I Want to Vote in South Carolina

Stephen Colbert slays about eight different targets with this one ad:


Let's count them, shall we?

1. Obviously, Colbert makes Romney look foolish with the corporations are people line.
2. Colbert makes the whole idea of corporations as having the same legal rights as people look pretty silly.  
3. Colbert makes the whole super-pac thing even more ridiculous--Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow. 
4. Colbert makes the whole super-PAC thing even more ridiculous: "I had nothing to do with that ad."
5. Colbert makes the media silly as he is appearing on ABC to defend this ad.
6. Colbert makes the American political process silly by producing a wonderfully slick (voiced by John Lithgow) negative ad, epitomizing the attack politics of the 21st century.
1. The only weakness here is that this ad has a heap more substance than most attack ads: a real quote by Romney, a real past of destroying jobs via corporate takeovers, etc.
7.  "I don't know if Mitt Romney is a serial killer.  That is a question he is going to have to answer."  More mocking of the media, which takes the lies that are spewed and then repeat them by forcing the politicians to address them, rather than ignoring them and letting them fade away.
8. Colbert concludes by noting that John Lithgow, the voice of the ad, appeared on Dexter as a serial killer: "Two points make a line."

Canada and The Republicans

The Canadian International Council twitter account (I am tempted to call it Bob or Fred) asked me which Republican candidate Canadians should prefer.  This is after my snarky response to the CIC's post that raised this question in general and provided a link to their panel of rapid responders.

Of course, the answer is Romney.  The three responders (at least three thus far, as they may add some as the slower rapid responders respond less rapidly) all go with the least extreme, most opportunist candidate who governed as a centrist in Massachusetts.  The other Republican candidates range from batsh$t crazy to hateful to evil to  incredibly incompetent, so the choice is obvious. 

The more important point is that whoever the Republicans select, Canadians in general should want Obama to get re-elected.  Why? Because it is likely that the Republicans will retain control of one house (o Representatives) and be obnoxious enough in the other (the Senate) that having a Republican in the White House would likely mean too much bad stuff would get through (yes, Obama has allowed for a variety of noxious stuff to pass), including more ill-timed/targeted tax cuts.  My guess is that the Republicans would do heaps of harm to the American economy---and that is important for Canada. 

I was asked about the perimeter deal, but I have no real idea about its current or future content.  For me, the economic issues are the most important, and I just have big doubts about whether the Republicans can govern responsibly.  At this time in US history, divided government is looking pretty good.

Pity the Realists

I have avoided reading Robert Kaplan's take on John Mearsheimer's work mostly because I really cannot stand Kaplan's previous stuff, especially Balkan Ghosts.  I actually don't think it did as much damage to the Balkans as one might guess because Clinton, famously having the book on his bedside table, had lots of other reasons to delay intervening in Bosnia.  My biggest contribution during my year on the Joint Staff was revising the reading list for the Balkans branch, dropping Balkan Ghosts.

Anyhow, Dan Drezner does a nice job of destroying the canard that realists have not been influential in American foreign policy without even mentioning Kennan (Dan provided a couple of realists a chance to respond).*  Drezner even mentions how oppressed realists have often felt.  As Steve Martin would say, well, excuuuuuuuse meeeee!  Why?  Because the realists have, as good secret Marxists, held some of the commanding heights and means of production in the academic economy: a journal (International Security), post-doc suppliers (less so of late with the decline of Olin), and jobs at a variety of desirable academic outposts.  They are not alone in that--Peter Katzenstein complained on one panel how oppressed constructivists were, at a time where they seemed to be getting heaps of post-docs, the best jobs, and publications in the best journals and presses.

*  Yes, the realists can take credit for being right on Iraq in 2003, but, then again, so can nearly every other IR scholar.

 The reason why Realists often feel that they are victims is due to their success--that they have been able to define their approach as the baseline to which any and all competitors must compare.  If states do not maximize their interests (defined as security or power, depending on the realist), then why do they behave as they do?  Thus, anyone who either wants to explain deviations from this baseline or argue that the baseline is wrong has to take on Realism.  So, even if only 15% of IR folks or pubs are avowedly realist, probably 75-90% of the work in the field presents a realist argument even if it is presented as a strawman [Updated: Mike points out that the real data, as opposed to my imaginary data, indicates that 20-50% of non-realist stuff presents a realist argument of some kind--see comments below].

