Joint Staff Memories

I was reading a blog post by Peter Munson when I was amused to see him mention a certain Brigadier General.  Why?  Because this officer who served as the spokeman for the coalition in Iraq in 2004 had previously served in an office where I had to interact with him over the phone.  I will always remember him saying: you are not stupid, just your ideas.  What an incredibly stupid thing to say.  And the funny thing was that I was calling him about a set of proposed stances the Joint Staff was examining--not my ideas.  Oh, and, by the way, the ideas were not stupid at all--how to reduce American troops in Kosovo by sharing responsibility in a sector.

But to have this ace communicator, well known as a dick as one tweeter put it today, be the public face of the US military in Iraq in 2004 when everything else was going wrong, well, that was perfect.

Not that my year (exactly ten years ago) was one of Steve brilliance.  I remember the consternation folks would have when I would have to spell out my name on the phone: Saideman--S as in Sam, A as in Apple, ...  instead of Sierra Alpha Indigo Delta ....

Ah, good times.  The funny thing was that I was always told that the best and brightest folks in the military were those who were on the Joint Staff.  I would tease back, saying that these are the only folks I know, so I cannot be sure.  And then officers like the one Munson and I have both encountered tended to prove the generalization true.  Those who got their "Joint" qualification elsewhere were not so stunningly bright--Tommy Franks would be another such genius (actually, hard to tell from his bio where he got his Joint qualification).

All I can say is I am glad I have tenure.  It buys me heaps of insurance from the Kimmits and Franks of the academic world, folks who have been promoted far beyond their capability.

Failing to Secede? Study Some More

If you fail at something, try, try again. Well, for the Parti Quebecois, the response to failure is apparently research.  There have been apparently 148 studies in 30 years of Quebec independence--how to get it, what would one do with it, etc.  With the PQ competing with the provincial Liberals to be the least popular party in their competition with the new, who knows what the hell they are, party, it is time to do something aggressive, forward-thinking, and creative to get things going:

They are forming a committee!

Oh, the federalists are quaking in their boots.  Well, the federalists are mostly nauseous, but that is thanks to Justin Trudeau's lousy speech last week where he basically said that if Harper truly represents the Rest of Canada, then perhaps Quebec should have its own country.  Justin, to be clear, Harper has a majority because your party (the Liberal party that used to dominate Canada)  failed, utterly failed to attract voters.  The last election result was as much or more a message to the Liberals how incredibly lame they have become as it was any kind of signal that Harper's Conservatives have a popular message. 

Anyhow, back to the PQ: the Montreal Gazette, a federalist newspaper, was quick to observe that the committee's membership is entirely white and mostly male.  With Pauline Marois leading the party and the committee, the three females out of twelve may not be problematic.  But all white?  Perhaps the PQ might do better if it tried to represent and appeal to more than just the Pure Laine (the white Quebeckers who claim to be ancestors of the original French settlers).  Of course, Jacques Parizeau made headlines after the last referendum when he blamed ethnic voters and moneyed folks (that would be the Jews), but there was something to this--that the PQ failed then and continues to fail to play to a multiethnic audience.  Just as the Republicans seem to be happy with being the party of white rural America (real America to Sarah Palin), the PQ can be the party of white rural Quebeckers (since running against Montreal is basic to the party).  Which means they can only win slim pluralities if the other party/parties self-destruct but not enough votes to win a referendum on independence, especially if the language is clear.

I am sure that the committee will come out with some new strategies that will be sure to make a difference.  In the number of trees killed to publish the next study? 

All I can think of is the striking contrast between Princess Leia and Pauline Marois:
Leia:  I am not a committee!!
Marois: I am the committee.

