Last night, we held our wake for Neil Englehart. His wife, Professor Melissa Miller, also of Bowling Green State, attended for a while. She shared the story of how they met, what he had been up to since leaving UCSD, what his two boys were up to (the college aged one is following in Neil's footsteps both in terms of where he is going and what he is studying), and, yes, how Neil died. His last act was to donate his organs, which went to four different people. Melissa clearly got some much needed solace knowing that Neil helped save some lives. So, if you have not filled out the organ donation card and told your loved ones, do so, as it will not only save lives, but be of some help to them in such a difficult time.
About thirty of us got together on zoom last night to share stories about Neil and to be together at this time. A zoom wake is a strange thing, but we all got a lot out of it. I hadn't seen some of the people on it in about twenty-seven years or so, while others I have seen often. It was great to share some time with these people, as grad school was one of the best times of my life thanks to them. A member of our cohort put together a really terrific powerpoint of pictures of Neil and quotes from letters he had written from the field. "Besides the leeches" will become a recurring joke now among our cohort. Some of us then shared a few stories, toasted Neil, and then caught up with each other.
Neil did amazing fieldwork as an undergrad, as a graduate student, as a post-doc, and as a prof. I learned only last night that he went to North Korea in addition to Burma, Thailand, and other places. So, it is most appropriate that they are setting up the Dr. Neil Andrew Englehart Memorial Scholarship to fund BGSU students to do fieldwork. Here's the link and then the official description.
The scholarship description has not yet been added to the
site, but here it is:
Dr. Neil Andrew Englehart Memorial Scholarship
Bowling Green State University (BGSU)
The Dr. Neil Andrew Englehart Memorial
Scholarship will provide funds to help offset the costs of study abroad for
BGSU undergraduates. This scholarship will provide an ongoing source of funding
for students, as well as a lasting tribute to Dr. Englehart’s vision of
exposing undergraduates to international cultures, communities and challenges.
Dr. Englehart, Professor and Chair of BGSU’s Political Science
Department, always displayed a love and appreciation for international cultures
that began when he studied abroad in Thailand as an undergraduate. He
eventually traveled to 14 countries to conduct research and strived to bring
his international experiences into BGSU’s classrooms. Numerous accolades,
offered by current and former students after his untimely death at age 55,
attest to his unique ability to spark student curiosity and engagement with the
global community. His respect for students and their ability to grapple with
challenging issues of international importance was a hallmark of his teaching.
In this spirit, the Dr. Neil Andrew Englehart Scholarship is being established.
Dr. Englehart taught comparative politics, international
relations, and Asian Studies at Bowling Green State University from 2005 to
2020. He was an international expert on human rights, state failure and state
capacity, non-state armed groups, and Southeast Asia.
This was the week when I kept asking myself: what day is it? For some reason, I felt a bit more discombobulated than the previous thirteen weeks or so. Given that I had much going on this week--a variety of meetings and activities--getting the dates wrong would have been more consequential this week. I managed not to screw anything up, at least anything big, but it was a strange feeling.
To be clear, it is not just me. Mrs. Spew asked me about next week's meetings (she is overly nervous about how much noise she makes while I am zooming). I mentioned recording the anniversary edition of BattleRhythm. That's right--it will be one year! Anyhow, she asked "is it now weekly?" as she thought I had taped this past week. Nope, time flies strangely in a pandemic.
It was a bad week for Canada, an awful week for the United States, and a busy week for me.
Canada didn't get the UN Security Council seat it had been lobbying for since Trudeau got elected. And that was part of the problem--these things take about a decade and competing with two very respected countries--Ireland and Norway--made it hard to win. I had predicted long ago that this was not going to work out well for Canada. I get many predictions wrong, but that one I nailed. It was not Canada's seat to lose despite how it portrayed. Given that this was a focal point of a relatively unfocused foreign policy, I am joining others urging the government to do a foreign policy review so that people in government have new signposts to guide their work. Most folks are skeptical this will happen.