This in sharp contrast to liberal or constructivist arguments--they are not seen as the baseline and are not required to be invoked somewhere along the way when writing something for an IR journal or press.  I say this from much experience. Even with the latest project on NATO and Afghanistan, where there is much variation among the allies in how they behave, even non-realists push me/us at talks to specify how this is not a tale realists can explain.  So, we dedicate space in our intro, juxtaposing various ways to think about threats and security concerns and show how the cross-national and cross-temporal variation do not jibe with realist expectations.  Of course, realists can quibble with how we operationalize realism, but since there are many flavors of realism, this will always be the case.

Let me conclude with what I think are Realism's biggest weakness and biggest contribution:

• Realism is indeterminate.  That is, there is usually more than one way to maximize one's security.  This is why realists can often engage in heaps of arguments with each other, and not just between offensive realists (who focus on maximizing power) and defensive realists (who focus on security).  The international system rarely provides a single best way to defend oneself.  Folks are still arguing, for instance, whether British appeasement of Germany in 1938 was a good idea or not. 
• Realism is right to remind us to focus on power--not in terms of interest but in terms of outcomes.  Power matters greatly in determining outcomes, although not entirely as the insurgents of the world can beat the stronger countries.  I tend to buy into the Moravcsik view of Liberalism telling us much about why conflicts of interest emerge, but Realism via power can usually tell us much about who wins. 

Deja Vu Definitions

A while back I posted that Libya was a civil war as folks were debating whether it was one or not.  Just insert Syria in the para below:

First, the war is, indeed, a civil war.  Some folks want to call it something else like a rebellion or a revolution (more on that in a second), but a civil war, to most scholars, involves two-sided combat between combatants within a country.  Usually, one of the combatants is the government.  If only one side is killing the other, as in mass killings and/or genocide, then it is not a civil war.  Perhaps the Libyan conflict started out as a mass killing, in an effort to repress the protestors, but the rebels have been fighting back, killing Qaddafy's troops for about six months now.  If one wants to get supra-technical, the usual standard is 1,000 battle deaths.  No doubt that we are beyond that. 

Oh, and insert Assad for Qaddafy.  Well, maybe.

The point is that there is significant combat between two sides, and it is not going to end quickly.  So, yes, it is a civil war.  What to do about it is the real question, and pondering what to call it is a handy distraction.

The keys are:

• Russia is not going to allow another UN resolution to pass that would authorize intervention.
• Nor China.
• The Arab League is having a difficult 2012 after a successful 2011.  Monitoring has not worked, but the group will not be able to gain consensus to bless another NATO intervention.
• So, can NATO act in the absence of such a resolution?  Well, if you can only get 8-12 of the members to participate in a semi-UN sanctioned event, NATO probably will not be able to act in a big way.  Several members of NATO need UN-type resolutions to provide cover at home.  
• Plus the Libyan operation stressed out heaps of air forces (pathetic, isn't it?) even before/as the European folks started serious defense budget cutting. 
• Yes, there is now some talk of a No Fly Zone (also known as the least we can do to make it look like we are doing something beyond sanctions--official NATO acronym is LWEDMLLWDSBS, abbreviated to just the last two letters).
• I don't know what the refugee flow from this conflict is, but I doubt that they are headed to Western Europe, so xenophobia not be that much of a driver of intervention this time.
• Yes, the US and a few allies could bomb Syria, but it is not clear that it will work so well this time--the geography is different, the politics are far more complex (some folks in the region do not detest Assad like they hated Qaddafy).[Update: See the far wiser Marc Lynch on the limits of force here]

Another diplomat in Damascus was fatalistic. “There’s not much more that anyone, at the international level, can do,” he said. “There’s not much more the Arab League can, either.”  NYT

Yet another American war in yet another Arab country?  I doubt that Obama is enthused about the prospects. 

To Anger More Folks

I pulled on a tail or two a little while ago when I posted on the US decision to reduce its forces in Europe.  Well, that is probably nothing compared to this post.

Behavior like that I read in an old Washington Post today (because of a tweet related to other article below) makes me feel more strongly than ever that Jonathan Pollard is where he belongs.  Israel seems to be quite callous about not only spying in the US but trying to portray themselves as Americans as they spy on other countries. 

