When Friends Jilt Friends

Funny video (with some un-family friendly words):

Water Park from Brian Chandler on Vimeo.


Reminds me of the time I waited for a ride to go skiing the one time I had a chance in Colorado.  Glad there was no video.  I would have produced more family unfriendly words.

Why Do We Suck at Nation-Building

Andrew Exum answers his own question thusly (bold/color is mine):

Why do we suck at nation-building? A lot of reasons. Here are just a few:

(1) We are ignorant. We do not know enough about the cultural, political and social contexts of foreign environments to fully appreciate how our interventions will affect those environments. Thus our aid and development spending (and military operations, to be fair), meant to ameliorate drivers of conflict, often exacerbate them. 

(2) We do not provide enough oversight and accountability for the projects we initiate. This is boring but important. We have spent ungodly sums of money in both Iraq and Afghanistan and have not provided enough contracting officers to effectively oversee the money we have spent. How do we just give tens of millions of dollars to agencies and departments in the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan without any oversight? Lack of contracting officers. How are contracts in Afghanistan divided up between shady sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors, with tax-payer money falling into the hands of the Taliban and warlords? Lack of contracting officers.

(3) We do not have any patience -- and we have limited resources. Nation-building takes time. Where we can nation-build at relatively low-cost over an extended period of time, as in Colombia, we can be successful. But asking Americans to spend massive amounts of money for an extended period of time in Iraq or Afghanistan is a recipe for ... turning your average U.S. tax-payer into an isolationist. 

Cannot really add much to this.  He is on target with all of this.

Second Canada-Afghanistan Rant of the Day

Paul Robinson, a prof at U of Ottawa, has claimed that Afghanistan has upset Canadian values by privileging the military.  There are some decent points in the piece, but I think it is mostly vastly overstated.

Again, as a foreigner who has only lived here for about nine years, I may not be that familiar with Canadian values, but I think that multilateralism, responsibility to protect, and wanting to make a difference in the world are Canadian values.  How can one be responsible if one avoids doing the hard work, which often requires violence to be deployed?

Is Canada more militaristic?  Since Canada has left Afghanistan due to the pressures of party politics and political competition and public opinion, I would say nay.  Yes, the Canadian Forces get more respect, but is that over-compensation for the "decade of darkness" after Somalia or about the right level of respect for one of the truly national institutions?  After all, we have had a series of Quebec-based units fighting and dying for the Canadian effort in Afghanistan, with little controversy despite expectations (including mind to a degree).  What other national institutions get respect in Alberta and Quebec?  The Supreme Court?  Uh, no.  The RCMP, I guess.  Who else?  Exactly.  So, having the CF be viewed positively across the country is almost certainly a net good for Canada.

Robinson claims that the "support the troops" mantra has undermined civilian control of the military.  Yet the civilians did manage to stop the Afghan combat mission.  The opposition has opposed the F-35 and have confronted the government and military on detainees (which I continue to believe is a distraction from more central questions, but that is just me).  There is no real parliamentary oversight over the Canadian military today because this is the way British-style systems work.  The question really is whether the Prime Minister, cabinet, and the civilian side of DND have control over the military?  Civil-military relations are dynamic with power among the actors changing in response to events and personalities.  Harper chose Natynczyk to replace the more outspoken Hillier as Chief of the Defence Staff, when he could have either renewed Hillier or appointed someone else like him.  He did not--exerting civilian control.

Do not blame the military for the demise of DFAIT.  Blame Harper and his series of less than stellar Foreign Ministers. 

Regarding: "The distorting pull of DND is also warping spending priorities elsewhere ...Foreign aid"--that was temporary.  Afghanistan aid dollars are being cut.  CIDA will again return to its long term focus that tries to be as un-tied to Canadian national interests as possible.  Not sure that is a good thing, but CIDA bureaucratic culture will overcome "Canadian mil superiority."

Finally, Robinson and I have a big disagreement.  He likes the myth of the Canadian peacekeeper.  I believe that we need to understand the reality of post-Rwanda peacekeeping: that militaries sent to had to places will have to kill and risk being killed as the rebels/opponents will not meekly obey those in Blue Helmets.  Indeed, being prepared to fight in such situations makes the fight less likely.

