Merry Christmas

If I were politically correct I would say happy holidays, but since I am not and have not been called politically correct, I'll stick to saying Merry Christmas.  For my two cents, call it what you want and don't worry about everyone's feelings.  If you want to say Happy Kwanza, go for it, Happy Festivus (I have never watched Seinfeld, but hey why not?).  People need to stop being so asininely offended over every little stinking thing.  So Merry Christmas, I am a Christian and celebrate the holiday in remembrance of the birth of Jesus Christ and I will do so without shame and without bothering to worry about offending everyone else.  By the way, Jews should say Happy Hanukkah without worrying that they have offended a Christian.  And if you want to say Happy Winter Solstice, good for you.  Anyway, on to the reason for making a post this afternoon.

On Christmas Eve my family and I watch movies together as we relax, cook, do whatever last minute stuff needs to be done before Christmas day.  Today we have watched Les Miserables (the 2012 edition with Jackman and Crowe).  We then watched what will be watched again for the next several years--Joyeux Noel.  As a professor of death, destruction, and mayhem, this movie was touching on several levels.  As a former airman, with several friends who serve as soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, this movie was even more touching.  For my two cents, this movie is worthy of Christmas classic status.

I hope some of my few readers might find this movie inspirational in a time where death, destruction, and mayhem seems to be the way of human life.

Merry Christmas.

and, on a self-serving, personal note, happy Anniversary Vicki.  (she has now put up with me for 14 years).

Christmas Beer Time

 

For my two cents, you can take all of your spiced up, fruited up Christmas brews and pour them down the drain.  My opinion does not mean that all addition of flavors to brews is bad, just that I do not prefer traditional winter/Christmas seasonal brews.  For the Christmas season and New Year's season I recommend to you Wolaver's Alta Gracia Coffee Porter.

The Alta Gracia Coffee Porter is brewed with coffee beans from the Alta Gracia region of the Dominican Republic.  The brewing process also includes a hint of vanilla--not sure of the origin.  If you are a coffee lover or an iced-coffee lover, I would almost guarantee (hey I'm a social scientist, everything is almost for us, since 5% error is acceptable) you will find this brew to your taste.  

The coffee is obvious when the aroma hits your nose, The head is thin and goes away quickly (a bit of a disappointment, as I believe a hardier head keeps the beer's best aromas up front).  Never really tasted the vanilla, but do get some dark chocolate and caramel notes on the finish.  So this joyous Christmas season, take a try on a bottle of coffee.

Bullpup Revisited

Ok, so I have given my two cents a few times on the issue of bullpup configuration versus normal automatic/semi-automatic rifle configuration.  But I am still somewhat mixed about my generally negative feelings toward bullpups when it comes to this one particular bullpup.  Yes, I am still somewhat interested in the Tavor.  Tavor having a U.S. operation here in PA creating these rifles for the U.S. market is encouraging me to continue looking and considering options.  Nice thing is that conversion kits to take it away from the pathetic .233 (5.56) cartridge exist and are reasonable in price relative to the rifle.  Maybe Santa Claus will put one in my stocking--not likely.  Maybe Mrs. Stanton will allow me to spend some money out of the household renovations budget--not likely.  Ok, so I will have to save up and then decide do I really want to break with my convention on bullpups.   But for my two cents, this is a good question to have to ask myself.

French Interventions in Africa

The following posting is from Andrew McFeaters.  McFeaters is currently studying in the GSPIA program at Pitt where he is in part focusing on security policy in Africa.  McFeaters is also a Marine, so I ask the readers to dismiss reality for a moment.  Yes, a Marine who can write in complete sentences sometimes, I know--it is a slight miracle.  

 

Since 2011, the French have been involved in four different military interventions in Northern and Western Africa.  Surprisingly, the Cheese-Eating Surrender Moneys have been successful, at least in considering their initial goals for the interventions.  The initial goal of each intervention was to push back the mostly Muslim extremist groups and secure their interests in each country.  While many reports say that their actions haven’t eliminated the opposition, but simply rebuffed them and pushed them into other countries, such as Niger, Nigeria, and Southern Libya, the first steps of the interventions have succeeded.

