Giving the French Their Due

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

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

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

A Brady Kid

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

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

Horrible Boss?

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

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

Rank Rankings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Does Conspiracy Theory updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

More as we figure things out.

Defense Outsiders Disagree

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

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

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

Americans Have a Lot of Gumption

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

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

I Missed It, She Did Not!

Didn't catch the game except on twitter.


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

Montreal Rocks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sappy Spew

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


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

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

Germany, Confused

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

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

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

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

The New World Map

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

The new world map on Prezi

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

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

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

Thinking Sigil-ly

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

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

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

What would your House/Sigil/Motto be?

Canada Out of Combat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romeo and Gryffindor

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


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

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

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

Why I Blog

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

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

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

Leaving The Same Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All You Needed to Know About the NFL Lockout

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

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

Residual Categories Make for Tough Social Science

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

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

Raining Mud

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