Afghan Trends

New poll out on Afghanistan--how the Afghans feel about their present and their future:

Not wild optimism but trending in the right direction?  Second highest level of folks saying Afghanistan is going in the right direction.  But, of course, different people may be thinking different things about what right direction means.  The big news item out of this is that more Afghans support reconciliation with Taliban now than last year, and perhaps the movements in this direction are, in part, some of the "right direction" progress.

There Will Be Landing Slots or War!!

Ok, the United Arab Emirates may not go that far, but it does seem to be the case that the focus on the state-owned airline is crowding out pretty much everything else.  First, the UAE kicks Canada out of its logistic base in Dubai--Camp Mirage.  Now, Canadians will need visas as of January 2011 to visit the UAE.  I guess a two month warning is progress over the month warning about Mirage. 

The NDP (left opposition party) is criticizing the Harper government for mismanaging this policy.  By what?  Submitting to the demands of the UAE to open up the market for potential Emirates domination?  Since the Emirates airlines have heaps of big planes and seem to be subsidized even more than normal airlines, Air Canada would face more than just a bit of pressure.  And Canada would be giving in on a contentious economic issue because another country is willing to destroy its relations with Canada?  Is that a good precedent to set?  I am not sure if saving Air Canada jobs is or should be the goal of Canadian policy?  But it makes little sense in the long term to allow the UAE to be successful in using very coercive strategies for such issues.  If they had nuclear weapons, would they use those to get preferential trade relationships?  Perhaps not, but the UAE is over-playing this, and there is little reason to reward them for it.

Canada is not alone in this as the Europeans and US are concerned about subsidies making the Emirates airline unfairly priced. But the Canada-UAE dispute is much more brutal than the average trade complaint.  The UAE seem to be willing to use all tools in their hands to coerce the Canadians.

The UAE folks may just want to think about other interests besides their airlines.  Their monomaniacal focus may work in the short term, but it is unlikely to benefit the country in the long term.

And the juxtaposition of the week: Canada and Denmark seem close to settling their dispute over Hans Island.* So, territorial conflict gets solved, trade conflict just gets deeper.  Is this bizarro International Relations, as territory is associated with most of the conflict (so my territorial conflict friends say)?


* Best part is there is a Hans Island Liberation Front website.  Somebody is being cheeky!

Nationalist Parties Eating Their Own?

A McGill grad student (ht to Melanee) pointed out this article, which set off an interesting FB discussion about whether the Parti Quebecois is irrational, sexist or perhaps less dysfunctional than other provincial parties.  I will focus on the PQ and the nature of nationalist politics, as I know nothing about the politics of other provinces in Canada. 

Specifically, Pauline Marois is facing some significant challenges from within her party precisely at a time where it should be preparing for the next election, which will be soon and which the PQ should win (Liberals have exhausted everyone including themselves).  Is it because she is female?  Melanee, who studies gender and politics, was suspicious of this.  Because I am a student of ethnic politics, I, of course, jumped on the ethnic outbidding bandwagon.  That is, I am not surprised to see actors within a nationalist movement position themselves at the extremes to be the best defenders of the group.  This creates an auction-like competition among folks to be the best nationalist, pushing for policies that discriminate more against "the others" and making themselves potentially less electable. 

So what is happening to Marois has happened to her predecessors.  I am not surprised, nor do I think it is gender.  Unfortunately, while I can take some glee in the intra-PQ fratricide, I do not see how the PQ will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The Liberals have been too corrupt, too ham-handed, and in power too long to stick around.  Only the past frustration with the PQ has kept the Provincial Liberals around this long.  I am just hoping that this is delayed, delayed, delayed until my daughter is out of high school.

Canadian Deployment in Afghanistan

Could I be wrong? Could the Harper government be sending 1000 troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan army and police?  Apparently, NATO has been leaning on Canada to stick around, and there might just be a desire not to waste all of the political capital earned by the hard fighting the Canadians have done thus far.  The rumors are flying around but seem contradictory, as "Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011, though exponentially fewer" suggests much less than 1000.  The math is pretty simple: if there are 2800 Canadians there now, then exponentially fewer means something like 300. 