The Critics Are Not The Only Ignorant Folks

Murray Brewster has been on the F-35 story in Canada like a terrier.  His latest story makes it abundantly clear that there is a huge contradiction in Canadian defence planning: the future of airware is so important that Canada must invest huge amounts of money in the latest and supposedly greatest plane--the F-35.  At the same time, the plane is unlikely to come in on schedule but there is no plan for filling the gap as the current F-18s go beyond their lifespan.  So, the need for the best is extreme but it is ok if we have a gap between the two generations of planes?  See the contradiction? 

Well, politically, it makes sense.  If you really want plane A, do not prepare any alternatives so that if plane A has problems, the opposition cannot switch the tracks to plan B and another plane.  If there were was another plane that could fill the gap, then the urgency of buying an over-priced, under-performing plane would be less clear.

I am reading Brewster's book on Canada and Afghanistan, The Savage War, where there is a similar theme--that the Tories tend to go all in on a particular path and then don't know how to adjust or shift direction.

What frustrates me greatly about the Harper government is not that they chose the F-35, but they didn't seem to really think that hard about it and weigh the alternatives.  Even or especially now, there does not seem to be much re-consideration of the options.  Other countries, such as Australia, are thinking seriously about the tradeoffs and the likely outcomes.  Canada has its head in the snow.

Golden Oldies

Here is a link to a post I wrote when first started blogging nearly three years ago, presenting a theory of academic politics that was about fifteen years in the making.  Why am I thinking about it now?  Oh, just a couple of things that happened this week near and far that reminded me of this, along with some things I remembered as I was packing up my office.

Saturday Silliness: Evil Dead vs Highlander

Thanks to following the real Bruce Campbell on twitter (I just started following him this week), voila:






Groovy!

Perhaps My Religion is That of the Jedi

H/T to Charli C of the Duck:


Stay to the very end.

Our Evangelical Air Force

I have posted before about the inappropriate role that a certain brand of religion has played in the US Air Force.  I will always be disturbed by the prominent place of the chapel at the US Air Force Academy.  It is the most visible, dominating piece of architecture on the campus, symbolizing perfectly how powerfully a narrow version of Christianity plays in one of the armed services of the United States.

So, when I see a story like this one, where one of the most senior officers in the USAF quite matter-of-factly puts his Christian vision into his introduction to his command, I am not surprised.

As part of an all-hands meeting with DISA employees, Hawkins apparently showed a power point presentation that contained two slides titled “Ronnie’s Rules” that outline 18 priorities, the first and last of which are “Always put God first, and stay within His will” and “Always remember God is good — all the time!”

As I tweeted, isn't the first loyalty of any soldier, marine, sailor or airman/women (is it an accident that the USAF's term for enlisted person is not gender neutral?), or officer to country and constitution?  God or Gods or demons or trees or flying spaghetti monsters are private matters, not to be prioritized at all and certainly not put above the Constitution.  Sure, there is the whole "so help me God" at the end of the oath, which is more than I really want, but path dependence is a bitch.  Harder to get God out these various things, but separation of Church and State is fundamental for the United States, and I am pretty sure that the US Air Force is still part of the USA.

Anyhow, General Ronnie Hawkins is now, of course, back-tracking, saying that these are the slides he has always used and are just for his edification:

"Those two slides, in particular ...were in no way a directive or expectation I have for our dedicated men and women,” said Hawkins, who previously served as deputy director of command control, communications and computer systems, Joint Staff at the Pentagon. “The rules are my own personal guide posts, or moral compass.”

Um, then why show them as part of your priorities as part of your intro to the staff?  Shouldn't he have learned somewhere along the way that one leads by example and that the power of the office means that your priorities become the troops'?  Oh, they probably don't teach that at the US Air Force Academy because they are too busy praying and evangelizing and bullying folks who do not believe or believe in the wrong God(s).

Deja Vu All Over Again

The same folks who so wanted the Iraq war are lining up to sign letters to advocate war against Syria.  Hardly unpredictable at all. But my question is this: did they ask Paul (Jerry) Bremer, the king of occupied failure, to sign it?  Or did they not have the cajones to ask him to go away?  After all, Bremer presided over the biggest @#$&-up east of Katrina-ed New Orleans.    His name on the letter devalues it by about 100 units. 