But a retired senior FBI counterintelligence official told SpyTalk, "They have always been extremely aggressive, and seem to feel they can operate whenever and wherever they want, in spite of being called on the carpet more than any other country by probably a factor of three times as often."

Also, see this piece.: "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought."

I am a strong believer that when it comes to treason that if you do the crime, you do the time.

Israel can justify all kinds of stuff because they face an existential threat, but that does not make such policies right or smart or legitimate.  What they demonstrate is what is best for Israel and what is best for the United States can be entirely separate things.  So, if Israel wants to undermine American national security by having agents pose as Americans to try to get Americans to act against American interests, then Israel should expect that such policies have costs.  One such cost is having their recruits do serious time in prison.

I wouldn't mind trading Pollard for a serious foreign policy concession, like reversing the settlements in occupied territories (or whatever they are called these days).  But, otherwise, Netanyahu can just shut up about Pollard as long as Israel continues the behavior discussed in the article cited above.

Time to Panic About the US and NATO?

"Can we panic now?"  I can see why Europe and fans of NATO might be concerned that the US is reducing the number of army brigades based in Europe.  The US has been seen as Europe's "pacifier" (using NATOsource's quote), assuring the Europeans that they don't have to worry about their neighbors but being far enough way not to threaten them much. 

However, with most of Europe facing significant pressures to cut military budgets, who is the threat?  Which countries will re-arm, worried about the neighbors, especially since the US is not withdrawing entirely from Europe?  A couple of brigades, heaps of navy bases (US will be basing ships at Spanish ports to provide anti-missile defense), and air bases will continue to provide enough American forces in the region and enough infrastructure for the US to surge back if needed.

Perhaps the threat is "unresolved nationalism."  I am not sure how American military power prevents the rise of nationalism.  Not only am I a skeptic of about the impact of the EU on the good behavior of potentially irredentist European countries, but I am also a skeptic about NATO conditionality.  NATO mattered in shaping the civil-military relations of the newly democratic countries, but other dynamics limited Hungary, Romanian and even Russian irredentism (like their own xenophobia).  Until someone can tell me how two brigades in Europe would make a difference in the rise of nationalist politicians (oh crap, Orban and Fidesz came to power in Hungary before the reductions!), I will hope that that the move will save as many $$ as hoped for.

The funny thing is that NATO has been pretty happy with temporary presence as a means of providing assurance to Iceland and the Baltics.  On a regular basis, an ally provides a number of planes to be based briefly in either locale, fly around, exercise, making sure the infrastructure is intact to support them.  Given that the Baltics, more so than Iceland, are proximate to the biggest threats (Russia, of course) seem ok with this, why would the US need to keep two brigades in Europe to assure countries further away from the action (Germany, Italy, etc.)?

There would still be plenty of military-to-military interactions, exercises, schools, working groups, and such. So, NATO would still exist and still have the capability to do stuff in the region.  The real threat to NATO is not so much moving some US assets further away from the scene but the cuts the allies are making in key areas.  Eliminating one's armor entirely means there is no capacity to surge down the road, as all the folks experienced in armored warfare will be gone.  Having only one squadron of planes means that one can only bomb Libya for six months.  You get the picture. 

So, it is kind of funny to see anyone in Europe complain that American economies in defense spending are problematic, given that European defense cuts are much more drastic (ask the Royal Navy).  The US will continue to be spending huge amounts of money on defense, will still have a very large army, a very large air force (only threatened by the expensiveness of its latest planes), and the most powerful navy in the world.  More of it will be dedicated to the Pacific, but they can come back to Europe when needed.

The problem is that Europe is a success story, and grand strategy requires balancing commitments and capabilities.  There is some risk, but smart people face the risks and manage them, understanding the tradeoffs.  Less aware folks ignore the risks and try to have everything (can Canada, for instance, really afford a modern air force, modern navy, and modern army?  In a word, no). 

The Meaning of Control

I lectured on Wednesday about the concept of control in civil-military relations and then the media blows up about four US Marines urinating on some dead Taliban.  Yes, this is upsetting and the Marines in question should be punished, but this is not a question of policy or a military out of control.