            The French don’t seem to be naïve enough to think they have “won” each intervention, and to ensure the security and governance situation in each country is in a position to succeed the French have left small amounts of troops and resources in each country.  Currently, the French have 1200 troops in The Central African Republic, with a promised additional 400 troops arriving in the near future, 450 troops still in the Ivory Coast, a token force in Libya, and near 3,000 troops in Mali.[1]  These forces main focus is to work with African Union, NATO, and UN forces still in the country to ensure the security situation remains under control and the extremist groups cannot further their footholds in the country.

            France has a long history of involvement in Africa, and their current level of involvement seems to be a continuation of past policies.  History is a vital part of these interventions.  Because France has been involved in Africa for hundreds of years, they undoubtedly have numerous national interests, as well as thousands of French nationals on the continent.  This makes the volatile countries in Northern Africa particularly important to the French, and a cessation of involvement in the African continent is unlikely.

            The French President, Francois Hollande, has sought to lessen the French involvement in the continent, but these campaign promises are eerily similar to statements by former President Sarkozy, among other former French Presidents and Prime Ministers.  Both men promised a smaller role in Africa, but these promises are easier to honor when French interests and citizens are not threatened.[2]  Speaking on the recent activity in the Central African Republic, Hollande stated: (If France) “weren’t there, no other army in this part of the world- Africa- would be able to launch such an operation to save lives and establish peace.”[3]  This statement can be readily applied to the other French interventions in past years, and due to this very reason, there is no reason to suggest French involvement in Africa will come to an end. 

What does the French Involvement in Africa mean for the rest of the World?

            As discussed above, the French have continued their role of intervening in the African Continent in the name of providing regional security and protecting civilian lives. The French have not typically acted alone in these interventions.  Often, the French forces act in conjunction with African Union, NATO, and UN forces.  Each of the recent interventions have been done through either UN or NATO (or both) mandates calling for action within the countries. 

These actions are mostly done in agreement with other global powers, but the French have taken key roles in each action.  This leaves the rest of the typically intervening powers (The U.S., Britain, Germany, and Russia, among many other smaller countries) in a unique position.  With the exception of on the African continent, many of the other military interventions have been led or greatly supported by the U.S., either through funding or troops.  So what does this mean for these other countries?

            The U.S. has seen its African Command expand greatly in the last 20 or 30 years, and this has been heralded by some African leaders but detested by others.  In my opinion, most credible leaders in Africa support the United States’ increased presence, but the “bad” leaders or states where the majority of the population is Muslim have not been overly happy. 

            The U.S. should look at the increased role of the French with a watchful, but hopeful, eye.  If the French are willing to take the lead and act according to international laws, this frees up the U.S. forces (and most importantly dollars) to focus elsewhere.  The U.S. can be relieved of combat leadership roles, and focus more on training and security roles, as well as allow a focus in other regions, notably in Asia, where the U.S. is still trying to figure out how to deal with China, among other issues.  As a realist, and most importantly (in my opinion at least) a pragmatist when considering international affairs, I think this is a best possible scenario for the U.S. and its national interests.  Only time will tell if this lowly first year grad students opinion is correct, but if I am I will loudly and vocally praise myself for my foresight and keen opinions on international affairs. 

---

[1] Associated Press. "France Tries to Rewrite Its Role in Africa." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 8 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.

[2] Lynch, Colum. "France: Mali's 'existence' at Stake." Foreign Policy. N.p., 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.

[3] Associated Press. "France Pushing EU to Fund Military Interventions." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.

Let the New Space Race Begin

The Chinese have "soft-landed" on the moon.  Read all about this remarkable feat here.  Does this event mark the beginning of a new space race?  The Chinese are also seeking to build their own space station by 2020 and selling satellites to other countries.  So how do these events affect relations with other space traveling states?  I recall reading something a few weeks back pondering whether or not the Chinese intend to start mining operations on the moon.  I do wonder how the world would react to such an act.

