I am giving a talk tomorrow at the Munk School at the University of Toronto. See here for details.
The talk itself is on Smart Defence in an Age of Austerity. What do the Afghanistan and Libya experiences say about NATO's plan to rely on greater cooperation among the allies in defence procurement? Um, not good. I will say why and how tomorrow.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Sunday Morning Silliness: Mad Men and Buffy
Much fun making fun of Mad Men, Twilight and Buffy:
Sure, we had to wait another thirty years or so, but I think it was worth it. Besides, in the 60's, I would have been watching Hogan's Heroes anyway.
Sure, we had to wait another thirty years or so, but I think it was worth it. Besides, in the 60's, I would have been watching Hogan's Heroes anyway.
Irredentism Is Not Automatic
This piece raises the spectre of a greater Pashtunistan movement as Afghanistan may fraction in the aftermath of a NATO withdrawal.
The key is that the Pashtuns on either side of the border have lived largely separate lives, so I doubt that they load the same meanings and content into Pashtun nationalism. What does it mean to be Pashtun? Who counts as in? Who is out? Indeed, who would govern Pashtunistan--the Afghan or the Pakistani Pashtuns? These are not theoretical questions, but ones that have real interests attached.
The funny thing is seeing an Indian outlet raise the fear of irredentism when the region has seen much irredentist effort--Kashmir--but no success and a lot more secessionist effort. Is a partition (hard or soft, official or de facto) a realistic possibility for Afghanistan? Sure, it is possible. But a real irredentist campaign from Afghanistan towards Pakistan? Not so sure. Can Indians look at such a campaign as good news as it would direct Pakistan's generals away from India? Not at all. The rise of multiple groups in Pakistan aimed at the government has not reduced much the fixation with the "Indian threat." So, why should Pashtun irredentists?
Again, there is something here--that the Pashtuns do not recognize the boundary as legitimate, which has constrained PresidentPander Karzai. This irritant in the relations between the two countries has mattered, feeding Pakistani support for the Taliban (primarily Pashtun!) and the Haqqani network. But I would not be betting on irredentism as the big threat to Pakistan in the future (near or distant).
The Pashtuns, despite their tribal divisions, will not rest content with being in charge of just a rump Afghanistan made up of the eastern and southeastern provinces. Given the large Pashtun population resident across the Britishdrawn Durand Line, they are likely sooner or later to seek a Greater Pashtunistan — a development that could directly affect the territorial unity of another artificial modern construct, Pakistan.I am no expert on Pashtuns, but I have written a book on irredentism. And the first rule of irredentism club is do not assume that there is a single, shared vision or nationalism among a group that have a common label. As the Canadian, American, and other troops fighting in Kandahar and nearby have learned, the Pashtuns themselves are divided by tribe. I do not know how the Pakistan Pashtuns fit into the tribal structures of the Afghan Pashtuns, but I doubt that it is uncomplicated.
The key is that the Pashtuns on either side of the border have lived largely separate lives, so I doubt that they load the same meanings and content into Pashtun nationalism. What does it mean to be Pashtun? Who counts as in? Who is out? Indeed, who would govern Pashtunistan--the Afghan or the Pakistani Pashtuns? These are not theoretical questions, but ones that have real interests attached.
The funny thing is seeing an Indian outlet raise the fear of irredentism when the region has seen much irredentist effort--Kashmir--but no success and a lot more secessionist effort. Is a partition (hard or soft, official or de facto) a realistic possibility for Afghanistan? Sure, it is possible. But a real irredentist campaign from Afghanistan towards Pakistan? Not so sure. Can Indians look at such a campaign as good news as it would direct Pakistan's generals away from India? Not at all. The rise of multiple groups in Pakistan aimed at the government has not reduced much the fixation with the "Indian threat." So, why should Pashtun irredentists?
Again, there is something here--that the Pashtuns do not recognize the boundary as legitimate, which has constrained President
Racial Entitlements, Indeed
Brian McFadden keeps bringing the heat.