No, control means that the civilians determine the policies with the military providing the best advice they can, that the military figures out how to implement the policies with the civilians paying attention to the bigger how questions.  If some soldier in a very large organization does something wrong, that is a problem but it is not an evidence of the loss of civilian control.  The question of civilian control right now is how do the civilians and military handle it.

Deploying thousands of troops will mean that bad things happen, that some soldiers/marines/sailors/air-folk will stray from the intent of their officers.  The question really is: did these Marines have officers who created a permissive environment where this kind of behavior was seen to be ok?  We don't know.  We do know that Rumsfeld and the folks under him did create a permissive environment where abusing prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib not only could happen but would happen.

The pissing incident was clearly not part of US policy.  Torture was.  I am not excusing or justifying what the Marines did, but making it clear that this incident, until we know more, tells us very little about civilian control of the military.

What it does remind us is: the strategic corporal or private.  That, in today's warfare, the actions of a grunt on the ground can have big ramifications.

Still, this action, as stupid and as offensive as it is, is far less odious than what the Taliban does on a regular basis--blowing up innocent kids with no regard for anyone else.  Indeed, treatment of prisoners and such--not a Taliban strength.  Again, this does not justify or excuse what the Marines did, but just put things into perspective.

Anyhow, this term looks to be fruitful for all kinds of civ-mil issues.

Two Solitudes Indeed

Interesting piece at the NYT about how Quebec is already sovereign culturally.  It focuses on a Quebec francophone mock news show that focuses nearly entirely on Quebec, and the author suggests that this means that Quebec is culturally independent even as (or perhaps facilitating?) the temporary coma in which the political independence movement is. 

As a long-time (ten years) resident of Quebec,* I am both not surprised by this analysis and a bit critical.  I am not surprised because Quebeckers do think of themselves as a distinct society and have wanted recognition of that fact.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized that reality when he cared about votes here.  He does not any longer given his recent trend of decisions destined to annoy folks here, such as appointing unilingual Anglophones to a bunch of spots.  Anyhow, Quebec is distinct.  Got it. 

I am a bit critical because a one hour program or so is not necessarily representative and Quebeckers do care a great deal about what goes on in Ottawa, at least as far as I can tell.  They care, for instance, about Team Canada in hockey, not just how miserable the Canadiens are these days.  Of course, I don't watch much TV in French, so perhaps the report is correct.

Still, the point of this post is to point folks who are curious about the Quebec/Canada dynamic to an interesting angle.  I do think that one of the reasons why sovereignty is not so popular these days is precisely because the Francophones have won all of the big battles, including having heaps of cultural outlets that remain en francais.

Present This

OK, this is painfully accurate.  I am not guilty of all of these, but a few parts that do stand out:

• "Pretending to click on the computer ..." job talks for sure.
• I used to have juvenile slide transitions, but never read long paras
• forgotten fourth bullet--always!
• Out of date pop culture references!
• Clearly aware of texting.
• Typo.
• Questions....

HT to Dan Drezner.

Speaking of Coups

This semester of Civil-Military Relations is getting off to a hot start with .... news about a potential crisis in Chinese civil-military relations.  I don't know anything about China or China's military except one thing: officers in the military have gotten deeply involved in the economy.  That is, the military owns businesses that are major actors in the economy, enriching the officers and giving them increased power and stakes.  Does that sound like any place else?  Well, Egypt for one.

There have been too many reminders in the Chinese state media that “the Party controls the gun”—that the PLA reports to civilians—to think that this has not become an issue.

I was just saying in lecture today that it is often hard to see if a genuine crisis exists, as disagreements between military officers and civilians are often part of an exchange of ideas.  Again, I don't know much about China, but I do think that we live in interesting times, as they say.

Coup Excuse?

I have been thinking much of the game of Junta lately because I am teaching Civil-Military Relations this term, and the game with much snark (it is an old game, so they probably used some other word than snark to describe it way back when) nicely simulates coup dynamics.

My favorite part of the game is that several cards and other parts of the game serve as excuses for coups--that one can but does not necessarily need to kick off the second level of this two level game--where one plays out a coup.  Since that fateful day in college long ago, when I see something that looks like an equivalent of one of the coup excuse cards of Junta, I naturally say: aha! coup excuse!  See these posts: here and here.

