When the New Guys Exceed the Old Guys

This week is the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.  The Bush team got much criticism, and deservedly so, for its core approach: to be arrogant enough that they believed that the realities did not matter as they were going to impose their views on reality.  All the noise and complications of what might happen in Iraq were dismissed because it was their mission to revise the map and the realities of the Mideast by removing Hussein. This was an awful approach for many reasons, including empowering Iran, energizing the radical Islamists, and breaking Iraq which has ramifications we are facing in Mosul today. 

The new team of Trump folks seem to be even more arrogant and definitely more ignorant as they seek to act in ways that ignore the very basics of international relations.  What basics are these?

• Countries respond to threats by balancing--either via building up their arms or by developing new alliances (Realism).
• The recent news that Russia is cutting back might suggest this is wrong ... unless Russia views the US as less threatening.  
• The recent news that some Germans are now pondering what it means for the US to be an adversary is one hint of this dynamic
• That Tillerson, Secretary of Dumb Diplomacy, is now semi-encouraging Japan to develop nuclear weapons suggests a path for Japan.  Which would, of course, lead to counter-responses by South Korea, China, etc.
• Reciprocity is key to international relations (Liberalism). Trump seems to think he can impose policies upon trading partners, including building barriers to trade.  It is most likely that if he imposes tariffs, others will respond.  
• The domestic politics of other countries matter (much of the rest of IR). Bullying friends and foes alike will make it harder for them to compromise since their domestic audiences will be upset if they see their leader submitting to Trump.  Merkel, for instance, has an election coming up, so her performance last week was all about making clear that she would stick by German values (which are also translatlantic values, thanks to generations of US-European institution building and cooperation and reciprocity).

So, Tillerson blunders through Asia and Trump keeps on Trumping along.  Ignorance is bliss until you need friends to do something for you.  The future is not bright, but we might need to wear shades anyway (nuclear explosions are oh so bright).  Ok, that is a bit much, but if the Iraq War of 2003 tells us anything, it is to be wary of those who think that the realities of International Relations can be ignored or overcome via enough confidence.

Suspicion at the White House

Huh? Devin Nunes says of "people working at the White House now," none are under intel investigation or surveillance "but one." pic.twitter.com/9lxN79cbgl

— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) March 19, 2017

It could be Trump, Bannon or Gorka.  So very disappointing if it were Gorka.  But still worth this:

Special NATO Burden-Sharing 101 for President Trump

Dear President Trump,

I see that you are still confused about how NATO works.  While there is, indeed, some money that goes to keep the lights on at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mons, and elsewhere, and there are a few key NATO military units (early warning planes, some drones, a few other bits and pieces), the burden-sharing problem is not about that. 

In your meeting with Chancellor Merkel, you said:

I reiterated to Chancellor Merkel my strong support for NATO, as well as the need for our NATO allies to pay their fair share for the cost of defense. Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years and it is very unfair to the United States. These nations must pay what they owe.

No, that is not how it works.  The burden-sharing problem that has been the subject of many NATO meetings, including the Wales Summit, is about each country paying enough (the 2% of GDP aspiration) for their own defense.  It is not about Germany or France or Estonia giving money to Brussels or to the US, but about Germany spending enough on new tanks, planes, ships and enough on a large enough armed forces and enough on fuel and all the rest.  The idea is not that the US is getting ripped off, that somehow countries owe the US money, but that the alliance would be better off if all the allies spent more on their militaries.  The past shortfalls do not mean that countries are in debt to the US or to NATO--it just means that their militaries are not in as good shape as we would like.  It means that they don't have as many tanks or planes or whatever or that their personnel are not as well trained.  The underspending over the years is problematic, but these countries do not owe any debts from the past to catch up in their accounts at NATO HQ.  Again, this is not how it works.

So, next time you complain about burden-sharing, don't suggest that the US is owed money.  Because it is simply wrong. 

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Steve

The Imperatives Are What?