The US? On the bright side, Stephen Miller's efforts to get Trump to have a racist rally on Juneteenth has given much energy to making that day a national holiday. Ooops. On the dark side, we see the pandemic gaining strength in the south and southwest, despite the supposed effects of warm weather on the disease (Dr. Trump sucks at being a doctor). There will be more unnecessary deaths this summer, especially given how Trump is politicizing mask-wearing. He basically has said that those wearing masks are doing it to signal anti-Trump-ness, which means his cultist supporters will go along, spreading the disease further and further. And, yes, the week ended with the worst Attorney General, Bill Barr, doing his best to eliminate Federal Attorneys General who are doing their jobs well. That news along with people now getting access to the full Mueller Report are making it abundantly clear that Barr is Trump's lawyer and not fulfilling his role as Attorney General.
For me, this was a week figuring out how to amplify and ally better. The CDSN released a statement regarding Black Lives Matter with a new scholarship opportunity (more details to come out this summer) for undergraduate students who are Black, Indigenous, or of Colour in Canada and a promise to do better. The network was started in part to address the lack of diversity and inclusion in Canada's defence and security community. We have done a better job on gender and language than on race or other identities that often leave people excluded. The challenge is that there are fewer organizations dedicated towards improving diversity in the security community in Canada than in the US.
So, when one of those American organizations, Diversity in National Security Network, asked me to amplify a Black scholar in the US on Juneteenth on twitter as part of a larger effort to match Black scholars with folks who have decent sized twitter followings, I agreed to do so. Yesterday, I tweeted out the stuff that Muhammad Fraser-Rahim gave me, and I asked him some questions. It led to a dialogue as well as more people for me to follow as several Black scholars and national security practitioners liked/retweeted the tweets, which led me to twitter accounts that were knew to me. I don't know if my efforts to amplify Muhammad led to him having more followers, but it did lead to me following more people. A few years ago, there was a twitter discussion about how homogeneous most people's feeds are, so I started trying to do a better job of following on twitter people who are not white straight males. So, yesterday helped out greatly in that effort.
I was honored to be asked to help out. It is strange to be called an ally as most of what I do involves no risk to me, little cost, and generally falls into the category of "just being decent." Anytime anyone refers to me as an ally, I feel squishy. Mostly because I don't think I have done much, although posting about sexism in the academy and the like is something. Maybe partly because my work on alliances reminds me that not all allies are all that reliable. The past few weeks of Black Lives Matter protests remind me that we have not done enough for those who have been marginalized by existing power structures, so as I enter the last third or so of my career and the part where I probably have more power, I will aim to do better. Which in practical terms meant spending this week setting up meetings next week to discuss how the CDSN and other organizations in Canada can do a better job of including those who have generally been left out.
Pete and his cidery
Mrs Spew and I by the old mill street post-picnic
Flying Canoe swag plus CR's
As a change of pace from the drumbeat of pandemic news and of racism in the US and Canada, Mrs. Spew and I got out of Ottawa for the first time since ... March 13th. We drove to Spencerville, the home of the Flying Canoe Cider Company. Pete and Melissa, the owners and purveyors of cider, lived across the street from us until their ambitions got too big. Now, they live in a small town in a big house that happens to have a cidery attached to it. So, we went down to grab some cider (it is available in liquor stores and grocery stores in Ottawa as well as many bars), some Flying Canoe Swag, and some excellent cinnamon rolls from a place across the street. We then ate some fine Italian sandwiches made by another place across the street while sitting near the Mill and a stream. It was not much of a holiday, but it was definitely different from the previous thirteen weeks. We may explore more small towns near Ottawa over the summer--I have spotted one with a pie place that is calling out to me.
Tonight, this week will end with a UCSD wake for Neil Englehart. It will be quite sad, of course, as we reflect on a great guy who was taken too soon. However, I am looking forward to seeing all the folks from my time in San Diego. When I look back on my life, grad school, often seen as the most painful part of one's life, is one of the highlights. I was really happy and it was not just because San Diego is a wonderful place to live. It was mostly because of the people--not just that they were smart and smart but sweet and silly and generous. They made me a better person by the examples they set, and we had a hell of a lot of fun.
So, tonight will be a mixture of sad and sweet. And it will remind me and it should remind everyone to reach out and be in contact with those who made an impact on our lives because you never know when it won't be possible to do so. This pandemic should make it abundantly clear that death, as they say, is unbeaten, that time passes all too quickly, and that we need connection. Social distancing is, yes, the wrong phrase, as we need to be physically apart now but we have never needed to be connected to be people than now. Maybe that is why I have become a zoom cruise director. Or maybe this extrovert is just thirsty for companionship. All I know for certain is that folks need to reach out and connect even if it does not get them the UN Security Council seat they have craved.