To be clear, these troops would not be in OMLTs but stay out of harm's way in military bases far from the fighting.  Aside from the occasional rocket attack and perhaps failed effort at the fence, these guys would be pretty safe unless there are convoys from air bases to where the base would be. 

I have been having a twitter conversation with U of Ottawa Prof Phillipe Lagassé as he is thrilled to "I told you so."  Me, I am not so sure yet that this is going to be as big as speculated.  Or even happen.  Much has to happen, and the Harper government seems to be spinning wildly.  

Will be interesting to see what eventually happens.  Lagassé is hoping that Harper does not go through parliament and asserts the Crown's privileges (whatever that means).  He says that would show more guts than seeking a parliamentary vote.  So, I am now thoroughly confused.  I always think that subjecting things to votes and appealing for public support is gutsier.  But perhaps I am just focused on Guts due to last night's Walking Dead.  So, the appropriate question for the Canadian public is this: is Afghanistan an undead defence policy?

Overcome By Events

OBE was one of the phrases I learned during my year in the Pentagon that I liked the most.*  That something is no longer relevant as it has been overcome by events.  Military plans often fit into this category.  Usually, officers do not deliberately choose courses of action that will be OBE.  But there are exceptions.  For instance, the new Commandant of the US Marines, General James Amos, is pushing back against the elimination of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  This is not that surprising as the service chiefs have been less thrilled with SecDef Gates and Chairman Mullen's position on this.

General Amos makes the usual hedges about combat effectiveness, but the only real facts suggest that gays in the military do not hurt readiness.  The facts: our allies are ahead of the US on this, and they have had no real problems:

"It was a nonevent," says retired Maj. Gen. Simon Willis, the former head of personnel for the Australian Defence Force, "and it continues to be a nonevent."

Indeed, the list of countries that allow gays to openly serve in the military includes many of those that are quite effective: Canada, Britain, Australia, Israel, etc.

The fun part of the study indicates that debating involves more controversy than implementing:

Above all, Congress and the Pentagon should rest assured that open service is, ironically, easier to implement than it is to study. Our allies had similarly fierce public debates. But once the new policies were in place, the return to normalcy was swift and all-encompassing. It was "really, really dull," recalls Craig Jones, a retired lieutenant commander in the British Royal Navy.

Indeed, DADT may be harming readiness far more than getting rid of it:

At a time when the mental health of U.S. troops is carefully monitored, its repeal should be seen as a matter of battle readiness, according to our allies. "Forcing [gay servicemen and women] to have to constantly censor themselves, to regulate their behavior, to pretend to be somebody they’re not, is putting people at risk," says Okros, the retired Canadian captain. It’s also hampering joint appointments, according to Canadian Navy Cmdr. Luc Cassivi, who says that allied soldiers have turned down U.S. postings rather than return to the closet under DADT.

Holy inter-operability, Batman!  Looks like the US is the one causing some alliance problems.

The courts keep ruling against DADT.  Eventually, it will go by the wayside.  The new Congress is unlikely to be enlightened enough to do so.  But DADT will be OBE, just later rather than sooner.






*ht to abu Muqawama's tweets for the links and the reminder about OBE.

Holy Principal-Agent Problems: Not Just About Shirking

This article shows that the challenge of hiring someone and giving them responsibility (delegation) is more than just about the agent not doing the job. The Drug Enforcement Agency sent an informant to Pakistan, and this guy eventually became involved in the Mumbai attacks.  This is more than just someone falling asleep while on duty.  It is reflects both the challenges of this kind of work--hiring questionable people to do your bidding--and the failures of the managers of the system to do their jobs.  The former is part of the nature of the enterprise--using flawed individuals is probably going to be necessary and certainly is inevitable.  But failing to engage in oversight to see when the agent is out of control is not the way the system is supposed to work. 