I have regularly seen stuff online or in academic publications complaining about professionalization and what it has meant for Political Science.  The basic idea is that things were great before people became focused on stuff like citation counts, which has led to all kinds of perverse incentives.  The main complaint, it seems, is that scholars will try to game citations and this will force them into bad habits and away from good work, like thinking big thoughts (grand theory).

NATO Rant Du Jour: A Rand Rant

So, Rand Paul and maybe Mike Lee are all that are standing in the way of US ratification of Montenegro's membership in NATO.  The claim: "Paul released a statement after the incident that said the huge and growing national debt is why the U.S. should not take on any additional commitments around the world."

Really?  What a joke.  Given Montenegro's position in Europe, its size and the threats it faces, committing to its defense is not going to cost the US much at all.  It is a silly argument.  John McCain has accused Paul of doing Putin's bidding.  Is that unfair?  Probably, but context is key here.

Russia has being doing its damnedest to keep Monty out of NATO, including trying to launch a coup.  Given Putin's roll lately, how about we thwart him and do what he doesn't want?  Momentum may not matter that much (overrated in sports, if you ask Bill Barnwell), but it probably matters a bit in IR.  Today is already a good day in anti-Russia news with the Dutch not falling for the far right (Geert Wilders's party did better than it did in the past but less well than expected, so suck on that Putin).  It would have been nice to make it a double delightful day. 

It is strange that an individual senator or two can block some stuff, but the Dems can't block a SCOTUS appointment.  Tis a strange body with strange rules.  But stranger is Rand Paul's stance right now since his stated claim is utter horseshit (Funny how I curse more now that Trump is president).

Anyhow, take it from this scholar of NATO that Rand Paul's claim about how expensive it for the US is to add a tiny country to NATO is entirely without merit.

Logan: One Hot Take

Just saw Logan, enjoyed it muchly.  I have just one nit to pick beyond the spoiler break.

My Current Secessionist Stances

I generally oppose secession in democracies since it usually is very costly for all, and these groups usually have ways to have their interests addressed while staying put (yes, Quebec, I am speaking of you).

So, what do I think about the two hypothesized secessionist efforts: Scotland and California/Blue America?

I opposed Scottish separatism the last time because I didn't think the benefits were good enough, and the Scots seemed to have enough sway to get what they needed while staying in.  Um, now?  Oh my.  I think that Brexit essentially represents the English reneging on the deal, that it is being yanked out of the EU.  Sure, it may take time and heaps of paperwork to rejoin, but I could see why leaving the UK as it tries to destroy itself might be a good move.  So, I am no longer opposed.

California/Blue America?  In short: FFS.  The plight of Blue America is, if the institutions are not destroyed utterly, temporary.  Opting out because of a lost election is very much antithetical to democracy.  If Trump utterly subverts the system and the US is no longer a democracy, then one can speak of separatism. But Blue America needs to stay put to rescue the rest of America from Trumpism.  Leaving would consign all of the nonTrump people of remnant America to perpetual awfulness.  Stay and fight, damn it!

Of course, the only folks who are serious about California secession are Russians, so maybe any fellow travelers/useful idiots might want to think about why that might be the case.  Let's focus on resisting Trump, not surrendering to him, shall we?

--Sincerely, Cranky Steve

When Worlds Collide

Turns out that Rachel Green, of Friends, ended up ditching her sales job and now is an editorial assistant at a predatory journal:

Trump Folks are Lousy Students

There was a fun series of tweets about what the Trump folks might have missed in Intro to Poli Sci.  It got me thinking about what they might have missed in my old Intro to IR course (which I have not taught since moving to Carleton).

Here are the topics (red indicating ones that the Trumpers must have missed:

Weeks 3-4: Basics: Levels of Analysis, Anarchy, Imperialism and Power 

Key concepts missed here are the costs of empire, that power is more than military stuff.