Canadian politics twitter was in an uproar last night as Canada failed to get enough votes to get a temporary UN Security Council seat .... for the second time in ten years. People are putting way too much on this event, and yet there is some stuff we can learn. So, I am going to go through various aspects of the entire thing to show where Canada really stands today (mostly the same place it stood a week ago contrary to what my friend JC wrote).
First, it was not Canada's seat to lose. One could argue that Canada could have done better, but some folks (me!) predicted long ago that Canada was not going to win, before Canada's hand got weaker via spats with Saudi Arabia and China, before the shine of the Liberals was tarnished by the SNC-Lavalin scandal, before it became clear that the Liberal government was not going to much peacekeeping, nor perhaps have a very coherent foreign policy. I learned about five or so years ago at an embassy event that these campaigns to win these seats take eight or ten years. So, Canada was late to the competition. Trudeau should have aimed for a later cycle. Being late meant being less prepared and also perhaps been seen as an interloper. And the competition: Ireland and Norway! Two very good international citizens, that do much in terms of aid, peacekeeping, and other stuff. This also meant that a normal constituency for Canadian votes--Europe--was largely off the table. Have Ireland and Norway annoyed the entire Mideast by taking strongly pro-Israel stances? So, you can see Canada entered the race late with much baggage. Why did Canada deserve a seat more than Ireland or Norway? I have no idea. And obviously, Canada did not and perhaps could not make that case.
Second, Canada was the victim of some unfortunate circumstances that was mostly not Canada's fault. The election of Trump has rightfully caused the Trudeau government to focus far more attention on US-Canadian relations than on other stuff. That is the correct prioritization given what the US means to Canada. Which, of course, led to alienating China. I am sure China's moves to being a more belligerent rising power would have hit Canada in some way, but the extradition of the Huawei exec has been the source of much conflict. Countries seeking to suck up to China might not vote for Canada these days. Same goes for the Saudis. Given these circumstances getting 108 votes may not have been a bad outcome, less than last time, but more than one might have expected given these headwinds.
Third, one can look at Canadian foreign policy and, yes, blame Canada and Trudeau. Canada now has the lowest number of peacekeepers deployed in decades. When it did do something mildly significant, sending helicopters and medical personnel to Mali, Canada steadfastly refused to extend the mission when their replacements were slow to get there. Canada's aid budget is relatively small. Canada's biggest presence in Africa is probably via mining companies, and I am guessing those, even if relatively well-behaved, are not the best representatives of maple, moose, and the like.
People are using this loss to argue that Canadian foreign policy is largely incoherent, that Global Affairs Canada are understaffed, underresourced (how many embassies does Canada have in Africa?), and may not play well with others or themselves (there may still be an aid/foreign office split within GAC). One could also argue that besides the seat itself, a campaign promise made long ago, Trudeau and his team don't really care that much about international relations.
Some, such as my colleague, Phil Lagassé, have argued that Canadians seem to have an entitlement attitude based on nostalgia. That the greatest hits in Canadian foreign policy are long ago. I am still new here (18 years is new, right?) so I don't really know what it was like long ago. I do think Canada has a good brand in the world, still. That Trudeau still has charisma that plays well. But Canada never really had a chance and never really invested that much in this effort. It chose the least risky, shortest possible peacekeeping mission, it did not invest more in foreign assistance, and it did not take a really bold stance that might have alienated some but perhaps won others over. A no-risk strategy simply would not work if starting from behind against very deserving countries.
So, where do we go from here? What would make sense is a comprehensive review of Canada's foreign policy. There hasn't been one in many, many years, but doing so might identify what matters most, what tools Canada can use to be more successful in its relations, strategies for deploying said tools, and so on. I do think that some of the critics are right--that Global Affairs Canada could do better with more engagement with academics (yes, I am always self-serving) and non-governmental organizations. While the Defence Policy Review that produced Strong, Secure, Engaged did not produce radical change, it gave Canada's defence folks critical signposts to direct their efforts. GAC only had the UN SC seat. It needs new, clearer directions for the next decade or so. And perhaps Canadian leaders could be more strategic about picking when to compete for a seat. For that blunder, yes, Trudeau should get the blame. For how Canada is perceived in the world, that is less the fault of the current government and more the reality of the situation it is in.