Bruce O. Riedel, a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution and a former C.I.A. officer, said the Indians were right to ask, “ ‘Why weren’t alarms screaming?’

Officials of the D.E.A., which has a long history with Mr. Headley, declined to discuss their relationship with him. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. said that Mr. Headley had never worked with them. Privately, the agencies point fingers at each other. 

 Never mind, that is how the system works--avoiding accountability by blaming others.

More Evidence that Tommy Franks Was an Idiot

A great quote from the book review of Gideon Rose's new book on ending wars:

“You pay attention to the day after,” Gen. Tommy Franks said as the Iraq war was about to start, “I’ll pay attention to the day of.”

Sure, fighting a war is always hard work, but it was obvious the US would win this one--the conventional war, that is.  The hard part was always going to be the aftermath.  And since war is politics by other means (didn't Franks read Clausewitz somewhere along the way?), you need to think about how force is going to produce outcomes that you desire, not just blowing things up. 

What a great combination of leadership!? 

• Bush, the least thoughtful/critical President we have had since ..... Harding/Coolidge/Hoover (even Reagan asked questions).
• Cheney, who focused on steamrolling everyone to prove he was wrong in 1991 when he agreed that taking Baghdad would just be the start of a very difficult occupation.
• Rice, who completely blew her role as coordinator, not only by not bringing in contrasting views just to keep the folks honest, but also by allowing Bremer to run the occupation with no oversight and no clear guidance from the interagency.
• Rumsfeld, who wanted to prove to the army that it was unnecessary and had the arrogance to think that any criticism was needless opposition rather than perhaps constructive insights to make an occupation work better.
• Franks--a yes men to the folks above him, a tyrant to those below him, so he would not/could not think about the aftermath and plan for it.  The irony is: this is what the military is very, very good at--planning.  But he didn't bother. 

A Good Reason to Send Your Kids ot Private School

 “Anyone who reads this document can see that it promotes acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle,” one mother said at a six-hour school board meeting in late September.NYT

If you find being tolerant of homosexuals to be anathema, send your kids to a religious private school.  Sending your kids to public schools means having to deal with public policy, like how to create an environment that recognizes the reality that there are gay people and that we ought not drive them to suicide. 

“Of course we’re all against bullying,” Mr. DeMato, one of numerous pastors who opposed the plan, said in an interview. “But the Bible says very clearly that homosexuality is wrong, and Christians don’t want the schools to teach subjects that are repulsive to their values.”

The Bible also endorses slavery as part of the spoils of war.  So, if you want to pick some hunk of religious doctrine, go ahead, but don't expect the PUBLIC schools to endorse or protect your viewpoints. 

In Alameda, Calif., officials started to introduce new tolerance lessons after teachers noticed grade-schoolers using gay slurs and teasing children with gay or lesbian parents. A group of parents went to court seeking the right to remove their children from lessons that included reading “And Tango Makes Three,” a book in which two male penguins bond and raise a child.
The parents lost the suit, and the school superintendent, Kirsten Vital, said the district was not giving ground. “Everyone in our community needs to feel safe and visible and included,” Ms. Vital said.

Ask The Reader: What Toy Did You Save/Betray

Finally saw Toy Story 3 last night in the comfort of our basement family room.  The setting was especially appropriate given the plethora of semi-abandoned toys in the room.  The movie was terrific, and the room did get dusty especially as Andy gave his favorite toys to the little girl.  I teased my daughter and wife by looking for our Woody and Buzz.  While we remembered quite well which toys were my daughter's favorites, I have a hard time remembering the toys that I loved the most and played with the longest.  I have fond memories of my big wheel, and I do remember that lincoln logs were fun for a while.  But I really have no memory of a particular doll (that might have a personality that I could have betrayed by leaving behind). 

So, the question du jour is: do you have a toy that comes to mind when Toy Story 1/2/3 make you feel guilty about leaving them behind?

Inappropriate Humor Now, but Then?