End of Combat for Canada: Was It Worth It?

The Canadian Forces have ended their combat role in Afghanistan, as of the past few days.  The Mandate passed in 2008 ends at the end of July, with Canada already starting its new training mission that is "Kabul-centric."  I just had a radio interview on this topic, my first Afghanistan-related media opportunity since December.  It used to be the case that I was talking Afghanistan with Canada's media folks a couple of times a month.  But with that decision in 2008 and with Harper using that decision as a shield from having to think about extension (he could have, he chose not to), the media lost interest.  True, there has been a flurry of stories over the past month, pondering what it all means.  So, here is my first take at this big question.  Or second, since I gave it a shot for the radio interview (See two Canadian academics consider this here).

What is worth it for Canada?  157 soldiers, a couple of aid workers, one diplomat and one member of the media lost their lives and billions of dollars were spent.  If one thinks that there is nothing that is worth the life of a Canadian, then the answer is easy.  It is hard for me to answer this question, as I am not a Canadian although I do pay tax dollars.  I have no relatives and few friends from here who put themselves in harm's way.  Still, as a scholar of International Relations and having researched the NATO mission in Afghanistan (plus my ten days in Afghanistan make me an expert, right?), I have some opinions.

Academic Action Figures?

Yes, they exist.  But there is a critical flaw--we do not do "action."  I remember a few times when I had TV crews in my office to interview me, they would seek an action shot.  What would that be?  Me typing.  Woo hoo!?  So, action figures make little sense for folks who mostly stand and talk or sit and type. 

Ironies of Innovation

I focused on American innovativeness the other day when I considered a list of what is great about America--more so than Geico commercials.  This piece, where an American army officer develops an app that allows him to target the enemy quickly and effectively, illustrates that American spirit.

His answer was to create the Tactical Nav app, which troops can download to their smartphones. The Tactical Nav app combines a compass, a map, and a camera
"It combines three components," he said. "A compass, a map, and a camera. It's pretty simple - but obviously it does a little more than that."
He said he's tested his app against everything currently in use in Afghanistan - and claimed it is just as accurate.  The app is designed to give soldiers exact co-ordinates for where enemy fire is coming from.They can then send that information to their command centre, who will decide whether to call in an air strike, or send a rescue helicopter to help wounded troops.
"The first time I tried it for real," he said, "I sighed with relief. "I could have got into trouble - but it worked. "As a fire support officer, I take into battle a compass, binoculars, a map, a protractor, a GPS device - a secondary GPS device in case one fails - and batteries. "What this does is, it combines all these components, and throws it into just the one app," he said.

What is even more American is that the when he faced an unsupportive army bureaucracy, he went out on his own to develop the app and then find some financial support. 

Blame Aplenty

The Dutch have lost a lawsuit--some Bosnian Muslims were suing the Dutch for failing to protect them when the Bosnian Serbs overran the UN safe area of Srebrenica.  The Dutch already blame themselves in a 2002 report that led to the fall of the government for events in 1995.  This is most striking for a variety of reasons.

1. The Dutch were under UN command at the time, so one could blame the United Nations for failing to give the Dutch the necessary support to defend the sector.  Specifically, the Dutch called for air support, which NATO was willing to provide, but the UN leaders said no.  As a result, the Dutch now always bring their own air support with their own rules so that their troops on the ground never are left with such dire choices.
2. Ratko Mladic is now at the The Hague for instigating, planning, and leading the attacks and the killings.  So, the timing is interesting and raises questions of who should get the blame: the international community or those who commit the crimes?  The answer apparently is: both.  I would weight more heavily the guilt of the guy driving the car directly into a crowd than the police officer who fails to get the crowd out of the way.  Yes,  a gross simplification, but the Bosnian Serbs led by Mladic are the folks who are most responsible.  But, yes, this was a failure of the international community as well.  But suing the Dutch may only discourage other countries from joining UN operations since they, too, may be left hung out to dry.  
3. The Canadians deftly escaped responsibility.  They had peacekeepers initially deployed in Srebrenica but re-deployed to another part of Bosnia because they knew the situation was fraught with peril.  The Dutch were in place to face this horrible situation--fight despite having no UN support or surrender the Bosnian Muslims--because the Canadians could see further down the road (or game tree). 
4. The Canadians were not alone.  Lots of other countries could have done more and acted earlier.  So, should everyone be sued?  Should the Belgians be sued for their failures on Rwanda?