I presented my take last week. Maybe, just maybe, it is not about the old Southern states and it is about the modern GOP, which is everywhere and is desperate in most places, given its lack of appeal to non-whites. So, perhaps the Voting Rights Act might contain aspects that could be altered, but the idea that voting is a racial entitlement or that there is no threat to disenfranchisement is just wrong. I am not a legal expert on the Voting Rights Act. All I can say is this is no time to make it easier for states to mess with the franchise.
I presented my take last week. Maybe, just maybe, it is not about the old Southern states and it is about the modern GOP, which is everywhere and is desperate in most places, given its lack of appeal to non-whites. So, perhaps the Voting Rights Act might contain aspects that could be altered, but the idea that voting is a racial entitlement or that there is no threat to disenfranchisement is just wrong. I am not a legal expert on the Voting Rights Act. All I can say is this is no time to make it easier for states to mess with the franchise.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Iraq in Retrospect: What Was I Thinking
I was asked on twitter today about my stance ten years ago. The preparations for the Iraq war were underway, and it was clear that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. Looking backwards, it is easy to point out mistakes and perhaps more people today think they opposed the war ten years ago than actually did. But what was my stance? I did not have a blog way back when so I cannot search to find what I
was thinking as opposed to what I think now about what I think I was
thinking. It is hard to separate the things I believed at the time from what I know believe about the war, but let me re-construct.
To be clear, I was opposed to the invasion. I do remember that the year on the Joint Staff definitely shaped my views, but I probably would have opposed the war anyway. I clearly remember a few things, and then I am not sure about the rest.
I think I might have also been sufficiently trained in balance of power dynamics to ponder whether attacking Iran's enemy might have been a bad idea, but I am not sure now if that is something that was in the forefront of my mind back then.
I did understand that the Bush administration faced a challenge--that the sanctions regime against Hussein was breaking down. I just didn't think that the possibility that Iraq might have a weapons program was worth war. Similarly, I don't think it is worth war to stop Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction. I am not happy that more countries have WMD, but I do prefer containment and deterrence to occupation. Still, the Iraq war seemed to be too much work with too much risk and too little support.
To be clear, I was opposed to the invasion. I do remember that the year on the Joint Staff definitely shaped my views, but I probably would have opposed the war anyway. I clearly remember a few things, and then I am not sure about the rest.
- I remember thinking that the global war on terrorism [GWOT] was the first and foremost priority and that attacking Iraq was unrelated to that war on terrorism. Sure, Hussein supported some groups in Lebanon and elsewhere, but Bin Laden was not a friend and Hezbollah was an adversary. Moreover, in the midst of a conflict where the US would want to reduce support for terrorism, invading Iraq seemed to be something that might just increase hatred/fear of the US and abet AQ recruitment. One of my frustrations at the time and since was that fighting terrorism was a multidimensional effort, with public diplomacy playing a significant role. Antagonizing the region with a sketchy war was not going to be good for the big fight.
- I had just spent a year observing Rumsfeld and the folks under him from up close, and I had just a bit of contempt for them--that Rummy had created a climate of fear so that his underlings would not question him. This seemed like groupthink in its purest form. As a result, when I learned that Rummy and his guys had responsibility for running the effort, I knew it would be mishandled. I did not think that they would consider the list of "don't do's" and turn that into a check list. So they underperformed even compared to my low expectations.
- Chief among the don't do's were: do not disband the Iraqi military. I spent much of my year on the Joint Staff participating in an effort to downsize slightly the Bosnian armed forces by a thousand or two soldiers since unemployed former soldiers are a recipe for bad stuff (such as insurgency). To this day, I think firing the Iraqi army was the single worst decision in American foreign policy history. That invading Iraq had some plausible justification, pro's and con's, but firing hundreds of thousands of young men who were trained to use weapons and knew where the stuff was? Awful cubed.
- A second don't do: do not rely on emigres who might seem friendly to you but have little political power back home. Of course, little did I know that the one that they wanted to rely upon (Chalabi) was not only corrupt (which we knew) but probably an Iranian agent!