Week 4: Interests and Interactions                                                     

Key concepts missed here are that outcomes are products of interests of competing actors, that the security dilemma means that unilateral efforts to improve security produce counterproductive dynamics.

Week 5: Interactions, pt II, Institutions                                             

That institutions are expensive to build, that they serve US interests.

Week 6: Identity and Individuals                                                               

As white supremacists that think that individual personalities matter a great deal, they ace this part of the course, sort of.

Weeks 7-8: War and Coercive Diplomacy                                                

So much fail here: that bargaining involves credibility to do or not do what one promises to do or not do,  that force has limited utility, that war is not inevitable, etc.

Week 9: Alliances & Nuclear Weapons                                                      

Even more fail here: what causes alliances to develop or fall apart (bullying is not so good), that nuclear proliferation is bad, that nuclear weapons have limited utility, etc.

Week 10:  International Political Economy                                               

They get that trade can cause concentrated pain and diffuse benefits, but miss all of the Milner-esque goodness--that American firms rely on imports so tariffs would make their stuff less competitive.  Of course, they don't really care.

Week 11: Terrorism and Responses                                                        

They missed the lectures on how not to give terrorists assistance when it come to recruiting.

Week 12: Human Rights and the IR of Ethnic Conflict                                 

Human rights?  Oh my.  Oh, and they definitely missed the lecture where I trash Clash of Civilizations.

Week 13: The Environment                                                                           

“Tragedy of he Commons”?  What's that, the Trumpers ask.

The sad thing is… they would probably pass the class with a B-/C+. 7/7

— Thomas Zeitzoff (@zeitzoff) March 10, 2017

Not in my class as I make sure that students need to have done the reading to pass the class.  So, these guys might eke out a C- but probably get a D in my Intro to IR class.  

Not Just Younger Children

This has become one of the most viral things I have seen on the internet:



Lots of profs can empathize as we often do tv hits from home.  Traveling to wherever the tv studio can be a hassle, especially as the TV folks always make requests at the last minute and usually during rush hour.  But this kind of thing can happen. Robert Kelly used to blog for Duck of Minerva, so I kind of know him, and feel his pain.

Has it happened to me?  Not quite.  One time my daughter decided to print out a document in my printer, which she connected to via wifi.  So, this loud machine goes off by my head and I try to turn it off.  I should have just let the noise go as it was less of a distraction than my leaning over to stop it.

But I feel this guy's pain.  As do many folks who do any kind of public engagement from home.

Newsworthy or Russia Info Op

Today is yet another day where I am cranky at the media. Is it because they are reporting the latest wikidump and thus achieving Russia's objectives by distracting from Trump's daily mess?  Nope.

It is because the Canadian media is paying some attention to the reports that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, may not have been entirely forthcoming about the WWII experience of her grandfather.  Her grandfather apparently did some bad stuff during the war.  So, we should care about it now because?  I got into a twitter argument with Andrew Coyne, where I basically accused him of carrying Russia's water on this.

Why?  Because the sins of the grandfather are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT for today's politicians.  Whatever denials or dodges Freeland has used, it really does not matter.  She is not responsible for what her grandfather did or did not do.  This is only a story because Russia is pushing it out now, because Freeland has been less positive about Russia than her predecessor and because Canada just announced a renewal of its effort to train Ukrainian soldiers to fight better.  Who are they fighting?  Oh yeah, Russian soldiers and those armed by Russia.

So, why do the Russian info operators a favor and give this story attention?  Damned if I know.  Editors have discretion about what to publish, and they probably should weigh the inherent newsworthiness of a story with some thought in these contexts about whether they are doing a foreign power a favor by facilitating their information operations campaign.  "Should I be a tool of Russian propaganda today?"  That might be a question worth of consideration before spending ink/bandwidth on a story about a dead relative.

Instead, media folks seem not to mind getting played as long as it gets them more clicks, retweets, and/or ratings.