Fun story about Back to the Future.*  Disney was scared off because mom's attraction to time-traveling son was at the center of the plot.  Sure, that is understandable, but the discomfort was part of the fun of the movie.  This was the second (at least) bit of humor that seems strange in retrospect this week.  I watched the Women of SNL special with my daughter, who was shocked and just a bit horrified at an old, old skit with Buck Henry playing an Uncle with a Polaroid camera taking pictures of his nieces (Gilda Radner, Laraine Newman) dancing around with their nighties above the heads.  Yep, pedo-jokes!  Acceptable then, not so much now.  And that was much more recent a change than the drunk-driving depicted in an early Mad Men episode that would be wildly inappropriate today. 

Any other examples of stuff that we could laugh about and broadcast about, but cannot now?


*  I think the article jumps the shark or stretches its premise too much at the end.

HP Excitement

It will be fun to see how they turn the biggest book into two movies.  This picture suggests that they are on target:

To celebrate Harry Potter month (we have two left--November and next July, I guess), I gave my students in my upper division course a chance to get out of a pop quiz: ask me a Harry Potter question that I could not answer.  But it could not be too picky.  I think they were stunned by my HP knowledge, perhaps even frightened just a bit.  I ruled out questions that focused on a single detail, like a spell or a name mentioned once.  I spaced a bit on Harry's uncle's name, but would have gotten it if I had tried.  I also flaked a bit on Fleur's sister.  But what did me in was the certainty that I would not remember the name of the snitch in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  My wife recommended that I not let names be potential questions, but I wanted my students to defeat me.  I was not going to blow any questions on important plot details, knew the patronuses (patroni?) of most folks as well, etc. 

Indeed, my favorite question, the one that made it hard for me to breathe because I was laughing so hard, was one that inquired how a professor could have a better understanding of HP than the generation for which it was written.  Fair point!

[Is this post just an excuse to increase the hits on my website by catching folks who are looking for Harry Potter movie spoilers?  Of course not.]

First World War Damage Revealed

It is quite appropriate that in the days ahead of Remembrance Day (as they call it in Canada) or Veteran's Day (as they call it in the US) that the event that led to these "holidays", the end of World War I, is back in the news.  Old footage from an "airship" was just televised in the UK, showing the damage to the cities, town, and fields a year after the war.

Amazing that after this experience that there were folks who didn't mind trying it again. 

Is The Academic Future Bleak?

The University of Florida has faced sweeping budget cuts from the State Legislature totaling 25 percent over three years. That is a main reason the university is moving aggressively to offer more online instruction. “We see this as the future of higher education,” said Joe Glover, the university provost.

The NYT has this story on the growth of online education.  Universities facing budget cuts can increase the size of classes by creating virtual seats--by moving the course to be partly or entirely online.  Thus far, much of the growth has been with students who are actually on campus but filling out their schedule.

Of course, my gut reaction is that this is bad, really bad.  Why?  Well, it endangers my job, of course.  That is, if we can have one prof teach thousands online, then we need fewer profs.  Ok, aside from naked self-interest, why does this feel wrong?  Well, when I went to college, I felt that I learned as much from my peers as my profs as we discussed the stuff outside of class.  But if one does not have the shared in-class experience, then the spontaneous interactions as one starts walking outside of class do not happen.  As importantly, some classes, such as the Spanish class discussed in the article, should not be taught online--they require student participation to learn how to speak, listen, think in a foreign language (as someone who failed to learn several languages, I should know?).  

On the other hand, I do teach a 600 student Intro to International Relations class.  I do allow for questions while I am blathering on, but that experience is just a tad more interactive than the online version.  What difference does it make to students to be in a huge lecture hall or watching online?  I am not sure.  I do allow my course to be recorded--the audio portion, that is.  So, students can blow off my lectures and listen somewhere else.  But I recently had the choice of being videotaped or not, and I chose not.  Why?  In part because I don't want to be tied to a fixed spot at the podium but like to move back and forth.  In part because I do want their butts in the seats, and providing video would probably mean that fewer students do show up.  And perhaps more than a smidge of vanity.  The last time I saw video of myself lecturing, I obsessed about what the back of my head looked like (yes, I am going bald back there).  Plus there is the occasional stumble as I mis-step as I pace into the aisles/stairs on either side of the podium.  That is, it is one thing to look like a klutz/dork in front of 500 plus students, but to have it taped and stored for however long, yuck. 