- Occupation was going to be hard. All one had to do was consider what Dick Cheney said in 1992. Iraq had ethnic divisions with an aggrieved, oppressed majority (the Shia),and so on. So, why do something that is so very difficult? The flowers in the street stuff did not convince me, although I did not expect a heap of suicide bombing either (again, I didn't expect firing the army or cutting off pensions for widows).
I think I might have also been sufficiently trained in balance of power dynamics to ponder whether attacking Iran's enemy might have been a bad idea, but I am not sure now if that is something that was in the forefront of my mind back then.
I did understand that the Bush administration faced a challenge--that the sanctions regime against Hussein was breaking down. I just didn't think that the possibility that Iraq might have a weapons program was worth war. Similarly, I don't think it is worth war to stop Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction. I am not happy that more countries have WMD, but I do prefer containment and deterrence to occupation. Still, the Iraq war seemed to be too much work with too much risk and too little support.
Friday, March 1, 2013
My Inner Geek is Outed
Ok, sequestering sucks and shows that American government is broken. But it also demonstrates the joy of the nerd-dominated National Security community I follow on twitter. How so?
Twitter went nuts when President Obama said he could not get the Republicans to do what is right because of his finite powers, that he could not do some sort of Jedi mind-meld!
He mixed his space franchises--Jedis may have Vulcan-like abilities, but the mind meld thing is of Star Trek. So, this sent twitter on a wonderful spiral for awhile
Some would say that Obama did know what he was talking about:
but if you pay attention to the "force meld" in the expanded universe, that is not what he was trying to convey today.
Still, good times.
Updated: Obama's White House realized what he did and grabbed it with both hands:
Twitter went nuts when President Obama said he could not get the Republicans to do what is right because of his finite powers, that he could not do some sort of Jedi mind-meld!
He mixed his space franchises--Jedis may have Vulcan-like abilities, but the mind meld thing is of Star Trek. So, this sent twitter on a wonderful spiral for awhile
RT @jpodhoretz: "By Grabthar's hammer, you will be sequestered."
— Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) March 1, 2013
RT @angelaisms: "Dammit Luke, I'm a doctor, not your father!" #ObamaSciFiQuotes
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) March 1, 2013
"I think you will regret staking out that claim, Mr. President." --Gene Roddenberry
— Anna Holmes (@AnnaHolmes) March 1, 2013
Some would say that Obama did know what he was talking about:
BREAKING: Via @technosailor: There IS a #JediMindMeld: j.mp/XLlzR7 Is POTUS bigger SW geek than we ever realized? (@digiphile)
— Robert Stephens (@rstephens) March 1, 2013
but if you pay attention to the "force meld" in the expanded universe, that is not what he was trying to convey today.
Still, good times.
Updated: Obama's White House realized what he did and grabbed it with both hands:
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Procure This! Maple Flavored Edition
Canada's defence procurement situation is a mess. So is the American one, of course. But in Canada, the tendency seems to be to defer, delay, dither, distract and deny--the five D's of dodgeball. In the US, the tendency is to buy, pay, overpay, someone tries to kill the program, but fails, and then get fewer but more expensive and sometimes more capable stuff that is expensive to maintain. Both countries face cost overruns, but the Americans tend to buy the program and then suck it up. The Canadians tend to face the cost overruns and then wait some more, leading to even more overruns. And often no capability. Canada greatly annoyed its allies by showing up in Kandahar without any helicopters but thumb held out, hoping to get rides everywhere from the Americans and the Brits. Good times.
Anyhow, today, Dan Ross, who used to be the defence procurement guy, is in the papers, saying the system is broken. Indeed, it is. He blames the fact that three different agencies (Public Works, Industry Canada, Dept of National Defence) share the file, as they say. "Mr. Ross said Canada’s procurement responsibility is “shared by everybody, and when you do that, no one is accountable.” Ah, somewhere, Phil Lagassé must be smiling since this is his favorite line. And there is much to it, BUT this is also a failure of everyone else. That simply because multiple agencies are working on something does not mean failure. Who is responsible for holding these agencies accountable? To do their jobs? I think that would be the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and maybe even Parliament. The NDP has actually been doing a pretty amazing job on the F-35 file, but more needs to be done by those in government to make this process work better.