Ok, for my own two cents, this event does not portend a new space race of the 1960s style U.S. - Soviet space race, at least not at this time.  The feasibility of mining on the moon must have been studied and restudied by NASA.  Even if U.S. policy and agreements on the use of space made through international treaties prohibited such action, surely NASA knows whether or not mining the moon is possible, profitable, desirable.  This event does illustrate advancement in Chinese technological development.  Chinese technological development is potentially troubling if there is expectation of competition for technological primacy becoming a basis for inter-state conflict.  We should not, however, be alarmed by the fact that an economically and industrially advanced country is making strides in technologically advanced areas, which is simply what people do as they develop.  Hey, aren't we interested in seeing development in the world, isn't development supposed to be good?  I for one hope the Chinese rover returns some cool pictures and perhaps even something interesting regarding the lunar surface it traverses.

And for those wondering why I am putting out a second post on a Friday evening.  Hey, just avoiding grading finals.  

Let's Be Honest

Some may consider my comments here in poor taste, but let's be honest, how many of us are looking forward to seeing what Saturday Night Live does to the fake sign language expert from the Mandela memorial service earlier this week?  Thanks Ola for making me wonder about how SNL would cover this phenomenal gaffe at such an important event.  Check out the Daily Rehash video on the matter and see if you aren't wondering about SNL.  Of course, for my two cents, SNL should be better.  And, for those of you who are worried that making fun of things such as this gaffe is done in poor taste--see the second video below.

North Korea, Part II

I blogged earlier this week about the purging of Jang Song Thaek as part of a power play by the new leader Kim Jong Un.  Apparently in a more overtly feudal manner of dealing with one's potential rivals and usurpers of power, Kim had Jang executed yesterday.  The execution of Jang highlights three things.

First, the absolutism of family authority in North Korea has been put on full display.  Kim Jong Un has notified the country that the Kim family is still firmly in control of the government.  Jang Song Thaek had risen to number two in the DPRK governing hierarchy.  Jang had his own supporters and a history of power-seeking.  Kim Jong Un is reminding the country that he and the Kim dynasty are still in control of the country.

Two, I believe the execution is a signal that easing of market restrictions and liberalizing the economy will not occur as a systematic program sponsored by the government.  Jang was responsible for attempting Chinese style market reforms in North Korea and had close ties to Chinese business and industry.  The message of Jang's execution is North Korea will have market reform only when the public distribution system of the socialist state is failing and when it recovers the market still belongs to the state, not to any private holder.

Three, the execution illustrates Kim Jong Un is young, untried, untested, with little governing experience.  Kim Jong Il had nearly twenty years as a government and party official and a decade of military policy-making before he became the ruler of North Korea.  Kim Jong Un has about eighteen months before becoming the leader of the country.  No time existed for allowing Kim Jong Un to build his own reputation and governing persona under the watchful and powerful eye of his father.  So, Kim Jong Un was given power and has to prove he alone wields the power.  Kim Jong Un will make sweeping uses of power and we should expect more attempts to demonstrate his mastery of the leadership of the DPRK.  At least this is my two cents about the matter.

Caveat or Just (Insert your own word here)?

Hey, I actually did start this post in November, but never finished it, now I finished it.

I was just reading an article at ForeignPolicy.com about the al-Shabab attack on the UN compound in Mogadishu.  I was struck by one thing in regard to the June 19 attack;  the Ugandan peacekeeper's response.

"Ugandan peacekeepers arrived on teh scene about 30 minutes after the attack began, but they declined a request to enter the compound to take on the remaining al-Shabab militants, saying that was the job of Somali security forces."

I considered the potential that there are caveats that are made by states when they send their forces into harm's way.  Stephen Saideman has talked about caveats in Afghanistan and what they really mean for alliances.  In fact, he and David Auerswald have a book where caveats are probably considered; caveats like certain NATO allies not being allowed to do patrols after dark.  Now, the situation in Mogadishu is one in which there are UN personnel, but the security mission is African Union, and apparently there is a Ugandan contingent to that mission.  I am at this moment unaware of any caveats (based on reading about this mission in several publications) but they might exist.  For my two cents, however, I choose to put a different word in place of caveat--dereliction.  Your job as peacekeepers is to protect the UN personnel, so protect them.  Unless, of course, the caveat does exist and is just not really publicly acknowledged.