Do I expect Canada to figure out its role in the world? For this government to invest more resources? To do a foreign policy review? Ah, that is a post for another day. I am sure we are all depressed enough right now.
One of the
impetuses driving the creation of the CDSN was the need to foster a more
diverse and inclusive defence and security community.The murder of George Floyd as well as of
other Black Americans, the repeated demonstrations of police brutality aimed at
the protesters, and events closer to home remind us that we can and should do
better.First, we endorse the statement
made by Women In International Security-Canada, a founding partner of the CDSN:
We stand in
solidarity with the fight against anti-black systemic racism and white
supremacy. We condemn all forms of inequality, xenophobia, and discrimination
against Black people. Black lives matter.
Across the world, we
are witnessing the collective pain of a community who has survived
intergenerational discrimination and dehumanization. We are seeing the grief of
a community that cannot trust the police who swore an oath to protect them.
George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Tony McDade. Ahmaud Arbery. Regis
Korchinski-Paquet. It is painful to say the names of people who have died far
too early at the hands of white supremacy, knowing this list extends for
centuries and includes hundreds of thousands of lives. It is more painful, but
necessary, to say without massive change this list will expand.
We know this problem
permeates all borders. This includes Canada. Canada was built on the genocide
of Indigenous peoples; our state is maintained through systemic oppression
against Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of colour. To this day,
Black and Indigenous peoples are disproportionately reflected in fatal
interactions with police.
From the disproportionate
effects of COVID-19, to fighting against police violence, Black people continue
to be on the front lines of a war against racism and systemic injustice. We
cannot conceptualize security without considering the peace and security of
Black people. It is a security problem when access to education, housing, and
healthcare are dependent on the colour of one’s skin. It is a security problem
when political, social, and economic participation is conditional on the colour
of one’s skin. It is a security crisis when people are more likely to be jailed
because of the colour of their skin. It is a security crisis when innocent
people are killed because of the colour of one’s skin.
WIIS-Canada is
dedicated to advancing women’s voices in international security. This project
of inclusion must be anti-racist. Racism is a feminist issue. Complacency and
silence are complicity.
We the board of
Directors and Executive of WIIS-Canada stand in solidarity with those seeking
justice.[1]
Second, we
are working out the details for a new CDSN scholarship for undergraduate
students who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Colour.Third, we will work to develop partnerships
with organizations seeking to foster greater equity, diversity, and inclusion
in the defence and security community.
This whole thing started for us and mostly for the US and Canada the second week of March--closing things down, realizing the virus was here in a big way. That is three months ago. At the time, I guess I thought the shut down would last a couple of months so that we could flatten the curve. Did I expect to still be mostly staying at home in June? I don't think so. Then again, I didn't expect Black Lives Matter to take off the way it has this past few weeks. I had grown cynical about protests. Did I expect the worst civ-mil crisis of my lifetime? Nope. I guess the one thing I had expected was that governments would use this time to develop good, reliable, fast testing and tracing. So, there lies my greatest frustration--not with the impatience of the people to go out and gather, but with the failure of the US and Canada to do what was necessary to manage the re-openings. Although to be clear, I am also annoyed that people are so impatient about getting back together and refusing to wear masks.
That's a lot of stuff to think about this week. Yet we still keep keeping on. I ran the first of the CDSN Summer Doctoral Seminars. The idea is to give those students who have been deprived of chances to present work and to network--due to the cancelled conferences and workshops--an opportunity to do so. It went really well. We had a good discussion of how to do research in a time of pandemic, we got to know each other a bit. The students come from across Canada and a few beyond. It is strange that I volunteered essentially to teach an extra class, but it felt mighty good to do so.
The second CDSN activity of the week was coming up with a statement and a plan addressing Black Lives Matter. We will roll those out on Monday. We didn't just want to say something and do nothing more than that. Looking at our team and our efforts over the past year, we did pretty well on some dimensions of diversity and inclusion and less well on others, and the Black Lives Matter protests remind us that we can and should do more.