Sure, one can retire and then blame the system, but if one is in a position of power in the government, the question becomes: what did you do with that power?
The fun part:
The New Democratic Party called Canada’s procurement system a mess in Question Period on Feb. 12. In response, Public Works and Government Services Minister Rona Ambrose said her government is “responsible for the successful execution of the largest procurement in Canadian history with our shipbuilding strategy.”
Why is this fun? Well, what ships? There is a strategy, and there are shipyards chosen, but no ships thus far, and all signs point to the usual actors, Parliamentary Budget Office and Auditor General, crapping all over the program for being late, for being likely to produce fewer ships at greater cost than estimated. So, when the Minister says "hey, what a great ship-building strategy," the natural response should be, "hey, emperor, you are not wearing any ships/clothes."
Anyhow, today, Dan Ross, who used to be the defence procurement guy, is in the papers, saying the system is broken. Indeed, it is. He blames the fact that three different agencies (Public Works, Industry Canada, Dept of National Defence) share the file, as they say. "Mr. Ross said Canada’s procurement responsibility is “shared by everybody, and when you do that, no one is accountable.” Ah, somewhere, Phil Lagassé must be smiling since this is his favorite line. And there is much to it, BUT this is also a failure of everyone else. That simply because multiple agencies are working on something does not mean failure. Who is responsible for holding these agencies accountable? To do their jobs? I think that would be the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and maybe even Parliament. The NDP has actually been doing a pretty amazing job on the F-35 file, but more needs to be done by those in government to make this process work better.
Sure, one can retire and then blame the system, but if one is in a position of power in the government, the question becomes: what did you do with that power?
The fun part:
The New Democratic Party called Canada’s procurement system a mess in Question Period on Feb. 12. In response, Public Works and Government Services Minister Rona Ambrose said her government is “responsible for the successful execution of the largest procurement in Canadian history with our shipbuilding strategy.”
Why is this fun? Well, what ships? There is a strategy, and there are shipyards chosen, but no ships thus far, and all signs point to the usual actors, Parliamentary Budget Office and Auditor General, crapping all over the program for being late, for being likely to produce fewer ships at greater cost than estimated. So, when the Minister says "hey, what a great ship-building strategy," the natural response should be, "hey, emperor, you are not wearing any ships/clothes."
How Short is Your Memory?
I have not followed the deep legal arguments about the Voters Rights Act that surfaced yesterday at the US Supreme Court. Should I be astonished that there are those questioning how long must we consider the legacy of voter suppression? Just a bit given that we have to go all the way back to the fall of 2012 to find some voter suppression of non-whites in the U.S.
The evidence of voter suppression efforts, under the guise of voterfraudfraud (efforts to claim that we need to protect the franchise by reducing the risk of [entirely imaginary] voter fraud), is most abundant.
We do not have to look at tables of voting times for whites vs. non-whites:
We could just look at what Republicans said:
Anyhow, the point should be pretty obvious: race still matters in elections. Not just in who votes for whom, but in who tries to suppress whom. The voterfraudfraud effort is aimed at minorities who tend to vote for the Democrats. So, to have Supreme Court justices and commentators ponder whether the Voting Rights Act is no longer relevant is to suggest they are blind and deaf. The election was only a few months ago--how short are people's memories?
The evidence of voter suppression efforts, under the guise of voterfraudfraud (efforts to claim that we need to protect the franchise by reducing the risk of [entirely imaginary] voter fraud), is most abundant.
We do not have to look at tables of voting times for whites vs. non-whites:
We could just look at what Republicans said:
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
"'The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe early voting is bad for Republican party candidates,' Greer told The Post, 'IT's done for oen reason and reason only ... We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us ..... They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,' Greer said, 'It's all a marketing ploy.'"