Apologia to my Few Readers

Sorry to take so long between postings.  November was an extremely busy month for me.  I'll try to post more frequently in the next few weeks.  In terms of extremely busy, please recall my blog a long time ago about watching leaves fall (read grading papers), well I watched a lot of leaves falling in November. 

Thoughts on North Korea

I am teaching a course on Asian Politics in the coming spring semester.  I focus primarily on comparative foreign policy in southeast and east Asia.  So China, the Koreas, Japan, and the ASEAN states get covered in terms of security issues, economic interactions, etc.  Realizing that I have spent a great deal of time reading about, studying, writing about China and ASEAN states, I decided this fall to read more about the Korean peninsula, demographics, geography, society, culture, history, contemporary political structures, and so forth.  As with most people it is the last book/article/information you covered that sticks in your mind.  The last book I read about the Korean peninsula is Victor Cha's* The Impossible State; North Korea Past and Future.  I find Cha's argument about why North Korea's government behaves as it does to be very compelling.  I also find it to be very telling about recent events in North Korea.

Cha argues that North Korean ruling behavior can be understood as grounded in the desire to exercise absolute control to maintain the Kim family's position.  Additionally, North Korean behavior can be understood as a desire to remain grounded in the first half of the Cold War.  The first half of the Cold War was the heyday of the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).  In the 1950s to early 1970s North Korea produced more heavy machinery, more electricity, and was generally much more economically viable than South Korea.  The Juche mentality was developed in the 1970s and reinforced in the 1990s as a means of controlling a population that was increasingly lacking food, electricity, modern technological development and conveniences as the reality that the heyday of DPRK economics and political clout ended with normalization of relations between the U.S. and China and the normalization of trade with a surging South Korea and China and improved South Korean-Russian relations.  North Korea's heyday fades as Chinese and Russian direct payments and loans fade away and North Korea's government refuses to alter economic policy to recognize the new realities of East Asian politics and economics.  The Kim administrations (Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-il) both worked harder after that point in time on control of the population and control of the agencies of government (primarily through a military first policy of income and food distribution). 

No how does this tie to the new Kim administration (Kim Jong Un) and current events?  In the late 1990s as an expedient means to deal with failure of public redistribution systems (remember that a communist/marxist/authoritarian state operates by redistributing the benefits/wealth of production to the population), due to lack of production in industry and agricultural disasters of the mid to late 1990s, the DPRK introduced some minimalist market reforms.  Leading this effort on behalf of Kim Jong-Il was Jang Song Thaek who was purged by Kim Jong-Il in 2004, but resurrected in 2010.  Why was Jang resurrected, well he does happen to be the husband of Kim Jong-Il's sister, Kim Kyong-hui.  Kim Jong-il used his sister and brother-in-law to help ensure ease of transition to the sudden emergence of Kimg Jong Un as the heir to the Kim dynasty in the DPRK.  Last year some analysts even speculated that the real power of the government was in Kim Jong Un's aunt and uncle and that he was possibly a public figurehead (a not too unreasonable analysis based on the very limited information we had regarding Kim Jong Un).  So now forward to the current situation, Jang Song Thaek has been purged again from positions of power in the DPRK (vice-chair of the National Defense Commission and department head Korean Worker's Party).  For my two cents this move is designed to consolidate the position of Kim Jong Un and who was the easiest target among those who could challenge Kim Jong Un's authority.  Well of course the easiest target is the one who was in charge of liberal reform of the economy that has failed (because it was not really liberal reform at all).  And so the effort maintain total control of the population under the thumb of the Kim family and the new leader Kim Jong Un continues and it targets anyone and anything that might challenge the belief that the DPRK should return to the heyday of the 1950s to early 1970s.  

Rubber Duckie

So, the rubber duck made famous in the Rubber Duck Project of artist Florentijn Hofman, has arrived in the U.S.  First stop, Pittsburgh, PA fifty miles from the house, so I had to go see it yesterday.  Kinda got all Bert and Ernie nostalgic for a moment, thought it was interesting that real ducks were swimming around the big rubber duckie. 