So, what is the coup excuse du jour?  The Pakistan government has fired the defense secretary, and the military is not pleased.  Whether this will cause or forestall a coup remains to be seen.  That the head of the military has a say in who is the defense secretary is evidence enough that Pakistan has some significant problems in the area of civil-military relations.  You know, in addition to the coups that happen every once in a while when the military starts wars that the civilians don't want.

“The army will not react violently, but it will not cooperate with the new secretary defense,” said a military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the situation.

Lovely.  Of course, this is not new news--there has been much pondering over how much control the civilians have these days over the Pakistan military and the intelligence services:

General Lodhi, who was only recently appointed defense secretary, became embroiled in a controversy last month after he submitted a statement in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Defense Ministry stating that the civilian government had no operational control over the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s powerful spy agency. Mr. Gilani accused Mr. Lodhi of overstepping and objected to his blunt statement, a public acknowledgment that, while the intelligence services are technically under the control of the prime minister, they are widely perceived to act independently of the civilian government.

And this gets us to Bin Laden, the Taliban, and the US.  The interesting thing here is that the military is admitting something that we have long believed--the civilians do not control the ISI, which has been abetting the Taliban, harming the US and potentially assisting Bin Laden (well, before he was killed). And the civilians are upset that the general, the defense secretary, was honest about this state of affairs.  I don't know whether he said it with pride or shame, but saying it out loud was probably not just important but the right thing to do.  You cannot fix a problem without admitting there is one.

Anyhow, I have to rush off and teach my Civ-Mil class. One optional component during the term--playing Junta because I do indeed have the game.

The New Momentum

Thanks to multiple 24 hour news networks, twitter, and all the rest, we must hype every twitch along the way, when just perhaps we do not see politics spin on a pivot every week.

Yes, we have had the rise and fall of the not-Romney's, but there seems to be absolutely no perspective that the electorates of each state might be somewhat different.  So, yes, Santorum rose at the end because he was seen by Iowa's social conservatives as being the only genuine social conservative--translation--he has been an extremist for a long time.  But New Hampshire is different, known as a state chock full of libertarians (live free or die, right), so Santorum does not play well.  Romney will because he lives nearby.  Huntsman might do well, Paul might do well because both are less odious to libertarians than the potentially authoritarian Santorum even if some folks might believe that Ron Paul's libertarianism is really totalitarianism disguised.

But then the campaign moves to South Carolina, so we should see Santorum perhaps do a bit better, Gingrich might play a bit better, and Huntsman, despite his funny daughters will be toast.  Romney will continue to be the choice of the establishment that just wants to win, and he will be reviled by social conservatives because his pandering efforts are not successful and perhaps because he is a Mormon.  Ron Paul may or may not play well.

The only thing I can really guarantee is that the media will over-react to every event, making it seem like big changes are afoot.  Looking back to the Iowa caucuses, never a representative sample of anything, note that the Republicans demonstrated one thing above all--ambivalence. 

Oh, the other thing I can guarantee: I am not watching the TV coverage nor the debates.  I will pay semi-attention view twitter and the internet and newspapers, but I have better things to do with my evenings than watch the sports coverage that is modern political television analysis.  Tonight, that better thing is Attack the Block with the Spew family.*

* I finally figured out how to game zip.ca.  If you list non-current movies and current movies, they will only send the older movies, no matter the priority you assign.  So, our zip list is currently just the movies of the past year that we want to see the most.  We will add the older movies in later once we catch up some.

Roland Paris is Smart (not news)

Roland Paris, soon to be a neighbor (I am moving his way), is a sharp guy, and has posted in various places some interesting stuff, including this look back at the NATO effort over Libya.  I don't always agree with him, but that is because I tend to be a stubborn and agreement is boring.

Anyhow, a couple things to add to his analysis:

First, regarding his third asterisk: Russia learned from its mistake, just as the USSR learned not to boycott UN Security Council meetings when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950.  Russia is not going to let any resolution that authorizes force against any country for R2P kinds of stuff anymore.  NATO/UK/France/US got their one shot.  Lesson learned.  Oh, and China learned the same lesson.

Second, Roland over-estimates the intra-NATO struggling towards the end of the campaign.  Yes, countries wobbled, but once the conflict becomes defined as "we need to do this not so much for country x, but for the credibility/survival/future of NATO," there is enough rallying of support to continue and even escalate (US starts making ground campaign noises in June 1999).  So, NATO permits much alliance discord but sallys onward anyway.