The third CDSN effort was, of course, Battle Rhythm. I taped an interview with Lindsay Cohn, an expert on the use of regular troops on US soil, on Sunday, and then taped the usual Stef and Steve part of the podcast on Tuesday. One of the benefits of podcasting every two weeks is I get to hang out with a pal on a regular basis. It was fun to see that Stef's idea of good military satire, War Machine, was much different than mine, M*A*S*H, as we discussed Space Force.
The fourth CDSN effort (jeez, a busy week!) was to meet with the team of research assistants to work on the COVID Response project. Funded by Carleton, these students will try to develop the answers we gave after our conference in late April.
The highlight of the week was probably the Civ-Mil hangout. I invited the folks on twitter who do civil-military relations to join a zoom to connect with each other. It became more popular than I had expected with some non-twitter people, including one of the most senior civ-mil folks, folks from three of the US war colleges, and a bunch of graduate students I had to organize subgroups for breakout rooms. Luckily, I could rely on some folks to moderate those rooms. Overall, it went really well, and there is definitely interest for future iterations.
And it was well timed, given the upheaval in US civil-military relations. Not only were people reflecting on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley being in Trump's photo op (after peaceful protesters were forcefully ejected) and Milley's apology for it (or the perceptions he created), but also the statements by the service chiefs regarding Black Lives Matter and the effort by Elizabeth Warren to require the various military bases to drop their names honoring Confederate generals and other traitors. Lots of really good stuff online including a re-launch of the Thank You For Your Service podcast now with Alice Hunt Friend and Jim Golby.
Matt York/AP
Getting back to Black Lives Matter, I have seen a lot of debate about what Abolish and Defund mean. Thanks to the efforts by police departments around North America (including the RCMP) abusing their power, I have been sufficiently radicalized that I support both Abolish and Defund after discussing more modest reforms last week. The good news is that we are now having debates about how to roll back the over-policing, rather than how to expand the police. This past week has not only seen NASCAR ban the confederate flag but also the banning of chokeholds in some places, decisions to re-allocate spending from police to mental health folks and others, the giving up of ... yes, grenade launchers by the LA School District police, and more. So, yes, protests work. Public attitudes have shifted. While I am hoping this lasts, I am also hoping that everyone who can seizes this moment and gets as much change now since the momentum will not last.
So, yes, it has been three months of mostly staying at home, and we see the curves bending in the wrong direction in many places. But this week has provided much hope--that saner heads can prevail (Milley won the argument vs Trump over the use of regulars), that change can happen. On the other hand, we need to be clear eyed, as lynchings still take place and as police continue to abuse their authority and the public's trust. I prefer to focus on the progress that has been made and that is in front of us, because doing otherwise will just force me to bake more sweets which only leads to stress eating and then stress exercising.
Be well and remember: with great masks comes great responsible behavior
And, no, I am not cutting my hair. This is
my last great chance to see how long I can
get it.
Listening to a bunch of podcasts crystallized something for me (Jemelle Hill on the Pressbox Podcast, Bakari Sellers on the Bill Simmons podcast). When Trump became President, he gave permission essentially to racists to be publicly racist, that they didn't have to feel shame for stating racist stuff outloud. As Sellers (it might have been Hill) noted, the striking thing about the Charlottesville racists was not what they were saying but that they were doing it without masks.
What is going on now? This tweet and video struck me:
Um, yeah, the cops around North America have much to be shameful for. Saying that they are being shamed is striking after three plus years of shamelessness. This is progress--that impunity and entitlement are no longer in fashion. That the public now, via various surveys, is ashamed of what the police are doing, and it is having a political impact. A number of cities and states are starting to act to restrict the police in various ways, to regulate them.
In Philadelphia, they took down the statue of Frank Rizzo, a polarizing police commissioner and mayor. Politicians were always worried about doing anything like this because Rizzo was the first Italian-American mayor of Philly, and because doing so would offend, well, the white supremacists. Then in a quick series of events, it happens. And what is striking about that--not much opposition was raised. Why? Because anyone doing so would face withering shame. The silence is striking.
Shame is back! Ok, not entirely, as Trump has not gone into hiding (unless you call his self-caging counts) and white supremacists like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter are still getting time on TV. But now, a new boycott movement is underway to make Fox pay a price for having Carlson on.
Obviously, there is more going on, and maybe I am exaggerating. But I do think that just as Trump's election gave permission to racists, anti-semites, xenophobes, homophobes, and misogynists to be more brazen, I think the past few weeks may be started to reverse that.