 Today, posting this pic made me think about the Ducks of Minerva.  I think a good post was made there today about the "taboo" of chemical weapons use. 

Logic Behind Using Chemical Weapons

One the blog, Political Violence @ a Glance, Barbara Walter gives a Friday Puzzler.  Today the puzzler is:

Given Assad’s extensive conventional weapons capabilities, why use chemical weapons? What’s the logic behind using them?

My first thought on the matter is signalling.  Non-conventional weapons use sends a signal to the opponent targeted by the weapons use.  The signal here is that the massive conventional arsenal that will destroy urban centers does not have to be used.  Weapons of mass human destructive capacity can be used instead to kill and seriously incapacitate opposition members.  The second part of the signal to the opposition is that Assad has the will to use internationally unpopular weapons, not being deterred by statements from international leaders about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons.    Of course, the second part of the signal also has some consequences, namely what will the international community at which Assad thumbed his nose do as a response to the use of chemical weapons? Of course, I am also not considering here the rationality of the decision to send the signal.

Some Observations About....

Ok, so I haven't blogged since June.  I took the summer off from blogging.  But I am back, hopefully I still have something to say on occasion.  Observation #1: I really did not miss blogging, so maybe I am not really good at blogging and maybe I should just quit blogging altogether.  Nah, I just focused on my research and reading this summer and did not take the time to share my thoughts with the world.

So what are the topics most prominent in our minds these days.  Observation #2:  we really did not get that upset about finding out the government was really listening to our conversations.  Oh well, I have been saying that the government is listening for years, Snowden just confirmed it with his admissions.  And then, Observation #3: my opinion, personal opinion, about Snowden is worth as much as anyone else's opinion.  My opinion is that he should have stayed to face the music here in the U.S. running just make you look less courageous.

Observation #4:  I was right, I told you so, etc.  Syria, well, I said over one year ago to expect this one to be ugly because Assad is not going quietly into the night.   But this does bring me to Observation #5: strange world when I wake up and Sec. of State Kerry is more "hawkish" than I.  I mean, which of the following represents Kerry:

or,

Ok, the difference might not be as dramatic as these clips, but...

Final Observation:  I bet most of you reading this have no clue how many people were trapped at the airport in the capital city of the Central African Republic when they ran there for looking for shelter from violence in the CAR last week.  You also probably do not know the name of the capital of the CAR.  

NSA, Privacy, Government Intrusion, Necessary Security--My Head is Exploding

Before I start giving my thoughts on the news about NSA intercept and storage, my words alone and not those of any agency or department or other pieces on the issue (remember that the word collection has specific meaning--just ask the head of the NSA), I believe that full disclosure is in order.  One, I served in the U.S. Air Force, my father served in the U.S. Air Force, and my grandfather served in the U.S. Army Air Force, service and dedication to the freedoms of our people and our country runs deep in my family.  Two, I am an unashamed civil libertarian who believes that both Republicans and Democrats have sold this country down the tubes (at an alarmingly rapid rate of increase in the last decade).  Three, I consider most of the residents and citizens of the U.S. to be either numb-skulled or so terribly apathetic that they have no clue that the country has been sold down the tubes over the last several decades.  Cue the sheepdogs, oh wait, the sheepdogs are now led by the wolves, and the sheep are in real deep trouble.

The known human security denigrating events of the last twenty years (I'll go back that far, earlier is just adding material and wasting space in argument), civil violence, gun violence, terrorism, real wars, fake wars, economic stupidity, economic collapses, drug abuse, drug violence, etc., is staggering in scope.  Of course, human development has aided in the staggering amount of knowledge of these events by the generation of rapid, digital based, communication formats.  My point being that the knowledge of these events is based on the ability to communicate rapidly, that similar events did occur prior to the advent of rapid, digital media formats, but that without the advent of digital communication the population remained largely unaware of these events.  If we do not know about these events are we in any less need of protection and security against the ills of these events?  I answer no.  We are in need of protection against the ills of these events--thus we have the sheepdogs (police, investigators, government agents of the various alphabet soup collection, militias (at least so goes the militias' own claims), soldiers, sailors, airmen, and even Marines (are you happy McFeaters?)). 