The funny thing on this second point is that Liberal IR types (especially institutionalists) tend to argue that institutions become not just the means but the ends of policy.  NATO is a perfect example of this.  So, does that make me a better Liberal than Roland?  Certainly not, just a snarkier one.

Be Careful What You Ask For #2

British Prime Minister challenged the Scots to hold a referendum as the Scottish National Party had promised during the recent campaign.  He thought to do this because independence is not actually that popular among the Scots these days.  Well, the SNP decided to call the bluff. 

Cameron's logic made sense--that the possibility of secession is a distraction, that a failed referendum would put the topic to bed for awhile (well, Quebec would teach him that it means secession/referendum talk goes away for about ten years and then starts to build again).*

* People ask: why am I leaving McGill and Montreal. Lots of reasons, particularly the attractiveness of the gig at Carleton, but one reason is that the timing is good.  My house was bought after the last referendum, so it has gained in value.  No new referendum in sight to mess up the value now.  Plus I have not yet been on a bridge or in a tunnel when they have collapsed, but I am not sure how long my luck will hold.

However, the problem is that, as Cameron may find out, preferences are not fixed.  When the federal government (Canadian or British) start messing around with the rules of the system, it tends to cause those who might be ambivalent about secession to become less ambivalent.  Cameron's move here might piss off enough Scots that they get 50% plus one or whatever threshold they need to really create uncertainty and disturb investors.

Oh, and good news (insert sarcasm symbol here), the SNP is already talking of multiple options on the ballot and no vetting by British authorities, so we may get a very opaque, contradictory, confusing (name another antonym to Clarity Act) outcome.

Jolly good show!  Oh, no, not so much.  Yes, this is Cameron's gamble--to push for a referendum when it is not popular hoping that the current polls are correct.  You would think that the man never participated in an election where the initial polls and the final outcomes were significantly different. Too bad he did not consult Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or (insert random GOP candidate).

The irony in all of this is that Cameron shows he has ignored the lessons that Canada and Quebec could teach about the perils of constitutional debates and the desire to avoid a referendum.  Good times.

The good news is that we scholars of secession will soon have another case.  A case of what?  We don't know yet, but we will certainly have more material.  And for that, we can only give thanks to David Cameron.  I am sure the folks in Great Britain feel the same right, right?

Testing the EU

I am a published Euro-skeptic and have been skeptical about the EU here and at Current Intelligence many times.  But here's me hoping that the EU finally passes a key test that it might actually have some standards. 

Hungary is asking for a line of credit from the EU, which is really kind of funny: credit involves credibility, but using one's super-majority to up-end existing institutions indicates one is not particularly constrained.  So, will the EU follow its supposed standards and deny Hungary credit at a time where the Hungarian economy is weak but its politicians are in a very strong position?

I would not bet on the EU spine holding up, but I certainly hope it does.  How are the Spew readers betting?

Good Timing for the Last Course

Today, I started the last course I will teach at McGill: Civil-Military Relations.*  The course addresses the issues surrounding a basic problem for all political systems: how do you manage the guys with the guns?  In advanced democracies, civilian control is assumed (no one asked the US military in 2000 how Gore v. Bush should be resolved), but poorly understood.  The GOP candidates have been competing to be the best at following whatever the generals would recommend, which means military control of the military.  Oops.  

*  It will probably be the first course I teach at Carleton.

To be clear, I am relatively late to this game.  Civ-Mil is one of the topics that got me interested in Poli Sci and grad school, but I ended up choosing a topic that would lead me away (ethnic conflict) and forever dominate my destiny.  But a year in the Pentagon and then a research project on NATO and Afghanistan have lead to renewed interest in this topic.  The joy of being a professor is that one can ask to teach classes to compel one to read the literature in an area one is relatively weak.  So, I started teaching Civ-Mil a few years ago to help the writing of the Dave and Steve book, to fill a gap in the curriculum, and because it is mighty interesting.