Right now, pretty much every reasonable person is saying that using force against Syria is mighty complicated, just as using force is mighty complicated against Iran.  Given that the US has fought two long wars over the past ten years and has probably not been all that successful (that success is even hard to measure) and at great costs (measured in trillions of dollars--these guys don't care about the casualties, right Peter Munson?), one would think that a bit of caution is in order, right?

Saying Goodbye to The Kid

Great last at-bat for Gary Carter:


Just so sad that he died so early.  The good news is, that unlike many of his teammates on the 1986 Mets, Carter did not waste his talents.  He played well as long as as he could, and he got to leave the field with a double and a run batted in.  Not a bad way to end a career.  Oh, and the hit was misplayed by one of the guys, Andre Dawson, who used to mock Carter for being so friendly to the media and to everyone else. 

Oh, and was that the last time that the Expos had a full house?  Maybe not, but I would like to think so.

Equal Time for Turkey

I spewed about Greece's role in NATO yesterday in reaction to positive tweets by Secretary General Rasmussen.  Today, he is in Turkey, since it is also the 60th anniversary of Turkey joining the alliance.  To be fair, Turkey has been a bit of trouble for the alliance as well, although Turkey does provide more added value than Greece.

Both countries have challenged NATO's democratic credentials over time with Turkey having more frequent and more recent military regimes.  Turkey did invade Cyprus and continues to be the only country to recognize Turkish Cyrpus as anything more than occupied territory.  Turkey's policies towards its Kurdish population has been counter-productive at best.  The Greece-Turkey feud is hardly one-sided, as Turkey blocks NATO efforts to build relations with the EU in large part because of Greece's effort in the opposite direction. 

Yet Turkey provides more added value than Greece to the alliance as a bridge to the Mideast and as a significant contributor to Afghanistan (albeit one with tight restrictions).  

All allies have their pluses and their minuses.  Some countries more obviously contribute (Denmark), others more obviously cost (Greece), with Turkey very visibly providing both costs and benefits. 

Greece: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

This morning, NATO's Secretary General, Anders Rasmussen, of whom I am a big fan, was meeting with Greek politicians on the 60th anniversary of Greece's membership in the alliance (I think) and said something like what a wonderful ally Greece is. 

I had to snark, could not help myself:

SG loses 7 units of credibility RT @NATO: Secretary General praises Greece as a pillar of Euro-Atlantic security

Why?  Because Greece has largely been an impediment to NATO for, well, more than a decade.  How?  Let me count the ways:

1. Focusing on Macedonia's name so much that it blocked serious efforts to deal with instability emanating from Yugoslavia's demise.  NATO docs still have FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) instead of simply Macedonia (let's just compromise and call the place Mac & Cheese--heaps of marketing opportunities).
2. Efforts to build links and cooperate between NATO and European Union are blocked by the mutual hissing fit between Greece and Turkey.  Greece blocks such efforts in EU circles, Turkey replies in NATO meetings.
3. For much of the NATO effort in ISAF, Greece had the least proportionate commitment--15 guys.  Even if other countries had significant restrictions on their troops, they provided at least enough so that some slots could be filled in key areas.  Fifteen is a joke.
4. Greece distracts NATO with talk of the Turkish threat. Yes, they have issues, and, yes, Turkey is not the most cooperate member of NATO (that would be Denmark), but Turkey is not going to war with Greece anytime soon and Greece is jointly responsible for the mess that is Cyprus.  
5. Oh yeah, Cyprus got to join various European organizations due to Greek insistence, undermining the effort to set conditions for membership (of course, that is good for me since I get to write about conditionality as "Pie Crust Promises).  

So, spare me.  Greece is not a wonderfully ally.  It is a thorn in the side of European/Atlantic cooperation.  