But in June, Mike Turzai, Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House, blew his party’s cover by blurting out: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done.” The press was jubilant. It was as if Koch Enterprises had acknowledged global warming. TNR
Anyhow, the point should be pretty obvious: race still matters in elections. Not just in who votes for whom, but in who tries to suppress whom. The voterfraudfraud effort is aimed at minorities who tend to vote for the Democrats. So, to have Supreme Court justices and commentators ponder whether the Voting Rights Act is no longer relevant is to suggest they are blind and deaf. The election was only a few months ago--how short are people's memories?
The
Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe
that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” - See more
at:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Former
Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various
meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants
pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
- See more at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/#sthash.kD1MD3Jz.dpuf
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Threat Exaggeration, Canadian Style
Check out my latest at CIC--the sky is falling, the sky is falling. That is, folks are trying to generate panic if Obama does not approve Keystone pipeline.
I Love My Job, part 97
One of the big, big advantages of the move to Ottawa is that I no longer have to spend two hours driving home thinking "I Love My Job." Now, I can just drive 15 minutes back to my office (even with all of today's snow) thinking it instead. I had a very interesting conversation with someone who works in the Canadian military's operational headquarters. It used to be that I had to arrange an interview and drive a couple of hours to do the interview and then drive back. Now, I can simply grab lunch with someone interesting.
What did I learn? Well, it was off the record. It did help cement a key theme that will be in the book I am currently writing. What is that theme? Ah, but since this is a trade book, I don't want to spoil it. At least not until it is written.
But when folks ask me if I am happy about the move, I have yet another reason to say:you betcha!
What did I learn? Well, it was off the record. It did help cement a key theme that will be in the book I am currently writing. What is that theme? Ah, but since this is a trade book, I don't want to spoil it. At least not until it is written.
But when folks ask me if I am happy about the move, I have yet another reason to say:you betcha!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Choosing Not To Decide
You still have made a choice. Ah, Rush. Well, I posted at CIC this week on the themes I drew out from the CDA conference last week that I reported on here and here.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Fun with Maps
Check out this page of maps. Fun stuff. My favorite:
No wonder the sun never set on the British Empire. Jeez. Sweden, Belarus, Mongolia, a stan or two, Mail, Chad, Ivory Coast, CAR, Burundi, Rep of Congo, Bolivia, Paraguay, Guatemala, and some micro-European countries did not get invaded by the UK at some point. They didn't like landlocked countries (also on the page of maps), apparently, as that is one of the unifying features of most of these places. Once you rule the waves, I guess you end up trying to rule all the stuff that touches the waves.
Anyhow, check out the various maps and highlight any that you think need some over-thinking.
No wonder the sun never set on the British Empire. Jeez. Sweden, Belarus, Mongolia, a stan or two, Mail, Chad, Ivory Coast, CAR, Burundi, Rep of Congo, Bolivia, Paraguay, Guatemala, and some micro-European countries did not get invaded by the UK at some point. They didn't like landlocked countries (also on the page of maps), apparently, as that is one of the unifying features of most of these places. Once you rule the waves, I guess you end up trying to rule all the stuff that touches the waves.
Anyhow, check out the various maps and highlight any that you think need some over-thinking.
Canada and the Underwear Gnomes
Canada is ranked 55th out of 90 plus countries on how transparent the government is. Well, I now have some personal experience. In my time researching the Canadian military effort in Afghanistan, I have had some good luck getting Access of Information (FOIA is the US version) process to get documents. And heaps of good luck in talking to military people. Civilians? Another matter entirely.
Today, I just got back from the Privy Council Office a rejection of my application. I sought the document that had been created to generate the lessons that the Canadian government learned from the Afghanistan experience. I had learned that the government did engage in such an exercise, a pretty novel thing, and took it pretty seriously but then buried it. My effort to dig it up failed--thus far.