And holy good timing!  2011 was very much a year of civil-military dynamics around the world (it always is, but much more obviously so).  Arab Spring was all about whether the military would follow the commands of their bosses or side with their protestors or split.  The variance in outcomes: Tunisia good, Egypt with its coup that might end up being a revolution, Libya with its civil war, Syria with its oppression are largely stories of armies making different choices.  Pakistan is feeling coup-ish these days. Plus we have some good old civ-mil in the advanced democracies as admirals in the UK criticize defence cuts, folks in Canada blame the military for the Kandahar decision, and we have all kinds of interesting civ-mil dynamics in the US, with the big budget cuts likely to lead to heaps of efforts by elements of the military to play Congress off against the President.

Of course, most of the stuff I teach is always in play--which is why I teach it.  Still, this is a nice way to go out--with a semester of incredibly relevant stuff to make the class most interesting.

The Grass Is Always Greener

I have long whined about Quebec and its underfunding of Higher education, so it is only fair that I should point out, as I learn more about my new home, that Ontario is trying to compete with Quebec in undermining its future.

First, there is the tuition rebate--students who bought into Ontario universities expecting a certain level of fees are getting a significant chunk back.  Which would be ok if the government knew how to pay for it.  But they didn't.  They really did write a check without thinking about how to pay for it.

Which leads to second, they are cutting research funding to pay for the tuition cuts.  Lovely.  Because, as we all know, there is no connection between research and teaching.  Sure, some would argue otherwise.  Oh, I wrote that.  Damn.  What was I thinking?  Oh, that's right, I was thinking that knowledge creation/dissemination might actually be a better multiplier than pretty much any other investment by governments.  Silly me.  Darn those inconvenient facts.

The guy responsible for this, Premier Dalton McGuinty, is a Liberal.  Funny, I used to think that Liberalism went along with Enlightenment, knowledge, education, and such.  But if this is the future of the Liberal Party, then I might actually be glad that the party has been marginalized at the federal level.  Oh, and the future of the Liberals is also mighty @#$!^*&-ed, despite getting sound advice.

On the bright side, it is nice to know that Quebec and the US do not have a monopoly on politicians who don't understand math, budgeting, or education. 

Sorting the Candidates

Dan Drezner tweeted while watching the 2nd GOP debate in about 12 hours about a question that Gingrich might be asked: which Hogwarts House he would want to be in?  So, of course, let me be the voice of the sorting hat this morning since I have nothing better to do (besides heaps of professional and personal chores on which I am quite behind).

Yes, it would be easy to consider them all suitable for Slytherin since they are so ambitious and so willing to do whatever it takes to win, but that would be too easy.  Besides, in the books, not all bad people come from Slytherin and not all good people are in Gryffindor.*

* On the other hand, as my wife points out, racists belong in Slytherin, and several of these folks are racist, so take this with a grain of salt (Berty Bot's)

But, obviously, Newt Gingrich would be in Slytherin.  He has no interest in ordinary values like fidelity, decency (divorce papers to a wife in the hospital for cancer treatment), etc., but whines when he does not have his privileges (like where he gets to sit on Air Force One) and is pretty ruthless.

Ron Paul would be in Ravenclaw because he thinks he is really smart and really likes ideas, no matter how batsh@#$ they might be.

Mitt Romney would be in Hufflepuff because he has no discernible talents but works really hard.  Besides, the guy who wants to be all things to all people belongs in the residual category.

Jon Huntsman might be in Ravenclaw because of his intellect or Gryffindor because he actually is pretty brave, taking a position in the Obama Administration and then choosing to fight against all odds for the nomination of a party that really does not like him.  Besides, since much of this seems hereditary (JK is so very British), we would like to have Huntsman's daughters in Gryffindor (which was the only house that seemed to have a good sense of humor).

Rick Perry, well, seems to think he is the chosen one but is not, so where would that put him?  Given how inept Draco was in his efforts in Half-Blood Prince, I guess Perry could be Slytherin on that basis.  But he is a likely drop-out.  Jacob Levy suggested that Perry is actually a squib--born to a wizarding family but having no magical talent (or otherwise).

This leaves us with Rick Santorum, who believes that most people are pretty much damned and his moral superiority means he should have the chance to restrict the rights of others.  So, Slytherin!  Of course, of all the candidates, he would be most outraged not just at being put in this house but in the Harry Potter context because it is so satanic, pagan, and interesting.