The one striking thing in all of this is that the court did recognize something that the Dave and Steve project on NATO and Afghanistan emphasizes--the key decisions are in the national capitols, not within international organizations.  BUT, to be fair, the Dutch decisions in 1995 were critically constrained by the lack of UN support.  The Dutch could have fought in a hopeless situation rather than essentially surrender to the barbarians.  Might not made much of a difference, except where we point the finger.

Captain Update!

I already mused earlier about the movie folks trying to play down the American part of Captain America the movie.  Well, now it appears that the First Avenger (the non-Captain name for the guy wearing red-white-and-blue with a star) will be Captain America everywhere except..... Russia, Ukraine and South Korea.  South Korea?  Um, given that there are still 20,000 American troops there to help deter the crazy folks from the North, they aren't used to seeing stars and stripes in South Korea?

Though it is common for American blockbusters to feature less US-focused titles in foreign markets, Paramount largely decided against the alterations for Captain America, and instead gave foreign countries  the choice of two titles, Captain America: The First Avenger or The First Avenger.
Interestingly, most international distributors believed the franchise name was so identifiable that not using "Captain America" in the title could risk losing ticket sales.

Well, yeah. So, the South Korean distributor felt First Avenger was better than Captain America?  Um, I think the Koreans (the ones in the South that is) have access to the internet and such.  I think they are already hip to where Captain America is from and that he is not a General or a Lieutenant or a Corporal.

I wonder if countries changed Green Lantern to a less environmentally correct color as one could see the title as a subtle rejection of industrialization.  Ok, that's a reach, but then so was the movie (I'll be here all night).

Seriously, for just a second, if you are willing to show the movie, it seems silly to deny what it is.  Captain America is intrinsically American.  The Hulk can be from anywhere.  The X-men could be gay.  Spider-man does not have to be from New York (although it helps).  Thor has to be from Asgard, and Captain America has to be from, well, the U. S. of frickin' A.

Oh, and for those playing at home, the superhero race still has X-Men in front of Thor and Green Lantern, with Natalie Portman edging out Blake Lively simply because they dressed NP normally while Blake was wearing fancy duds all the time.  Just too much unintentionally comedic wardrobe.  Plus Thor had a better backup cast with Heimdall, the Warriors Three and Sif.  Green Lantern had some CGI friends.  Well, 3599 Green Lantern friends of all shapes and sizes.

And Super-8 still has the lead for best movie of the summer. I will have to watch Harry P from Australia and see how he does with an Aussie accent.

Ritual 4th Post

And, yes, a chilling scene despite the fact that, as Bob Dole would put it, the average American is dead.

Getting Perspective on some Academic Truths

Dan Drezner and his wife have parallel columns in the Chronicle of Higher Education addressing the experience of tenure denial.  It is still shocking to put Dan into that category of a tenure denial-ee, as he has been consistently one of the most productive, influential, and, indeed, successful political scientists of his generation.  But his experience (and that of another excellent scholar rejected by the tenured folks at Chicago that year) reflects an enduring reality in the academic world: you will get tenured and promoted if the tenured folks want to do so, and you will not if they do not. 

That is, merit sometimes has something to do with it, but often not.  Departments will grant tenure and/or promote someone even if they fall short of contemporary standards if they want that person tenured and/promoted  And departments will ignore contemporary standards and deny tenure/promotion if they don't want to give it.  Dan's take on his past and his wife's reflections do a great job of showing how one deals with such a career reversal.  I have friends who have been through worse experiences as Dan landed on his feet immediately.  Given the investment of time and effort to hit a wall after five or six years in a place is just very tough, especially when the job market is particularly bad.  Smart departments will hire such folks.  My old place was smart enough to do that on at least one occasion, and my current department took advantage of another bad decision made by Chicago that year. 

But the feelings do linger.  Is Dan still bitter?  Just a bit.  Am I bitter for him?  Sure.  Do I understand what he has been through?  Just a bit.  Someday I will blog more directly about flawed promotion processes.  Just not today.  Dan has ably taken the floor, only to be out-classed by his wife.  Do take a look and see what they have to say.