But what happens when the wolves get to be in charge of the necessary civilian leadership of the sheepdogs?  Now we get leadership that thinks it is a good idea to usurp the freedoms (privacy is a freedom) of the people--who being numb skulls and highly apathetic--have done nothing to get rid of the wolves.  Instead, the people have sat back allowed the wolves to run the sheepdogs and now the sheepdogs are infringing on our freedoms in the name of security.  Is it a necessary element of security to grossly infringe on the rights of free people, people for whom many others have shed sweat, tears, blood?  My head aches, my heart is heavy, good thing I can turn my eyes to the heavens and read Psalms of ascent. 

So, anyway, my two cents worth is that "We the people" being mostly sheep are in deep trouble.  The wolves are actually running the sheepdogs, and those they would call wolves are still wolves.  Does this make any sense, if not, it is because it should not make sense.  When did "We the people" quit actually caring and doing our part of the duty to ensure that wolves did not become the leaders of the sheepdogs?  No necessary security requirement is fulfilled by the intercept and storage my emails and telephone conversations.  No real security against the ills of human security denigrating events has been created by the actions of our government post 9/11--it is all theater and sham.  And what have "We the people" done--nothing, we are become sheep.

Farewell to A Theoretic Giant

Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) passed away last night.  For those unfamiliar with this name, you are not a student or scholar of International Relations, nor have you spent time around serious scholars of International Relations, nor have you ever taken an introductory course in International Relations (or at least a course that was properly taught).  I can say these things without hesitancy or feeling smug about knowing something arcane, mysterious, or utterly useless, because Ken Waltz was a giant in the discipline of International Relations.

I have sat in the room as Ken Waltz lectured on three occasions, I cannot say that I knew him well, but I know his major works well--I have read Man, The State, and War as well as Theory of International Politics and re-read them on occasion.  In these pages, clear, lucid detail explains how people, governments, and systems of governments can be understood to function.  Waltz is the godfather of neo-structural realism or Neorealism as we understand this theory to work in contemporary study of International Relations.  In each undergraduate introductory course in International Relations I have taught, I have required my students to read Waltz's Man, The State, and War. 

So in tribute to Waltz, a few lines from Man, the State, and War (1959):

"Others argue that wars occur because men expect war; to abolish war, the expectations of men must be changed" (1959, 57)

"To understand war and peace political analysis must be used to supplement and order the findings of psychology and sociology.  What kind of political analysis is needed? For possible explanations of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of war, one can look to international politics (since war occurs among states), or one can look to the states themselves (since it is in the name of the state that the fighting is actually done)."
(1959, 81)

My humble two-cents is that we who still linger and carry on the scholarship of International Relations have lost a theoretic giant.   






 

Books, TV, Movies--My List

Ok, I haven't blogged in awhile, been real busy trying to remodel a room at the house, teach four classes and a lab session each week, and keep up with reading.  Hey that's what I am blogging about now, reading, or reading and watching, what should people interested in political science, particularly international relations, read and watch.  I am spurred to this effort by the work of Stephen Saideman and a piece at Ducks of Minerva.  I have some overlap with both of these lists, and, of course Steve may not like it that I say you should read more realism, but hey, this is my two cents.

Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, I re-read it every few years.  Why does the largest group not always win? 

Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics,  one very cogent way to think about the puzzle that is our world is simply to realize that our world is a puzzle.  Charity toward our fellow man, population, state, should teach us that we may not understand what is meant by words and actions that others take and often we have created bias that informs our understanding in a bad way.

Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, realism from a political economic perspective that also teaches us that while Marx is dead, and communism pretty much sucks, that Marx did understand a few things about perspective that can be applied to understanding competition for power and security.

John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, thoughtful, and easy to read.  Wow, why can't everyone make interesting material approachable.  And, yes, great power behavior is tragic.