Oh, and yes, all this applies in spades to the wikileaks stories.  Just reporting that stuff without the context that wikileaks has been working with the Russians in their attack on the democracies of the world is just a wee bit irresponsible.  Indeed, if you want a hot story, how about doing some investigative journalism to show that wikileaks may not be all that pure of heart?

Kreminology/Tea-Reading: Is Mattis Relevant?

I am sure someone else has said this, but the fact that the Immigration/Muslim Ban Executive Order no longer includes Iraq suggests that SecDef Mattis might have had some influence on Trump.  How so? 

The Iraqis were mighty miffed after the first EO, and threatened to kick out American contractors and perhaps other civilians in response. These folks are critical for supporting the US troops in the counter-ISIS campaign, and are one of the key military equities that Trump blithely ignored when excluding Mattis from the making of the previous EO. 

So, we can glean from the new EO perhaps some Mattis influence.  Before we get our hopes up that there are now adults in the room, we need to remember that the EO still harms American interests--antagonizing our allies, giving ISIS a propaganda tool, hurting green card veterans (those who have fought and perhaps are still fighting for the US but come from the wrong countries), etc. DHS and others have indicated that the US has not been hit by terrorists from these six or seven countries.  No, those would be either white supremacists or extremists from countries where, coincidentally, Trump has major investments (Egypt, Saudi Arabia). 

Oh, and let's not have too much faith in our retired generals.  John Kelly, head of DHS, has not been any kind of moderating force on those underneath him at ICE or CBP. 

Still, I guess in this darkest timeline we have to look for glimmers of hope, and Mattis potentially squelching a piece of this is a tiny glimmer, I suppose.

Curiously Incurious

One of the things I just don't get about Trump is his total lack of curiosity.  I may be coming at this from a bad perspective since I am a deeply curious person.  I always want to get to the end of a mystery novel quickly, I always want to know more about stuff, I got a Phd precisely because professing gives me the chance to pursue my curiosity to wherever it leads me (so far, to many interesting places and to many interesting questions).

So, when we hear that Trump does not want the usual daily intelligence briefing, it blows my mind. In my year in the Pentagon, every morning, the daily intel packet (a few glossy pages on various developments around the world) was something that we all sought out and made sure we read, even as nearly all of it was irrelevant to the Balkans, my branch.

To refuse to get the latest scoop on what is happening around the world, to be deliberately less well-informed when one has the most exclusive access to the output of the many US intel agencies is just unfathomable to me.  This is one of the big perqs of being President--to be able to ask any question and get an answer, to be more well informed than anyone else in any room.  You would think an egomaniacal narcissist would want that.

So, I remain flummoxed.  Oh, and full of contempt.

Social Media in 2042 and the Present

Carleton is having an event that, among other things, ponders the future of public affairs stuff 25 years from now.  I was on a panel on:Academics in the Media Landscape: The Role of Scholar-Columnist-Bloggers with Stephanie Carvin, my colleague and frequent twitter banterer, Mira Sucharov,Hayden King,Dwayne Winseck and Frances Woolley (who is frequently wrong about bags of milk).

What did I say about the future of blogging?  I started with humility as I am not sure what 2042 will look like.  I put up pics of computing 25 years ago, now and the future (but blogger didn't like them so you can't see them here).


To suggest that 25 years ago, we had no idea what computers/the internet would look like in 2017 and thus we can't predict 2042 too well.

My second point is that we can't be too humble--we need to put ourselves out there even if we might be wrong, and so I displayed my post predicting a reasonably big Hillary Clinton victory.  Ooops.

I then suggested what will remain the same and what may change. In short, more academics will do some kind of social media to communicate their work, but not all as we are a varied group of folks, that how we do it will change quite a bit (who knows what the successor to twitter may be), that politicians will still be upset when academics say things about them, but that universities will eventually learn that trying to sit on bloggers is counter productive.  I also made a clear statement that tenure in the future, if it still exists, will still be focused on reserach and not engagement.  Oh, and that the media will rely on us even more since we provide heaps of content, including for those reporters who just want to cut and past a few tweets.