And this is the basic problem. If you are going to learn from experience via a lessons learned exercise, here are the steps:
1) Learn the lessons;
2) Share the lessons;
3) Apply the lessons.
Nope, not gonna work if you just do step 1 and forget the rest. So, I think that the Underwear Gnomes have a better sense of policy-making than the Canadian government:
Today, I just got back from the Privy Council Office a rejection of my application. I sought the document that had been created to generate the lessons that the Canadian government learned from the Afghanistan experience. I had learned that the government did engage in such an exercise, a pretty novel thing, and took it pretty seriously but then buried it. My effort to dig it up failed--thus far.
And this is the basic problem. If you are going to learn from experience via a lessons learned exercise, here are the steps:
1) Learn the lessons;
2) Share the lessons;
3) Apply the lessons.
Nope, not gonna work if you just do step 1 and forget the rest. So, I think that the Underwear Gnomes have a better sense of policy-making than the Canadian government:
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Centre of Gravity, Indeed
The second day of CDA's Conference on Defence and Security had the most interesting lineup, but one had to find the tasty nuggets buried in vanilla presentations. The cast included the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay; the new Chief of Defence Staff, Tom Lawson; Admiral Edouard Guillard, the head of the French military; General Charles Jacoby who wears two hats--commander of NORAD and commander of US Northern Command; Admiral William McRaven, commander of US Special Operations Command; Lord Peter Levene, who chaired a report on UK defence reform, and then two panels of folks with one one Governance and Accountability in procurement and the other on Western Hemisphere defence.
MacKay sent a video since he in Brussels at a meeting of NATO's defence ministers (or NAC-D ministerial in NATO parlance). The video was introduced by a very partisan Chris Alexander who omitted, as all Conservatives do, the fact that the Liberals under Paul Martin actually started the boom in defence spending that is ending this year. He also summoned up the War of 1812 as a key moment in Canadian identity, which is another favorite Conservative bit of framing. I don't know whether it is true or not since I did not get steeped in Canadian history in school.* Alexander's talk was more interesting that when he referred to Canadian interests in the world, he basically mentioned only two sectors (I might have misheard): finance and mining.
Alexander's talk was far more interesting than MacKay's which was as vanilla as you can get. No announcements of policy decisions, no real statement of priorities (a recurring theme). In the coverage of the day, MacKay got little play and deservedly so since there was no news content to his speech. Apparently, he committed more clearly in a conference call with the media to updating Canada's defence strategy, which will be released after the budget. This, of course, is both backwards and not backwards. That one should set priorities and figure out what one needs and then commit to spending, but today's reality is that the priority is to spend less and then figure everything else out. Indeed, this was a theme that dominated the two days.
MacKay sent a video since he in Brussels at a meeting of NATO's defence ministers (or NAC-D ministerial in NATO parlance). The video was introduced by a very partisan Chris Alexander who omitted, as all Conservatives do, the fact that the Liberals under Paul Martin actually started the boom in defence spending that is ending this year. He also summoned up the War of 1812 as a key moment in Canadian identity, which is another favorite Conservative bit of framing. I don't know whether it is true or not since I did not get steeped in Canadian history in school.* Alexander's talk was more interesting that when he referred to Canadian interests in the world, he basically mentioned only two sectors (I might have misheard): finance and mining.
* I consulted Teen Spew, and she reported that the War of 1812 did not play much of a role in her education, but then she got most of her Canadian history in Quebec. So, the Quiet Revolution, the repatriation of the Constitution (which still confuses me), and the Confederation are the big events, not the War of 1812.
Alexander's talk was far more interesting than MacKay's which was as vanilla as you can get. No announcements of policy decisions, no real statement of priorities (a recurring theme). In the coverage of the day, MacKay got little play and deservedly so since there was no news content to his speech. Apparently, he committed more clearly in a conference call with the media to updating Canada's defence strategy, which will be released after the budget. This, of course, is both backwards and not backwards. That one should set priorities and figure out what one needs and then commit to spending, but today's reality is that the priority is to spend less and then figure everything else out. Indeed, this was a theme that dominated the two days.