How the Declaration of Independence is Like The Bible or Clausewitz?

It is read selectively, of course.  The Tea Party folks and more extreme actors out there use key clauses to justify themselves, especially: "-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

They, of course, forget the next lines: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

While we live in a time where institutions seem so frozen that government cannot operate, with the threat of filibusters and now divided government, the reality is that changes to the existing order can still be made within the system.  If the Democrats had the courage of their convictions, they could have overcome the filibuster threats.  When they did act, things did happen--a compromised health care bill.  The debt crisis we now face is something that can be managed, but there are games to be played still.

This Independence Day I ponder not the sacrifices made by soldiers on battlefields around the world (Memorial Day and Veteran's Day foster such reflections) but rather the state of the union and what it means to be an American.  Are we over-consumed with decline?  Can we bounce back from the current situation?  What has happened to the American dream?

I don't think the US will ever return to its dominance of the planet in the 1950's and 1960's for the simple reason that we will not have another war that decimates all of the other great powers while leaving the US barely touched.  Iraq did heaps of damage to American leadership not just through over-extension but also through a loss in legitimacy.  It is one thing to go it alone essentially, and another to go alone based on lies.  I remember being asked by the Montreal media in early 2003: what if there are no WMD's in Iraq?  And I remember being stymied by the question.  I didn't think WMD programs justified the war, but I had expected something, anything, to get turned up.  But no, the intel was pre-cooked, and then the country that could go to the moon proved that it could do everything wrong in a post-war phase that just created more war.

Still, the Libyan effort shows that American leadership is still necessary.  Yes, Obama now has US forces playing a supporting role, but it took the US to get NATO to agree to the effort, and it continues to take US assets to make the effort sustainable--refueling, intel, reconnaissance, etc.  I don't think too many folks are looking forward to Chinese leadership, not even the Chinese.  So, yes, the US is declining relatively, but it still possesses a fuller portfolio of power than anyone else: conventional power projection, nuclear weapons, a large albeit semi-broken economy, a large population, an appealing set of ideas (back to that Declaration and Constitution), and so on.  While some datasets have China having more power than the US because of the role of population in the calculation, we need to remember that power is relational.  To get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  While China is good at gobbling up resources around the world, the US still manages to get others to do stuff they would otherwise not do, like fly over Libya or contribute to Afghanistan. 

I will ponder the state of the union and the American dream some other time as this post is getting long and I have some work to do on this non-Canadian holiday.  To preview, I still think that Americans, even in this relatively dark time in our history, are dreamers and innovators.  If we can recover from the Civil War and from the combination of Vietnam and Watergate, I think we can bounce back from the financial crisis and from the Bush Administration.

Evaluating American Assets

CNN Money has a list of the top 100 great things about the US.  I guess we cannot blame them for their patriotic pontification given that tomorrow is the 4th of July and, aside from the Bin Laden raid, Americans have not had that much to cheer about lately.  Anyhow, the list ranges from on target to pure padding (should have come up with a top 10 or 25).  So, just to have fun with it, I am going to assess the list.

