes become brittle and hyper-defensive.  The oil war may have worked to hurt American production, but Russia's economy depends greatly on oil sales. So, Russia is far worse off than it was two months ago from an economic standpoint.  Sure, it can still play the role of troll and foster discord in the US (Russia has been behind the anti-vax movement, so it is in a good position to support the anti-science folks who are fighting the COVID policies in the West).   Expect more desperate and ill-considered policies from Russia.  

And from China?  Yeah, them, too.  The coverage of China has been all over the place.  No, the US should not be launching a new trade war with China to punish it for handling the pandemic poorly.  But China's efforts to capitalize on American weakness has failed.  The shipments of PPE from China to elsewhere have proven to be problematic, given that much of the stuff was crap-tastic.  Their efforts to blame the pandemic on the US via conspiracy theories may play well in some places, but does much to undermine any effort to portray the Chinese government as a responsible steward of international public health.

The US has utterly failed to lead in this.  It has blamed others, it has stolen PPE, it has refused to show up at major international conferences.  The wounds to American leadership in the world are almost entirely self-inflicted (unless you want to give Russia credit for putting Trump into power).  This provides much space for other actors to cause trouble not just for the US but for its allies.

Allies were hedging before this, but they were doing much to meet Trump's demands for more defense spending, more payouts to the US for basing.  That is probably not going to endure.  Countries will have to cut their defense budgets to cover spending on this crisis.  The good short term news is that the dips in their GDP will make their % of defense spending look good, and  Trump is not curious enough to do the math and figure it out.

Things are going to get worse for those already in bad shape.  Can't socially distant if one is in a crowded camp, can't wash hands if one lacks access to water, and so on.  Canada could make a major contribution by helping those places that have limited resources.

We didn't develop many specific policy recommendations because we really do not know what works.  So, what we do recommend is to learn from our friends (and our foes) about what works, how our allies are likely to respond in the near future, and from there.  There are plenty of lessons to learn--both what to do and what not to do--from those who experienced the outbreak earlier than Canada did.  We need some serious comparative analysis before making major decisions.

Tomorrow, I will address the Security group's questions and responses.

Be well!

Snowbirds vs. Blue Angels/Thunderbirds

This weekend, fast, loud fighter planes flew over both the US and Canada.  And such planes flew over Italy a few weeks ago.  So, why the outrage over the American version of aerial morale
boosting?

As someone who studies civil-military relations, I can't help but think that the motivation and symbolism are different here.  That President Trump has repeatedly tried to use the military in his political competitions with the Democrats and others.  This is not just the reference to his generals, but also his appearances at military audiences where he attacks his opponents and the media.  Moreover, he has also politicized the military by pardoning war criminals and insisting that they get their titles back while creating such fear among his civilian underlings that they fire naval captains who do what is best for their crew.

What is so galling about this is that Trump likes to try to wear the military's popularity as his own, yet refuses to take responsibility for when things go badly.

In Canada, the response to COVID has not been perfect--it was slow, in part because the big move should have been to close the border with the US.  But Trudeau has not spoken as if he is only the Prime Minister of the Liberal Party.  He has worked cooperatively with politicians from other parties, including Doug Ford, the Conservative Premier (think Governor) of Ontario.  While there have been some partisan fighting over some stuff (how often should Parliament sit), there has been little divisiveness over distribution of PPE, over Red vs. Blue Canada (Albertan alienation is a thing, but is not a core part of the COVID response politics).  The banning of assault weapons is the most partisan event of the past two months.  In short, Justin Trudeau has been acting as a leader of his country, not a leader of his faction.

And that makes all the difference in a time of crisis.  It shapes perceptions and symbolism.  So, sure, flying Snowbirds wastes fuel, like flying Blue Angels or Thunderbirds.  But since Trudeau has not hugged the flag in partisan ways while Trump has violated every norm of civil-military relations, I am ok with the Snowbird flights yet I strongly disapprove of the BA/T-Birds.