Friday, February 22, 2013
I Got My Membership Card!
My take on day one of the CDA conference (an edited, more focused, more takeaway version to appear early next week at CIC) is below, which explains why blogging has been light. Well that and the lack of wifi at the conference.
The first rule of Fight Club is not to talk about Fight
Club. The first rule of the Conference
of Defence Association’s annual Ottawa conference is not to disparage the F-35
… unless you do not mind being buttonholed by a Lockheed representative. Yesterday, I attended the first day of the
two-day conference, and dared to ask a question only once, at the end of the
day, about the tendency
to deny, deny, deny. People did not
like the question too much (I should not have used the detainee stuff as an
example), but did engage me afterwards.
So, unlike a friend who showed me the ropes, I am not persona non grata
at the conference or in an African country not to be named here.
What did I learn?
Well, the first thing I noticed was that among the premium sponsors of
the event was Rafale, the French aerospace company. That was pretty interesting given that unlike
most of the other sponsors, Canada is not current purchasing any Rafale
products (that I know of). But if the
F-35 were to be rejected, Rafale does make a competing plane. So, it was instructive that Rafale senses
that it is worth an investment in the major defence contractor conference.
Beyond plane competition, the thoughts of the panelists in
the morning focused mostly only whether Canada should develop a national
security strategy and what that would look like. This is something I have discussed at CIC
before (here
and here). The conversation started with a new
Vimy paper that provides one take on Canada’s strategic outlook. The key theme in the paper and the ensuing
discussion is financial constraint—that Canada will not be engaged in
significant interventions in the near term due to the costs of such
operations. No argument here on
that. Indeed, the big largely unanswered
question of the conference, funded by defence contractors, is which programs
will be cut. While there were references
in the discussion about an optimal mix of defence cuts, it is not clear what
that means in practice.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Will I Get My Membership Card?
Tomorrow and Friday I will be attending the Conference of Defence Associations' annual conference in Ottawa for the first time. Most of the speakers will be folks who either did or currently work in government, serve in the Canadian or American militaries, or are members of CDA. Yes, it is a meeting of the military-industrial complex in Canada. Or, if you want to use the longer name: the military-industrial-parliamentary-academic complex. I sure hope I get my membership card.
Anyhow, the topics will range from Canada's place in the world, what its national security strategy might be, the implications of rising powers for Canada (hint: CHINA), cyber stuff, the CF and the Public, accountability in procurement, etc. Keynoters will include the Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay; Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson; John Manley (of the Manley Panel and former/current Liberal party honco); US Admiral Locklear, Commander of Pacific Command; US General Jacoby, Commander of Northern Command and NORAD; Admiral William McRaven, Commander of Special Operations Command; and Lord Peter Levene, who chaired report on UK Defence Reform.
So, it should be an interesting couple of days. If you have questions you think I should ask at any of the panels or of any of the officers/politicians, comment below.
Anyhow, the topics will range from Canada's place in the world, what its national security strategy might be, the implications of rising powers for Canada (hint: CHINA), cyber stuff, the CF and the Public, accountability in procurement, etc. Keynoters will include the Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay; Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson; John Manley (of the Manley Panel and former/current Liberal party honco); US Admiral Locklear, Commander of Pacific Command; US General Jacoby, Commander of Northern Command and NORAD; Admiral William McRaven, Commander of Special Operations Command; and Lord Peter Levene, who chaired report on UK Defence Reform.
So, it should be an interesting couple of days. If you have questions you think I should ask at any of the panels or of any of the officers/politicians, comment below.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Fun with Maps, Canadian style
Check out this page that explains the effort--to come up with provinces of equal population size.
Interactive version here.
The map is quite revealing--it reminds us of how much of the population is not only close to the border but in a few clusters--Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are not surprising--but the other parts of southern Ontario as well. Of course, given the resource distribution, don't expect anything like this to ever happen. Still, fun to ponder.
Interactive version here.