More importantly, I do think that even in a 600 person class, the gathering and shared experience can lead to fruitful exchanges, that college (or university as they call it up here) is a special experience encompassing both planned and unplanned encounters, that there is a dynamic density that leads to all kinds of interesting things (including finding mates for the short and/or long term), that moving the experience to online will diminish and alter the experience in ways that we can only partly anticipate. 

Of course, the really problematic thing is that this move just makes it easier for states to cut back even further on higher education.  And that is bad, not just because of my job and the employment prospects of my graduate students, but because universities are engines of growth.  They are the classic case of government spending creating multiplier effects.  The valleys around UCSD are covered in biotech, computer tech, and other firms that employ lots of people, generate lots of tax revenue and pushed our lives into the 21st century before it even started.  And that is not the only place that happens.  If we want to have a dynamic economy, we should be increasing funding of higher education, not cutting it.  Online education is all about cutting funds and raising revenues by increasing enrollment beyond the capacity to seat all of the students.  So, it is a short term solution that will have long term consequences--bad ones. 

Again, I am biased because online education does threaten my enterprise just a bit.  Good thing I have tenure.

The Average Helicopter

Slow blogging day since I spent most of it in Ottawa, interviewing a Senator and a former Chief of the Defence Staff, and then chatted with a married couple of that dueled each other in a contest of who could make me talk more about my different incomplete research efforts (while providing me with much to think about), and then one last conversation with a pal who happened to be in Ottawa that day. 

Anyhow, one of my favorite Saturday Night Live lines of all time sort of came into play.  In a skit after Independence Day, the President from the movie (Bill Pullman) is in a debate with candidate Bob Dole, and Dole snaps back after the President uses the phrase "average American" with "The average American is dead."  I love that line because lots of disaster movies have seemingly happy endings, including Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, 2012, etc even though much of the planet and certainly the US is destroyed. 

Why is this relevant today? Because I was talking to the aforementioned CDS, Gen. (ret) Ray Henault, a former helicopter pilot, and used the phrase "the average helicopter is broken" and he smiled, nodding his head. 

And the day was most successful--very much an average day in this research effort--lots of fascinating stuff, much supporting the argument of the book, some inconvenient realities that I will have to figure out.  

Election Reveals Intelligence

No, not in the people who voted for the GOP, but in bloggers who are thinking about the results and the aftermath.

• Steve Greene: Argues that the Tea Party folks may have given the Republicans more seats in the House (more than the models would have predicted) but cost them several Senate seats, including a majority.
• Andrew Exum a.k.a. Abu Muqawama does a nice job of revealing the hypocrisy of the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon.  "Buck"  (with a nickname like that, will he be next homophobe that is outed?) says that the defense budget should have less social agendas on it now, meaning no efforts to change Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  But Exum/Abu points out that keeping DADT "reflects a social agenda (in this case, a social agenda now out of step with the American people). In fact, everything about the defense budget reflects a social agenda: what kind of military we have and how we fund it says a lot about Americans as a society -- our norms, our values, our priorities."  Not only is war politics by other means, but defense budgeting is politics by, well, normal means.
• And more to come.

Some Signs of Intelligence

In the aftermath of 9/11 (and before, actually), much has been made of the reality that the US Dept of Defence (the SecDef) controls most of the intelligence spending.  This may (just may, no certainty that this will happen) change with $$ being shifted to the Director of National Intelligence.  This may not lead to perfect outcomes, but if you want the Director of National Intelligence to have significant power (which was the idea behind the creation of the job), then you need to give that person some significant budgetary control.  I just wanted to highlight this potentially significant change.  It will then depend on who is appointed DNI and their priorities down the road, but his/her job is intelligence only, whereas the SecDef has many other areas calling for his/her attention.

