by Stephen M. Saideman
Yep, no process, no policy, no implementation. I wrote yesterday that Trump’s transgender in the military “policy” would depend on how the military would feel about implementation. Well, from the very top, the attitude is: wait and see. More than that: a smidge of contempt seems to be in the reaction:
Dunford has informed service
members that there will be “no modifications to the current policy until
the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines.”
“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with
” Dunford wrote in a memo to the military that was obtained by
CNN. “As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we
face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned
(I would have cited NYT but they don’t let me cut and paste!)
If Dunford were General (ret.) Kelly of Homeland Security, he might have taken the tweet and ran with it, as Kelly enforced an immigrant ban with very little backing it up. Dunford, like the other active senior officers, has opposed kicking transgender people out even as they hem and haw on how to deal with recruiting. So, this agent has preferences that are distinct from the principal and, as a result, does not imagine what the tweet actually means, but instead asks for the paperwork to be done.
And, yes, DC runs on paperwork …. or Word docs shipped around town as attachments to emails (yes, on the classified servers mostly). Since Mattis has thus far been silent (did he say anything while I was at Costco?), Dunford went ahead and interpreted how far he could go and went pretty far. I had some responses on twitter asking for him to do more. Such folks don’t understand civil-military relations–that civilian control of the military means that the civilians have the right to be wrong (which they are here), that the military must obey clear orders. But they can fudge implementation if the orders are not clear or are not handed down through the chain of command. Dunford could have started a process to weed out the transgender soldiers, sailors, marines and aviators, but chose not to do so. This is kind of a work-to-rule thing, where resistance of this form is merely following the rules. Trump would need to find another general who is more enthused about discrimination to get faster action. Firing a Chairman for this? Unlikely.
Finally, it is good to see someone indicate that a tweet may be a policy direction but is not a policy itself.
by Stephen Saideman
Several years ago, I had heard in various bars in the Byward Market that the Canadian government under Stephen Harper had engaged in a serious Lessons Learned exercise about Afghanistan. I heard that the document was buried (I used the last scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark to illustrate). I tried an Access to Information Request in January of 2013, but got rejected because the document was viewed as “advice to cabinet” and containing sensitive information about Canada’s allies. I thought this was hogwash, so I appealed. I got the document just before my recent trip to Brazil (here it is),* so I didn’t have time to process it.
by Stephen M. Saideman
I am quoted today by one of my very favorite Canadian journalists, Murray Brewster, as saying that the discussion of the Iraq mission is going to “lead to dumb politics.” I am not sure my meaning came across, so let me explain.
I spent much of November and December arguing that naming a very recently retired former general as Secretary of Defense is problematic–that there is much confusion to be had, by the former officer, the person who picked him, and the public. Well, we see in recent days that this argument may have applied to the country to the north as well.
Harjit Sajjan has gotten into hot water for stating that he was the architect for a major effort, Operation Medusa,* in Afghanistan in 2006. Whether he was or was not (probably not), this is problematic to those soldiers who serves because he is seen as taking credit for what was a multi-person effort. So, either bragging or lying violates the sense of honor that Canadian soldiers have. Today, Sajjan will be answering questions about it in Parliament.
So, what is my take? Is this just a tempest in a teapot? No. Is this a fireable offense? Probably not. Is this mostly distraction sauce? Probably. Let me explain my still confused take.
by Stephen Saideman
The missile strike against the airfield in Syria raises far more questions than it answers (for an excellent initial take, see here). As I think about it, I have to be honest that my confirmation bias might be at work: that anything Trump does is wrong in my mind. Would I have approved of Hillary Clinton doing the same thing? Not so sure as I have become quite skeptical about the use of force, so let’s run through the situation itself before we get to the Trumpness of it all.
by Stephen Saideman
Dear President Trump,
I see that you are still confused about how NATO works. While there is, indeed, some money that goes to keep the lights on at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mons, and elsewhere, and there are a few key NATO military units (early warning planes, some drones, a few other bits and pieces), the burden-sharing problem is not about that.
In your meeting with Chancellor Merkel, you said:
I reiterated to Chancellor Merkel my strong support for NATO, as well as the need for our NATO allies to pay their fair share for the cost of defense. Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years and it is very unfair to the United States. These nations must pay what they owe.
No, that is not how it works. The burden-sharing problem that has been the subject of many NATO meetings, including the Wales Summit, is about each country paying enough (the 2% of GDP aspiration) for their own defense. It is not about Germany or France or Estonia giving money to Brussels or to the US, but about Germany spending enough on new tanks, planes, ships and enough on a large enough armed forces and enough on fuel and all the rest. The idea is not that the US is getting ripped off, that somehow countries owe the US money, but that the alliance would be better off if all the allies spent more on their armed forces. The past shortfalls do not mean that countries are in debt to the US or to NATO–it just means that their militaries are not in as good shape as we would like. It means that they don’t have as many tanks or planes or whatever or that their personnel are not as well trained. The underspending over the years is problematic, but these countries do not owe any debts from the past to catch up in their accounts at NATO HQ. Again, this is not how it works.
So, next time you complain about burden-sharing, don’t suggest that the US is owed money. Because it is simply wrong.
by Stephen M. Saideman
Carleton is having an event that, among other things, ponders the future of public affairs stuff 25 years from now. I was on a panel on:Academics in the Media Landscape: The Role of Scholar-Columnist-Bloggers with Stephanie Carvin, my colleague and frequent twitter banterer, Mira Sucharov,Hayden King,Dwayne Winseck and Frances Woolley (who is frequently wrong about bags of milk).
What did I say about the future of blogging? I started with humility as I am not sure what 2042 will look like. I put up pics of computing 25 years ago, now and the future (but blogger didn’t like them so you can’t see them here).
To suggest that 25 years ago, we had no idea what computers/the internet would look like in 2017 and thus we can’t predict 2042 too well.
My second point is that we can’t be too humble–we need to put ourselves out there even if we might be wrong, and so I displayed my post predicting a reasonably big Hillary Clinton victory. Ooops.
I then suggested what will remain the same and what may change. In short, more academics will do some kind of social media to communicate their work, but not all as we are a varied group of folks, that how we do it will change quite a bit (who knows what the successor to twitter may be), that politicians will still be upset when academics say things about them, but that universities will eventually learn that trying to sit on bloggers is counter productive. I also made a clear statement that tenure in the future, if it still exists, will still be focused on reserach and not engagement. Oh, and that the media will rely on us even more since we provide heaps of content, including for those reporters who just want to cut and past a few tweets.
I concluded by saying our (academics) role is and will be:
- Translate academic knowledge into digestible bits for broader audiences (the public cares not for lit reviews or methodology discussions).
- Provide media with content/expertise
- Engage–it can be a two way street, not just lecturing but interacting
- Embrace academic freedom–who else can speak with few consequences?
The other panelists said smart stuff that I storify here.