The map is quite revealing--it reminds us of how much of the population is not only close to the border but in a few clusters--Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are not surprising--but the other parts of southern Ontario as well. Of course, given the resource distribution, don't expect anything like this to ever happen. Still, fun to ponder.
I Blame Mad Men, Breaking Bad and My Wife
I cannot turn off my brain as I watch TV these days. Not only did I notice some big gaping errors in Homeland as I power-watched its first season last week, but I kept noticing Noah Wyle's AK-47 in the pilot of Fallen Skies last night. Yes, I am catching up on yet another series I could not access easily up here. What is the problem with the AK-47? Not much, of course, as it is the better weapon for insurgents--easy to maintain and so on. But for an insurgent fighting aliens in New England? I am not so sure. Why? How much ammo is available for AK-47s in the US? Seems to me from the spree killers these days that that the M-16 equivalent (and probably its ammo) is more popular in the US. Of course, a ragtag group of insurgents will pick up whatever they can find.
This over-thinking about TV programs where I should suspend my disbelief I blame on both the era of great, thoughtful TV programs (from The Wire to Mad Men and beyond) and on my wife. Many of the programs of the past ten years require the viewer to make connections and see patterns and think about things, rather than just presenting/telling the viewer everything. Which is what makes those programs so very good and engaging. We have had to learn to be selectively thoughtful--Homeland is heaps of implausible, but I accepted much of it. I just got frustrated about some details that were stupid.
I also blame my wife--she is an editor, so she is good at spotting things along the way. Not only did I learn about Chekov's gun (when a gun in the first act is inevitably relevant in the third act) from her before I noticed it being by TV reviewers, but she has now trained me to watch for the guest stars at the beginning of TV shows--the biggest names are almost always the guilty ones.
Of course, who am I to complain? I have gotten heaps and heaps of mileage blogging about Harry Potter, Lost, Avengers (here too), Star Wars, and so on. And the past week's analyses of the Battle of Hoth at Wired, Duck and Tarkin has been just wonderful.
And it goes the other way as well. In grad school, I started applying prisoner's dilemma to everything I saw. And now, thanks to the book to be, I see principal-agency theory as much as the kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people--everywhere.
So, over-thinking is not bad at all, but, as with all things, we must be aware of the second and third order consequences. For instance, fan fiction, that is of the dark side.
This over-thinking about TV programs where I should suspend my disbelief I blame on both the era of great, thoughtful TV programs (from The Wire to Mad Men and beyond) and on my wife. Many of the programs of the past ten years require the viewer to make connections and see patterns and think about things, rather than just presenting/telling the viewer everything. Which is what makes those programs so very good and engaging. We have had to learn to be selectively thoughtful--Homeland is heaps of implausible, but I accepted much of it. I just got frustrated about some details that were stupid.
I also blame my wife--she is an editor, so she is good at spotting things along the way. Not only did I learn about Chekov's gun (when a gun in the first act is inevitably relevant in the third act) from her before I noticed it being by TV reviewers, but she has now trained me to watch for the guest stars at the beginning of TV shows--the biggest names are almost always the guilty ones.
Of course, who am I to complain? I have gotten heaps and heaps of mileage blogging about Harry Potter, Lost, Avengers (here too), Star Wars, and so on. And the past week's analyses of the Battle of Hoth at Wired, Duck and Tarkin has been just wonderful.
And it goes the other way as well. In grad school, I started applying prisoner's dilemma to everything I saw. And now, thanks to the book to be, I see principal-agency theory as much as the kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people--everywhere.
So, over-thinking is not bad at all, but, as with all things, we must be aware of the second and third order consequences. For instance, fan fiction, that is of the dark side.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Japanese Bags of Milk
Ok, this is probably not NSFW but is on the borderline. Brought to by companions today, Lethargy and Procrasination:
Nope, not bags of milk, but of ice cream delivered in a very strange way. Thanks, Gawker.
Nope, not bags of milk, but of ice cream delivered in a very strange way. Thanks, Gawker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)