Week 7: Rising Hopes: Well-Placed, Mis-Placed

When I write these weekly posts marking the progress of the pandemic (and my aforementioned descent into madness), I can't help but think of the opening title sequences of Babylon 5 and how they changed over time:
Season 1:  It was the dawn of the third age of mankind
Season 2:  It was the year the Great War came upon us all.
Season 3:  It became something greater: our last, best hope for victory.
Season 4: It was the year of of fire, the year of destruction, the year we took back what was ours.  It was the year of rebrith, the year of great sadness, the year of pain, and a year of joy.  It was a new age.  It was the end of history. It was the year everything changed. 



Season 5: ... um, we used up all the good stuff in season 4, we got tired, and didn't have an opening speech like the previous seasons.

So, where are we?  I am thinking week seven is season 4.  Some good, some bad.  Things are opening up.... prematurely.  Furloughed Spew (that would be the LA kid for newcomers) got her unemployment benefits.  The CDSN held a conference and developed recommendations.  Much confusion about whether universities will be open in the fall (mine will be online is my guess).  The South Korean re-infected turned out to be false positives.  PM Justint Trudeau banned a heap of guns.  A Canadian naval helicopter was lost at sea.  I could go on. So, topsy-turvy kind of week, eh?  For some reason, seven weeks seems a lot longer and more shocking that six weeks.  Time is strange in quarantine.

For the Saideman quaranteam, it was a mostly good but mixed week.  No new infections, which is always good news.  I managed to get into Costco at the beginning the week and found everything I needed.  Even TP, which is now being mailed to my mother-in-law.  Really.  We tried an online organic grocery delivery system.  Mrs. Spew's reaction: meh, maybe better to do in the summer.  More zooms with friends from long ago and far away plus max Saideman zoom with siblings, cousins, and the cousins' kids.  Adding really young kids to a zoom changes the dynamic in fun ways. 

On Monday, the Canadian Defence and Security Network held a zoom conference.  The idea is that in this time of crisis, the least we defence/security academics could do is brainstorm and come up with policy ideas.  We asked the Canadian Department of National Defence to give us questions or scenarios, and we took those and did what we do best--think and argue.  We came up with a two page policy brief that we will share on Monday (didn't want to release at 5pm on a Friday plus having a French version to share is the right thing to do).  I presented some of the findings at a CDAI webinar on Friday and got a good response.  This has become the basis for an internal grant proposal (Carleton has been great at initiating new programs to employ students who have few other summer job prospects), which is this weekend's task. 

In terms of benchmarks, or is it milestones, I finished the grading of my MA class except for the papers with extensions.  I still need to read some dissertation proposals from my PhD proposal workshop, so the Winter term is not yet over, grading-wise.  Reviews go out, review requests come in--the academic tides have not changed much.

For those that accept this thing is going to take some time, I think we have found our rhythm, more or less (implicit plug for latest Battle Rhythm episode?).  It is easier for me to say since I have no kids at home.  For my friends with small children, well, I am sorry that things are unlikely to change soon.  I am just glad my friends are tough enough to handle going without haircuts for several weeks.

Isn't that the big surprise here?  That haircuts would be the thing that the snowflakes on the right would use as their rationale for opening up the economy?  I am not sure what I would have bet on seven weeks ago, but I would not have imagined that haircuts would be a thing.  What would tempt me to climb out of my quarantine hole and demand an opened economy?  The call of ultimate frisbee is strong, so the desire to run and jump and hang with people might tempt me to violate the quarantine .... if I was much more self-centered than I have admitted in many posts here (Happy 11th anniversary to the Semi-Spew!).  Yes, the appalling thing about the minority (and it is an overplayed small minority) pushing for the end of quarantine is how amazingly self-centered they are, how devoid of empathy they are.  Then again, they are mostly Trumpists, so, of course.

Damn, I had tried to avoid politics for an entire post and failed.  So, how's your week?