It wasn't enough to have a poorly managed government response to a pandemic. Nope, we had to have incredibly bad responses to protests about the death of George Floyd. I will sift through and look for glimmers of hope, but the police have done one thing quite well: demonstrate that the country has a severe police brutality problem.
It has a police entitlement problem. When cops in Buffalo resign from an emergency team after two of their own get suspended (not fired, just suspended) for assaulting an older protester, when cops in Philly have a blue flu protest, staying home, because, yes, Joey Bologna, a cop, was held responsible for acting brutally, when cops keep on assaulting reporters, legal advisers, and medics, it is not just a matter of a few bad cops. Organizational cultures are diseased, oversight structures are broken. The problem is systemic. As someone who studies civilian control of the military, I am utterly appalled at what the cops can do, defying their civilian masters. Intimidating them, as we see de Blasio in NYC caving in before, during, and after the police union doxxed his daughter.
And, of course, Trump, whose campaign started with racist appeals, inciting violence, has kept on keeping on. His photo op only succeeded in worsening civil-military relations by putting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in an awful position. General Milley could have handled it better, but he should not have had to.
The good news is the protests are working--Trump is even less popular, the police have inadvertently fostered more support for police reform, people are openly talking about breaking police unions (easier to say now, still hard to do), and the opponents to all of this are on their backheels. The NFL got pushed by its players to reverse its stance on Kaepernick and other protesters.
We shall see if anything real comes from that, but it is notable.
And, yes, COVID-19 is still lurking. Many cities are starting to reach capacity in their ICU's, and the police are the disease's ally by ripping off people's masks, by sticking them in enclosed spaces, and by causing these people to have to continue to protest. The economies of Canada and the US are opening up. This will increase risk. I have no desire to spend time in any restaurants these days (although this week's events inspired me to try out a Black-owned Carribean place for takeout--and it was great).
The week was difficult for another reason. Mrs. Spew has had worse set of allergies this year than in previous years, and she had to go one of the few places in Ottawa that is treating respiratory stuff--a COVID testing centre--despite the fact that she did not have COVID. She did get tested for it, and, she does not have it. Well, not yet, but that experience may have increased the odds that she might catch it due to a three hour wait. So, no, Ontario and Ottawa are not handling this great. The Canadian COVID experiences are bimodal--Quebec and Ontario are having problems flattening the curve while BC has fought it quite well and the Maritimes have mostly dodged it. However, since most of the people reside in QC and ON, the national figures are not great.
I have had difficulty in hiring research assistants, but this is actually good news--that the co-op programs that employ so many NPSIA grad students are starting to kick into gear. The students may work at home (or not, it varies, I guess), but it means that they don't need my research grant money. This may inhibit my project, but it is good for them.
Other good news? Carleton continues to do the right things, making fast decisions to go online, and giving us the support we need to make our fall online experience much better than this winter's sudden entry into the digital classroom. I have started working on my 90 student upper division IR theory class with my co-teacher, David Hornsby (aka Associate VP of Teaching), with some fun ideas to make it work. There is also a growing collaboration among IR profs in Canada to share their stuff so that we do not all have to create stuff from scratch.
Events like these remind us that community is important, and there are all kinds of communities out there. My effort to have a civ-mil hang has taken off, so now I have to figure out how to manage it since it is a bit more complicated than saying "hey, let's all meet at the conference bar at such and such time." I think we are all thirsty for community, having been separated by quarantine. I know I am, which is why I have become a zoom organizer of poker games, tenure parties (congrats to Steph and Alex), aforementioned civ-mil hangoutts, and, alas, a wake.
In these difficult times, reach out. Tell those you love that you love them, that you miss them, that you appreciate them. For instance, I really appreciate my niece asking us to donate the present we were going to give her to a worthy BLM-related charity, so we did. She and her siblings and cousins have turned out to be amazing adults with big hearts and righteous impatience. Recent events remind me that sometimes you regret not doing so when you had the chance. And, yes, as Mr. Rogers reminds us, watch the helpers, like the folks in DC that let dozens of protesters into their homes to evade the pepper-spraying cops.
Be well, wash your hands, hug in person or virtually your loved ones, and Black Lives Matter.