1. Opportunity.  Yep, the US remains the land of opportunity although wages by most of the country have stagnated.  Still, immigrants continue to come to the US, do well, and improve things for their kids.
2. Interstate highway.  Um, don't other folks have good highway systems (the autobahn?)?   Sure, there is some great history there, but not that super-special.
3. Sears Tower.  Um, ok.  Tall building, but great?  
4. Wal-Mart Employees saving lives in Joplin?  Ok. We do have bundles of stories of Americans doing great things in times of great hardship.
5. Navy Seals.  Sure. All of the Special Operators are quite, ahem, Special.
6. ESPN?  Um, I do like some elements of it (Bill Simmons and the new Grantland are pretty cool), but isn't the network also responsible for some of the worst elements in sports, like the focus on ego gratification and big hits, rather than good team play.
7. Fedex.  The Canadian postal service and their ox-carts certainly make Fedex look good.  Too bad it led to what's-his-face owning the Washington football team.
8. Steve Jobs.  Sure, as a PC user, I can respect what Mac has done, and I do like my Ipod.  This goes to larger hunk of what makes America great--a good environment for innovation.  Perhaps not as unique as it used to be, but still we have some of the most successful college drop-outs.
9. Whole Foods.  If you say so.
10. Microsoft Word.  I am not sure there is a consensus on this one, especially as every new update causes people to get upset at the new formats.  
11. Ford F-150.  Bestselling pickup.  11?  Really.
12. Rockerfeller Family?  heaps of good works apparently.
13. Caterpillar construction machinery.  Whatever happened to Tonka?
14. Detroit.  I guess buying low, right?
15. Kindle?  Too soon to say.  
16. Duct tape.  You mean, this is an American thing.  What do the Germans and Japanese do with their ducts?  And their kidnap victims?
17. Bill of Rights.  Um, #17?  These should be at the very top.  This land o opportunity would not be such without freedom of speech, assembly, from religion (yes, I am putting it like this to antagonize folks) etc.
18. Wall Street Bull.  Given the past several years, nothing on Wall Street should be on this list, but this is CNN Money's list. What else can you expect?
19. Carlos Santana.  Sure, first immigrant listed.  
20. Pappy Van Winkle Bourbon.  A beverage that is really hard to find and drunk by a few?  I would go with Coke here or Microbrew beers.
21. LinkedIn.  You have to be kidding me.  Thus far, an annoyance with not so much merit.  Down the road?  We shall see, but not the best social networking hunk of internet around. 
22. Colin Powell.  Nice immigrant story, sure.  But he enabled the Bush Administration and was the face of the US when it was lying to itself and the world.  Heaps of demerits here.  
23. Bill and Melina Gates.  Microsoft and now macro-good-doing.
24. Geico commercials.  Um, is that the best we got?  Mad Men before Geico.
25. Mississippi.  Yep, cool river, big, and all of that.

Al Qaeda and Spinal Tap

The intel treasure trove from the Bin Laden raid has revealed that the folks in AQ, especially its #3, are aware that they have much in common with Spinal Tap drummers:

One of bin Laden’s principal correspondents was Atiyah abd al-Rahman, who served as No. 3 in al-Qaeda before bin Laden’s death. A 2010 message from Rahman expressed frustration with the CIA drone campaign, a source of particular concern because many of his predecessors in the third-ranking slot had been killed in strikes by the unmanned aircraft.
“He was saying in the letter that their guys were getting killed faster than they could be replaced,” the U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Um, so there is one vote against the on-going US drone campaign.  

One thought on the reports about these documents--it just might be the case that there is some selectivity in what is being released so that the stories end up supporting US policies.  Just a thought.

Joint Staff Rocks Again

Check out this interesting post by a "Feminist in the Pentagon."  Like me, she was surprised at how welcoming the folks on the Joint Staff were.  And then she enumerates why they are so swell:

1. They work as a team.
2. They encourage professional development.
3. They are smart.
4. They reward good work.
5. They don't bullshit.
6. They hold diverse views.

I pretty much entirely agree.  They welcome diverse views, but they were not that diverse.  At least, not in my one year of experience in the Balkan moshpit. 

But I wholeheartedly agree with this line: "The serious content of our work, juxtaposed with the camaraderie and humor of our office, strikes a great balance."

Of course, this woman is generalizing about the military.  It may be the case that the Joint Staff is the best part of the military--that is what they always told me.  We have examples of other places in the military where team means the boss tells you to just do what he thinks is right, that they are not that bright, and where they do not hold diverse views--CENTCOM under Tommy Franks, for instance.

Still nice to see that my experience was not unique and that today's Joint Staff is not that different from the one I enjoyed ten years ago.

Xenophobia, Italian Style

I was pleased to see that Russian racism might be serving to cool down enthusiasm for adventures in the Caucuses, but my joy for the counter-intuitive dynamic does not blind me to the reality that intolerance can, of course, also produce inhuman policies.  I mentioned earlier that France was developing policies that were undermining the EU in repsonse to the Libyan crisis. 

This piece shows that Italy is acting in ways that directly challenge the raison d'intervention--responsibility to protect--by denying refuge to the folks fleeing the violence.  It is not surprising, but still appalling.  Yes, the economies of these refugee-recipients are not doing well, but refugees usually flee to countries that are much, much worse off.  Italy can afford these folks much better than Congo, Pakistan, etc. 