To be clear, there is room in Gryffindor for Republicans: not just Huntsman's daughters but also John McCain who can be misguided (like Percy) but quite bold in pushing against the easy path (anti-torture, mostly); perhaps even the first George Bush (he raised taxes despite the wishes of his base); and, of course, old yellerrail-splitter himself, Abraham Lincoln.  And there are Democrats who are almost certainly affiliated with Slytherin, including Bill Clinton who had few values but lots of opportunism and used his position to advance his basest interests (and pardoned some truly awful people for cash on his way out the door).

So, where is Obama?  The sorting hat would have a tough time since he has many attributes from each of the houses, but I would have to say that it is either Ravenclaw for his intelligence and respect for ideas or Gryffindor since he did push against the grain (voting against Iraq war in 2002) and risked his life, essentially, to become the first African-American president.

So, there you have it.  Of course, this could all be a ruse--as any reference to Hogwarts and its houses amplify the hits to my blog big-time!  That, or I just haven't satisfied my HP addiction lately.

*  Oh, and I didn't sort the candidates who have dropped out--Palin, Cain, Bachmann.  Hogwarts didn't have too many drop-outs until the last years when some parents realized (despite the mythology) that it was far more dangerous to be at the school than anywhere else.  But the obvious place where they reside now: St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries.

Living Via Observation Bias

I am both thrilled and displeased by this new piece about Canada's decision to go to Kandahar in 2005-06.

I am thrilled because it indicates something that I have long believed--that Canada didn't want to go any of the places in safer, less controversial Regional Command West because they didn't want to be commanded by the Italians.  Since the Italians had/have pretty strict caveats, the Canadian Forces would not have much confidence that they would receive help in a tough battle, especially since Italy had very few helicopters in its Afghanistan inventory. 

I am displeased because the article tends to portray the mil to mil planning as something sinister and repeats the canard that only the CF wanted to go to Kandahar even if it gets right the CF's motivations to have more control over how it is deployed.  This article omits, like most stories like this, the reality that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was also most interested in deploying to Kandahar for some of the same reasons as the CF.  To make a difference, to have more influence.  And that was something Paul Martin also wanted--not just to have 40 Canadian flags showing a dispersed force in many UN missions, playing a marginal role in each.  Rather, he, DFAIT and DND (CF) all wanted to be in a spot where Canada could have influence on how it was used, and that help would be readily available (especially since years of mistakes meant that the CF had no helos deployable to Kandahar in 2005).

Also, the article makes it sound like UK-CA planning was anti-NATO, which astounds me.  Yes, two of the allies' militaries worked together to try to figure out the future--this is Standard Operating Procedure.  Few decisions are only first discussed at the North Atlantic Council or the Military Committee.  Instead, small groups of allies work together to figure out how to set the agenda, whether it is the top five contributors to the Balkans (the QUINT, also see here) or two countries that often work together (CA and UK had been in same sector in Bosnia).  The reality was that in the move to Southern Afghanistan, the Brits did not want to be alone and worked hard to put together a coalition of countries that can work well together in a tough area--and they chose the Canadians, Danes, Dutch, and Australians as reliable partners, along with the US. 

Yes, there was wishful thinking that the size of the force would be enough, that the Taliban was not likely to come back in real strength, and so on. Yes, it would play out well for US-Canadian politics, but Canada was going back to Afghanistan one way or another, since supporting the NATO alliance is and has been very much a core Canadian national interest.  Yoking the US to multilateral institutions is also a core Canadian national interest.  Articles like these make it sound like the CF was alone and was acting against Canadian interests when the reality is very much the opposite--it really was a whole of government effort to get involved (at least CF, DND, PMO, DFAIT--CIDA had other concerns).

To conclude: aargh! Of course, I could be reading into all of this what I want to read.  I thought the article was really cool at first when it provided support for my existing beliefs.  Then I got upset when it argued stuff that I found objectionable.  Another example of biased observation, right?  Well, it is for the readers to assess.

The Canada Party

I love this video--makes fun of US and Canada at the same time (some NSFW language):
[H/T: The Daily Beast]

I have a few quibbles:

• I think the lumberjacks of the US can be just as fashionable as those of Canada).
• I resemble the remark about the illiterate foreigners from the south stealing Canadian jobs.

Anyhow, given where the Republican race has gone, perhaps Canada could do a better job?