Getting There

A sign of progress that Ultimate made it to the ESPN website?  Sort of.  The article focuses on explaining the sport rather than telling folks what happened at the National Championships.  Still, this is progress.  It is such a TV friendly sport--lots of action, easy to follow action (disk is way bigger and slower than a puck), lots of athleticism, human looking players, lots of highlights (diving and jumping on O and D0), and even the possibility for an occasional break for a TV ad.  If they can show dodgeball on the Ocho, certainly Ultimate's time is near.  Perhaps when football and basketball are locked out next year and ESPN needs stuff to show?

Limits on the Craziness

I am not an Americanist, which means that I don't study American politics and avoided such classes throughout my entire education.  I picked up what I did through osmosis--hanging out with Americanists and by taking courses where much of the reading was from the Americanist subfield--game theory, methods, research design.  So, I have no real expertise to display and apply when it comes to the election results, and I did not follow things too closely because I knew the result would be depressing.  But a lack of expertise has never stopped me from spewing before....

So, my big conclusion: Americans are not quite as crazy as we thought our as crazy for crazy candidates as we thought.  The initial results indicate that folks voted against the strangest of the Senator candidates: Angle lost, O'Donnell lost, and the Sarah Palin-chosen Joe Miller is losing to an incumbent on a write-in ballot.  Sure, some loons won in the House, but small districts will lead to some big outliers.  Sure, Rand Paul won, but that is hardly a bellweather for the future.  What this election says to me is that the Republicans face a big challenge in 2012--nominating someone who is not a loonie (and I don't mean someone who is not $1 Canadian).  If the Republicans want to lose the White House, Sarah Palin is their best choice.  I still stand by that, as Angle could not beat the face of the Democrats in the Senate--Harry Reid. 

The big question will be whether the GOP, especially in the House, overplays its hand?  My guess is, hell yes.  So, Obama should check with the Clinton playbook for when the Republicans over-reach.  It will not be hard for him to play the voice and face of reason over the next two years. 

The one big surprise, I guess, is that the Republican organizations did a good job of targeting, taking a few more seats than their national vote would suggest.  It turns out that the Republican machine, despite McCain's performance two years ago and the rise of the Tea Party folks more recently, is still intact.  Too bad. 

But I will look at the glass as being half full.  In a time of very high unemployment, two wars, recent terrorist incidents, where one major outlet of news is owned by the GOP essentially, and where money is unleashed, I don't think things went that badly.  Of course, I had low expectations.

War, Like Poker and Comedy, Is About Timing

The latest piece on Canada and Afghanistan notes something that we should have all figured out a long time ago: leaving in July 2011 is just an abysmal choice.  That is going to be the high point of fighting season.  It would have been nice to leave in winter, either this one or the next one, so that the folks filling in the hole that the Canadian departure will create would have time to settle in and prepare.  Instead, the Canadians will be focused on leaving in the spring of 2011, just as things get busy again, despite claims that the Forces will be fighting until the last minute.

The problem, of course, is that deadlines set by politicians often have little to do with the realities on the ground.  I am a big believer in civilian oversight and control over the military, but as war is politics by other means, the domestic politics should not crowd out the battle politics, if you will.  Some consultation with the military guys over the exact ending of the Canadian presence would have been nice.  But that might have required a bit of leadership--on the part of Harper for the past several years and perhaps even by General Rick Hillier, who could have made a noise or two about the timing when the last mandate was passed.

Spilt milk?  Not yet.  But this timeline reveals what happens when people are not thinking about the battlefield but just kicking the can down the road.

Bad News, Good News?

UN Expert says that xenophobia is on the rise.  However, some scholars with twisted views suggest that xenophobia can serve as a brake on irredentism.  Obviously, the best way to figure this out is to buy the book.