Italy is clearly looking to end this conflict any way it can, changing its line on supporting the bombing campaign from refusing to strike, to participating in the strikes, to now calling for a ceasefire.  Looks pretty desperate to me.  Again, since Italy is in far better shape economically than your average third world country, it must have something to do with the perceived fragility of the Italian political scene.  I am not an expert on Italy, and the refusal of the Italian diplomats in Canada to meet with me means that I have not done that much research on the politics of Italy's deployment in Afghanistan.  So, I can only speculate.

What Italy's fecklessness does verify?  That xenophobia is a weak reed upon which to hang a humanitarian intervention.

Celebrating a Better SecDef

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has retired.  My man-crush for him continues.  He was not a perfect SecDef, and we might err in over-loving the guy since his predecessor was so very, very bad at his job.  This piece suggests that one of the most important things he managed to do was to prevent a war with Iran.  I had a running battle/bet* with a friend of mine about a war with Iran, as I didn't think we could be so stupid as to start another conflict in the Persian Gulf.  My friend turned out to be right about how motivated the supporters were, but I turned out to be right about Gates and the military. 

Gates did a lot of things right.  He developed a good, transparent relationship with the military while not being its puppet.  He cut stuff that elements of the military wanted and forced them to invest in things that mattered for the current war like drones and more IED-resistant vehicles (MRAPs).  Gates should get some credit for the mission to take out Osama.  He consistently presented arguments that made him a voice of reason (the Juliet Johnson of the US administration), including his take on wikikeaks.  Gates may have moved more slowly than folks would have liked on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but his backing made it possible to remove this blight.  He handled the firing of McChrystal as well as one can. 

What these two SecDefs remind us is that individuals and personalities do matter, even as we political scientists focus more attention on international pressures and domestic structures.  The folks manning (personning?) the machines matter a great deal.  At a key point in time, we had a special person running the most dangerous machines.  If only he had been SecDef in 2003-6.  Alas.

Gates earned his accolades, doing a tough job that had plenty of potential to alienate most folks.  Leon Panetta would be wise to keep Gates on the speed-dial.

Happy Canada Day!

While I bitch and moan about life in Canada, I would be remiss not to appreciate all that rocks in Canada.  The people have been very welcoming to my family despite our strange ways (like not using "u" hither and thither) and our insults to Montreal bagels.  Canada has been a big boon to my research as I have had great access to the Canadian military (and some of the civilians--the agency that has been least helpful knows who it is), and they have taken to remote places like Kabul, Kandahar and Bagotville.  And the ultimate here has been fantastic. 

So, today, I will hoist my Alexander Keith's white beer (the big beer companies are so much better than the American big beer companies) and toast all that is Maple, all that is Maple-Leafed (I still get a kick that a general's rank is denoted in the number of leaves on his/her shoulders), and all that is cold, eh?

Thanks again to the Canadians for having a great sense of humor/humour.

Iceland Backfill Memories

I keep coming back to this story from my Joint Staff days: that a list was handed down from Rumsfeld of American commitments around the world he wanted to end.  Supposedly to save money and stress on the troops, but mostly due to an ideological commitment that the US should not spend money on allies/multilateral commitments.

Anyhow, I have mentioned this before.  What brings this up yet again is that Rummy has a piece in the Wall Street Journal where he specifically cites the money saved from finally ending this commitment: $225 million dollars.  Perhaps the list of commitments to end (like four guys or so in a UN mission to East Timor) was really about the money, but the funny thing here is this: closing the USAF base in Iceland was not his idea.  It was something the Air Force wanted to do, not to save money (nor was the concern about the four fighter planes) but so that they could re-position the long-range search and rescue helos and planes.  How do I know this?  I was the one handling the list, and the original response memo went up the line without the Iceland commitment listed until it hit a two general in my chain of command* who was an Air Force officer.  Then, the list came back to me with a request to consider Iceland.

*  All those who know me can now giggle at the thought of me being in anyone's chain of command.