This problem is not about one or two bad cops. We see police brutality from coast to coast (and in Canada, too). Some departments have handled things better than others as I noted last week. While biking, I listened to the Bill Simmons podcast episode with DeRay Mckesson, who has been an activist on these issues since at least Ferguson. I was struck by much of what they discussed but also have some additional suggestions as I have been thinking of this stuff the past week. To be sure, I am not an expert, but my outrage has caused me to think beyond what I have studied (as if I don't exceed my expertise all the time). Update: for a good piece on the problems of modern policing, ee this article.
First, Mckesson discussed a dataset that he had helped built that identified the policies of the police departments of the 100 biggest cities in the US. They found that eight policies together reduce the likelihood of cops killing citizens by 72%. These eight are:
Require officers to de-escalate situations.
Ban choke/strangleholds.
Require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers (the George Floyd case illustrates that one quite well).
Restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles. Looks good in the movies but is dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous.
Develop a Force Continuum that limits types of force and/or weapons that can be used in specific types of situations.
Require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force (this isn't required already?)
Require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian.
Require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against civilians.
This is all common sense, right? The police unions (more below) will say that this endangers the cops and makes cities more dangerous. The data very much says otherwise. That cities where this stuff is enacted don't have more cops getting killed and don't have more crime. I would go one step further: that the onus of risk in any interaction between police officer and civilian should be on the police officer. Their job is to protect and serve. If they are unwilling to risk their lives for civilians, well then, don't join. If they think their lives are more important than civilians, again, don't join.
The good news is that most of these policies can be enacted by mayors and police chiefs and city commissioners. Most don't require negotiating a new contract. However, as Bill de Blasio has shown, mayors live in fear of the cops and their unions.
Mckessesen goes to talk about reducing the role of cops--that they are lousy at handling mental health problems, so don't send them out for such calls. Send mental health specialists. And the like.
I have two other proposals that are more politically, um, difficult.
Radical transparency. Police departments fought hard not to let this project get the information on policies. Many union contracts require departments to rip up complaints after a few years. The week's events, with the repeated assaults on the press, indicate that bad departments and bad cops fear the light of day. So, let's turn the lights on real bright. There should be state and potentially federal laws that require all police policies to be public, the next contracts should require that any complaints are made public, that any complaints that are proven to be valid are made permanently public, and so on. We need to have better data, we need to hold accountable those who bad things, and those who might be tempted to do bad things should know that their bad behavior will follow them the rest of their lives. The consequences for the public of abuses of authority are very high, so the consequences for those who abuse their powers should similarly be high. Again, if you can't take it, don't join the police.
Break the police unions. Yeah, I said it. They seem largely to serve the bad cops and encourage bad behavior. If they are unwilling to change the culture and behavior of police, then we must find ways to reduce their power. This weekend, the NYC police union released information about ... the mayor's daughter! They feel so empowered, so entitled that they are willing to endanger the mayor's daughter. And his reaction? Cowering in fear apparently. There is work and activism on this via https://www.checkthepolice.org/. When unions serve as protection rackets, they need to be radically reformed.
And, yes, who radicalized me? Not Deray McKessen. Nope, it was all of the videos this week of cops spraying pepper spray arbitrarily, of cops breaking and stealing the supplies of protestors, of cops attacking journalists, of cops picking the vocal but peaceful protestors out of the line and beating them. The First Amendment was violated in so many ways over the past week. The cops have proved that there is a police brutality problem by beating those who were protesting police brutality. As a result, there needs to be a massive shift in how we think and do policing. I get that the job can be dangerous, but only 5% of arrests are of violent criminals. They may think they are under threat all the time, but part of that is that their behavior creates the conditions that make that more likely. Crime has been doing down for decades, but police brutality has not.
The nationwide mobilization against police brutality demonstrates that local and state politicians have more political capital to do something now. The question now is: will decision makers fear the police unions or their citizens more?
There is a lot going wrong in the US--pandemic, deep recession, a most corrupt government, racial injustice--but my corner lately has been civil-military relations. That subfield focuses on how do civilians control their militaries and how do their armed forces react to the exertions of control. One classic issue is how do the armed forces react when asked to engage in domestic security operations. Do they obey, do they resist, do they initiate? In the US, civ-mil scholars usually focus on whether the military fully complies with the orders of civilians, do the civilians take into account the advice of the military, and whether civilians and military understand each other. Often, folks say there is a crisis in US civ-mil relations for one reason or another.