Meme This

I actually have enjoyed some of the ones floating around on Poli Sci and IR, but I can see why people might be annoyed by now.

H/T to a site I am loving: I love charts.

The Future of the Canadian Forces

I was recently invited to join the Canadian International Council's group of bloggers.  I will have most distinguished company.  Indeed, I am fairly intimidated by the folks with whom I will be associating.  My first effort ponders the future of the Canadian Forces, given the existing and future budget constraints.

Take a look and comment there or here or both. 

You Get What You Pay For

With much angst and anxiety already developing as the Canadian census numbers show a relative and even absolute decline in the numbers of folks residing in Quebec, we ought to consider for a second or two what these statistics might say about past public policy, not just the future power of Quebec.

The initial numbers include things like this:

In only five years, 2006-2011, Quebec experienced a net out-migration of 50,000. They weren’t all native French-speakers of course. But many were.

The question that Quebec politicians need to be asking themselves is why.  Why are more folks leaving than coming?  What makes Quebec less desirable than other parts of Canada?  As someone who is choosing to leave Quebec, I obviously have thought about this quite a bit.  For me, part of the issue is that living in Ottawa will offer different professional opportunities that Montreal cannot offer, given that one is the capital of the country and the other is not.*

*Indeed, if  Quebec were to secede, the capital would be Quebec City, not Montreal.

It has long been the case that wages are lower and taxes are higher in Quebec than in most of Canada.  Is this a product of imperialism?  Of Anglophone domination?  Or a relatively captive labor market--that folks get paid less because they are less mobile than folks in other provinces?  I am certainly moving in part because my wages will be better and my taxes will be lower.


I am also moving because I feel as if the tax dollars in Quebec are poured into giant black holes--since the quality of the roads and other public services are clearly inferior to those elsewhere.  I love Montreal, but Quebec drives me crazy--that the governance is so poor that the efforts to fix the roads linking the west part of the island to downtown will precede significant changes to the commuter train system rather than the other way around.

I worry about McGill's future, given that Quebec decides how it is funded.  Sure, Ontario is not looking that great these days with magical tuition rebates that gut the income the province needs to pay for higher education.  But that is just a bad campaign promise.  

For immigrants, the restrictions on their kids' education in the language of their choosing (with the PQ promising at times to extend such policies to CEGEP's) provides some impetus to moving onwards.

The sad thing about these demographic trends is that they happened during a time of relative provincial peace with no referenda during the time frame or in the near future.  If the rabble-rousers in the PQ have their way, we would see even more people flee Quebec due to its instability.

And, yes, part of the reason for the demographic decline is that folks in Quebec are not having babies at a high enough rate.  The irony is that Quebec has long envied Europe's social democracy and tried to imitate it (badly), but now Quebec is suffering from a challenge that Europe is encountering--declining fertility.  The answer to declining birth rates is ... immigration, but Quebec has a set of policies in place that encourage immigrants to come and then move on to the rest of Canada.  The numbers show that I am not alone in this path.

One last note--yes, Harper managed a majority without Quebec, but that is not a recipe for success in general.  Quebec will continue to have much political power in Canada for quite some time to come.  No need to push the panic button (or, at least, wait until I am firmly ensconced in Ottawa).

Love What You Do

Keeping on with the V-Day theme, I was very struck by this post about grad school.  The best line:

Think heroin--this is your brain, this is your brain on graduate school.

H/T to Kyle Sanders.

We Are Listening

For Valetine's Day, this one goes out to the ladies, who we misunderstand so very much:

H/T to Starbuck

A Very Forceful Valentine's Day

Yesterday, I posted a Game of Thrones set of Valentine's on my facebook page.  Today, it is a Star Wars Valentine from this collection:




V-Day is a big day in the Spew household, marking a birthday, the eve of our anniversary, and other key dates.  Here's hoping you have a day chock full of cheesy love (and nothing says cheesy with love more than Star Wars).