There were some difficult tradeoffs as Iceland saw this as the US/NATO commitment to its defense and essentially held the US anti-submarine warfare facilities (featured in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising) hostage.  The new deal, as I have mentioned, has NATO sending occasional rotations to represent the NATO commitment (and I believe a similar operation applies to the Baltics--occasional tours of NATO fighter planes).

The point here is that Rummy is now taking credit for cutting a "wasteful" expense when it was really not his idea at all.  Just good old bureaucratic politics.  Rummy did cut some expensive programs (the Crusader artillery system--good thing we never had it around to deploy to a Muslim country, right?), but giving credit where it is due has never been a Rumsfeld hallmark.  Steven Metz has been reading Rummy's memoir and tweeting about it (so that the rest of us can be spared, I think), and he has noted that all of the problems in Iraq where some other dude's fault (Bremer), forgetting that he,Rummy, had demanded the responsibility for the post-war phase until it got too messy.

The other point is: why are we paying any attention to the Worst Secretary of Defense in American History?  Oh yeah, nostalgia.

Wuffle's Law

One of the recurring themes both in my blog and at the Poli Sci Job Rumor site is that of rankings.  See here, here, and here for a start of my fixation.

Anyhow, I am always reminded of a simple fact when I see any poli sci ranking of journals, presses, departments whatever: that whenever a ranking is suggested or revised, it is always suggested by someone who benefits from the new ranking.  Nobody ever proposes a ranking that puts their department lower.  So, Godwin's Law is that the longer any internet discussion, the probability of Hitler/Nazis/Holocaust being mentioned approaches one.

What would we name the following law: Any ranking of any aspect of the academic enterprise will produce revised rankings that improve the standing of the folks who produce the revised rankings? In honor of a semi-anonymous person who published amusing pieces at PS (see here for an example if you can--gated), so how about Wuffle's Law?

Russia Fits!!!

In my book with Bill Ayres (again, the non-terrorist one or perhaps just the secretly terrorist one), we argued that Russia was one of the cases of the silent dog that did not bark--that Russia did not engage in irredentism, despite being voted most likely to engage in such activities at its prom in 1991.   We contended (daringly, I say, as non-specialists) that Russia's identity crisis (what does it mean to be Russian sans Ukraine et al.) was poor grounds for any significant effort to annex neighboring territories inhabited by Russians even with 25 million Russians left outside of Russia when the Soviet Union fell apart.

But then Russia has been playing around with supporting separatists in Georgia--the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians, even issuing some of these folks passports.  Yet Russia did not annex these territories or really threaten to do so.  Plus Russia still has not been so enthused about Belarus returning to the fold even though this most dysfunctional ex-Soviet ex-Republic has occasionally expressed interest.

So, we were never convinced that the interventions with Georgia really were irredentism since it was never about identification with kin and never really about a Greater Russia.  Now we have a bit more evidence to our central thesis--xenophobia can serve as a brake on foreign adventures and even encourage retrenchment:

“In Russian public opinion for both subjective and objective reasons there has gradually been the adoption of a view that Russia has more to profit by distancing itself from the Caucasus and its problems, though formally maintaining territorial integrity.”  (Italics in the original, red not so much).

The piece concludes with this:

Russia’s new nationalism is a mixed blessing for Europe. The chances of an expansionary ‘Weimar Russia,’ feared during the Georgia War are minimised – but the danger of a Russia that is more racist and at risk of a bloody divorce in the North Caucasus should keep Europe awake at night.

I don't know--if I were the Poles, Baltics, and especially the Georgians, I would be happy for some retrenchment rather than adventurism, even if it meant a more racist Russia.  Yes, there are tradeoffs as more xenophobia is not more happiness--it has mixed effects.  As we raise in the book, you get less irredentism but more discrimination at home.  I know how the neighbors would vote, just as I am pretty sure that there are significant folks within Russia that find this rising xenophobia to be less than appealing.

But, since this is my blog, it is all about me.  And these trends suggest that Bill and I were on target.  If Russia fits, our theory acquits?  Um, never mind.

PS  I think this post sets my non-Olympic record for number of parenthetical expressions in one post.

PPS That Russia is critical of France for arming the Libyan rebels makes me giggle.  Russia has hardly been restrained from arming folks it wants to arm.