Yesterday was perhaps not the worst day in American civil-military relations, as the US army didn't kill, capture, or torture citizens (see Lindsay' Cohn's article for some history and the legalities of all of this). But because of the many different actions yesterday broke so many different norms of American civil-military relations, it was perhaps the worst day for this important relationship since the Great Depression (since the vets marched on Washington).
Let me briefly listicle the key actors in American civ-mil and where things have gone so very wrong:
The person who has the main responsibility for navigating the relationship is the Secretary of Defense as the most senior civilian focused on defense. SecDef Mark Esper referred to Minneapolis as a "battlespace" which only makes sense if ... American citizens are the adversary. It was an awful, awful thing to say because it basically means that the US military, regulars or National Guard, are at war with civilians.
Senators and Representatives on the respective Armed Services committees play a key role in overseeing the armed forces. One of the key players on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tom "Harvard maybe overrated" Cotton called on the US regular troops to entry the fray holding back nothing and giving no quarter--which means killing those who surrender. Everyone pointed out this would be a war crime. Given that the GOP has a majority in the Senate, don't expect much serious oversight coming from there, as Cotton and his peers are unlikely to let the agenda of that committee drift towards doing its responsibilities.
AP-Patrick Semansky from Defense One
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffis senior adviser to the President and the SecDef but has no command authority except over the Joint Staff--a group of unarmed staffers (I didn't see a weapon in my year in the Pentagon on the Joint Staff except by troops from elsewhere guarding the building). Yet, Trump said that he was in command. Making it appear that way, General Mark Milley walked around the protest/police riot* area, wearing his BDU's--the uniform officers wear when engaged in operations, not the usual spiffy uniform worn when advising the President. So, even if Milley was not in command, he appeared to be so.
The President of the United States, commander-in-chief, abused his authority to deploy US forces--National Guard and maybe Regular--for a photo op. I have not read anything yet that clarifies who flying Blackhawk helicopters to disperse crowds--has that ever happened before on US soil--but it came clearly at the request of Trump so that he could waddle over to a
Sam Ward from DCist.com
vandalized church (despite the preferences of those who run that church) and hold a bible awkwardly. Does the President have the authority to do this? According to Lindsay Cohn, mostly, yes. But abuse of power is when one uses their power in ways that are inappropriate. There may be more inappropriate ways to use the military, but using them for a photo op while squelching the first amendment rights of peaceful protesters is clearly very wrong.
The last components of civilian control of the armed forces are the media and the public. No, they are not "in control" of the military, but they play a vital role in the civilian-military relationship. The media helps to shine a spotlight on when either the civilians, the military, or both are engaging ways harmful to good civ-mil relations. The media has been doing its job this weekend, despite being under attack by police forces across the country. Why attack the media? Because it is much harder to hold the police accountable if we cannot see and hear what they are doing. The public also plays a vital role--sending signals to their representatives what is acceptable or not and engaging in protest if their politicians do not act. The vast majority of citizens involved have been engaged in protest including civil disobedience. We shall see if the surveys match what we have seen thus far. The problem is that Trump polarizes everything. This weekend, there was a survey that showed the vast majority of Americans on the same side. We shall see if this continues.
So, on the whole, civil-military relations are broken. Not irreparably so, but that may still happen. The big questions ahead are:
If Trump insists on sending troops to states where governors don't want them, will they go? When leaders seek to use the military to repress, the military has a choice not to leave their bases. Last night, elements left their bases for operations in DC, which has a special status, seen essentially as federal property. While many lines have been crossed, sending regular US forces into hostile states would be a big red line.
What will Congress do?
How will the public react? The US military, like the armed forces of many democracies, is one of the most popular institutions. Why? In part because it is seen as non-partisan, whereas most other institutions are seen as partisan which combined with polarization leads to one part or another or both of America disliking it. If the US military jumps in, doing Trump's bidding beyond, public support of the armed forces will surely drop. It may already be happening thanks to this weekend's events.
We have lived in dark times for quite a while, but as Trump keeps reminding us, it can always get worse. Yesterday was the worst day in American civil-military relations in recent memory.... but it can get worse.