I concluded by saying our (academics) role is and will be:

• Translate academic knowledge into digestible bits for broader audiences (the public cares not for lit reviews or methodology discussions).
• Provide media with content/expertise
• Engage--it can be a two way street, not just lecturing but interacting
• Embrace academic freedom--who else can speak with few consequences?  

The other panelists said smart stuff, that I storify here.

Next Step: Look for Plumbers

This administration seems even more obsessed with leaks than previous ones (the Obama administration was more concerned than it should have been but not quite like this), what with various members holding meetings about leaks ... which then leak.

I get it--it is awkward and painful to have much of what you do released to the media.  But the sooner one realizes the two major rules of leaking, the sooner one can actually focus on the business of government.

Rule 1: Princess Leia was right ( we know it since she says this line in a British accent):



Rule 2: If one has less to hide, if one does not do stupid or morally repugnant stuff, there is both less a chance that someone will leak and less of a chance the media will play it up bigly. 

Leaks are the price of doing business--all governments leak, all administrations hate it, but if you want to be in the big chair at the big desk (oh, that's Bannon), then suck it up. 

Update: Rule 3: If you treat your people well, and make them feel included in decision-making, they are less likely to leak. 

I should have realized this early but two bits of social media reminded me of this--tweets about how Trump reacts to bad news by kicking down (abusing staff) and a Pod Save America podcast with Nicole Wallace who talked about why GWB didn't have too many leaks.

I will probably add more as this administration continues to face big league leaking.

The Basics of Comparative Methods: Ask the Folks on Sesame Street

Today, I had an epiphany: Sesame Street taught me some of the basics of methodology.  I know I have done far more most similar comparisons (what Mill called Method of Difference) than most different comparisons.  And where did I get my first inkling?



And if you want to be picky and say that they are talking about causality, then you are a party pooper.

My New Fave Media Hit: Trump Is Abnormal and I am NOT HYSTERICAL!!!

I mentioned that I had a fun give and take with a panel of folks about Trump where I pushed back against normalizing Trump and that Trump's opponents are reasonably concerned rather than hysterical.  I found the video.  My part starts at one hour and 16 minutes into it.

Given that I had no prepared remarks, I feel pretty good about being only semi-coherent.

Canada Gets Mentioned! Woot?

After every State of the Union address and similar speeches, Canadians would ask me why Canada didn't get mentioned.  My standard answer: be glad as the speech is mostly about American problems and Canada is not a problem.   Trump's first speech to Congress has two mentions of Canada, so woot?  Yes and no.

First, it looks like the clever play to elevate Ivanka continues to work:

With the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.

The inclusion of Ivanka Trump in a businesswomen's summit just as her brand was getting hit hard was a smart move.  Seems like Donald and his speechwriters remember it, and think it important enough to mention.  I guess anything to make people forget Trump's thorough and deep misogyny.  But any way you slice it, good for Canada to get such a positive mention.

Second, Canada is put into the position of looking more restrictive on immigration than the US:

Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others --- have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America's taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

Of course, Trump is lying about how immigration works in the US and, well, in Canada, as both countries have merit based and not so merit based immigration.  Oh, and Canada is continuing to let in refugees.  The key here is that this passage is part of a larger xenophobic move to demonize immigrants (VOICE!?!) and restrict immigration.  So, don't be fooled into thinking that the US system will become like Canada's.  So, this mention of Canada is far more insidious, and, I would hope, most Canadians would not want their country to be used like this.

So, 1 for 2?  Is that a good batting average?  To be sure, whether Canada gets mentioned or not, the US is going to do some awful things on the immigration front: VOICE is the most Nazi thing yet--listing the crimes of immigrants against citizens; ICE is rounding up illegal immigrants with enthusiasm, including a woman who was in court because she was pursuing a domestic violence case; holding others for hours, including the handcuffing of five year olds, and on and on.  Does Canada being used as cover on this outweigh the political capital gained by including Ivanka in some pics with PMJT?

I don't know.  But I do think my usual caution stands: being left out of a State of the Union (or its ilk) is probably not a bad thing.

Islamophobia FTL

One of the strange dynamics during the election was the support of Trump by Indian nationalists in India as well as in the US.  Between the pathetic reaction to the shootings of Indian-Americans in Kansas and the possible restrictions against Indian students who get their degrees in the US (kiss H1B visas goodbye) as well as Indians who are in the US illegally, there is a growing realization that Trump might be bad for this community.  You think?

Well, the one thing this election has accomplished is to make us understand better intersectionality: that people have multiple identities and may find themselves choosing among candidates/parties/whatever with conflicting imperatives.  So, some Indian Americans may have favored Trump because they shared a common foe--Islam and Muslims--despite the fact that Trump was clearly a racist, and that the brown skin of Indians might just be a problem down the road.  Likewise, and one of the key reasons I got the election wrong, more than a few white women ignored Trump's misogyny because they liked his racism.  Some Hispanic men may have voted for Trump because of his misogyny despite his racism.  Some Jews voted for Trump despite his anti-semitic pals (Bannon, etc), hoping that Kushner would somehow moderate Trump as they were desperate for a pro-Israel position. 

I didn't quite anticipate this, but I was worried about it and posted about the problems of allying with an awful, awful person/party which had played upon hate, with this graphic:

As I learned in Romania from the Greater Romania Party, extreme nationalists have lists of "others" and work up and down their lists, depending on what works and what is convenient. Hoping that Trump and Bannon would not develop policies against one's group because of a shared animus towards another group was, alas, stupid and self-destructive, unless one is a white male Christian. 

So, yeah, Indian Americans are screwed, so they can join the club.  Not sure the early members, Muslim Americans and Mexican Americans will be all that thrilled, but perhaps the realities of Trump's policies and the violence they inspire (note the Muslims and Jews helping each other deal with the various crimes committed against them) will mean a more united front in 2018 and 2020, perhaps enough to overcome #voterfraudfraud. 

All I know is that those who don't like Muslims and who bet on Islamophobia are now having to face the reality that hate is toxic.

ISA 2017: Baltimore is My Home Away from Home Away from Home

Award-winning blogger Pete Trumbore got a
Duckie for his beautiful and sharp blog
(http://www.petertrumbore.com/)

Twas a pretty terrific ISA this year and not just because I received a Duckie! The Online Media Caucus had several events that were went off quite well.  There was a Live Tweet panel where folks chatted and tweeted and discussed twitter strategies.

 

Will Moore dressed for his Ignite conference

 My roommate, Bill Ayres, brought cookies as usual!

Sara Mitchell, whose laugh is perhaps the only one in the
business that is louder and more piercing than mine

I spent plenty of time hanging out with smart folks and, well, drinking beer.  During my first dinner, a trivia game broke out.  I was proud our team won for best name: "Bowling Green Survivors"











A big story of this ISA was reaction to and protest of the Muslim Ban and all that Trump is doing.

The G-Man in the middle is actually Cullen Hendrix,
a prof at U of Denver.  I think he would have looked better
in his drummer garb.  Oh well.

The ban had a direct impact on me and mine: Aisha Ahmad was to receive an award for the best paper on International Security in 2016, but she could not attend given how Canadian Muslims were being treated at the border.  It was my honor to accept on her behalf, but also my shame--that my country (well one of the two) was behaving so badly that she could not attend.  I was and am super proud of her--for her achievement and the classy statement she had me read.

First Spidey appearance

There was also some silliness as there is an amazing pop culture museum next to the Hilton.  Heaps of original comic books and heaps of all kinds of stuff.. 










And an old book cover that could be the new cover for any books on US intervention policy:












As always, I enjoyed seeing my friends, making new ones, eating great food, having some terrific beer, not losing at poker, getting feedback and learning about the latest research