Stephen Walt, The Origin of Alliances, why do we make friends, why do we take sides?  I happen to agree with Walt, threat matters more than ideology.

Hugo Slim, Killing Civilians, one of the hardest to read (because of the content, no problems with style) books I ever picked up.  Immensely valuable material, particularly for the sheltered in our midst, that I suggest everyone read in any class on warfare of any type. 

Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, a difficult read, but a must if you really want to understand constructivist viewpoints regarding international relations.

Brigitte Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, I would not normally recommend a textbook, but this one is useful and practical for understanding various ways of discussing, defining, and generally understanding terrorism.

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, quoting from Ducks of Minerva, "Most successfuls comps outline in the history of academia," which sums up this book nicely.

St. Augustine The City of God and Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, both need to be read, particularly if you want to really understand just war theory.

What to watch, I have to agree here with Steve, watch classic Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica.  I also recommend watching Breaker Morant and Lord of War for various reasons related to human behavior in wartime and human insanity in general.

Buy a Shotgun

Joe Biden, the esteemed vice-president of the United States, in pushing the firearm agenda of the Obama administration says that we should buy a shotgun. Now, I have no real issue with this comment.  In fact, I have told people for years, if you are not going to take the time and make the effort to be proficient in the use of a handgun or rifle, and still want to defend yourself, buy a shotgun.  Of course, my buy a shotgun is apparently different than that of VP Biden, who wants you to have a single-barrel, single-shot or at best a double-barrel shotgun.

"We live in an area that's wooded and secluded," Biden said. "I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here ... put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

"I promise you whoever's coming in is not gonna," Biden said. "You don't need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It's harder to aim. It's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."
"Buy a shotgun," he said, lowering his voice almost to whisper.

Well, let's stop and think about this for a minute VP Biden.  "Fire two blasts outside the house."  Fire at what, do you aim, or just fire off both barrels?  Once you have fired those two barrels into the air, what happens next?  Most people are not going to be proficient at rapid reloading of shotguns.  I can fire about 6 rounds per minute with a single-barrel, if I hold shells between my lips and between my fingers when I start the process.  And what did you hit if you just blasted off two rounds?  

Sorry VP Biden, but while the shotgun idea is sound, what is more sound is to buy a pump action or semi-automatic shotgun that holds five or more 2 3/4 or 3 inch shells loaded with buck shot.  What is even more sound is to aim at the intruder in the window, doorway, hallway through which they are invading your personal space/private property, not to go outside the house and fire off two rounds (which assumes you are going to hear the intruder coming and hear them outside your home).  Even more sound is having aimed at the intruder to shoot the intruder.  Of course this is only my two cents worth of thought, and I pray to God that no person has to make these sound decisions, ever.  

Academic Writing vs. Public Writing

Since most of the pointy-headed academics types (full disclosure:  this statement refers to myself) read the same blogs and works when they do research in the same or similar areas, I am not surprised to find my mentor, Steve Saideman, commenting upon this recent blog from Stephen Walt.  I am also not surprised to find Steve pointing us back to Drezner and to the response to Walt by Ulfelder.  You can read Saideman's response to Walt here.  And of course, here is my two cents on the Walt comments.

First, the conversation regarding writing well in academia is as old as writing in the academy.  So, if anyone expected something earth-shattering or new, forget about it.  Walt gives a restatement and his own opinion, but not a new argument.

I have personally found writing in general to be poor stylistically and grammatically in the last several years of my academic career.  My own writing suffers from issues of style and clarity, that I must work very hard to overcome.  So, my own argument is that we simply do not work carefully enough on our writing.  More to come on this issue.

What does Walt get right?  Well, what we are writing about is often difficult to express with great ease and clarity for the general public.  But, that is the general public.  I think Walt fails to account for the intended audience of the written work.

Walt considers logic of discovery and logic of presentation.  Well, logic of discovery is appropriate in the language of the written work or oral presentation if one is writing to other academics or students of the subject matter.  Logic of presentation is appropriate if you are writing to a general audience that is not versed in the "jargon" of the academic discipline which the written work is attempting to engage. 

Walt himself makes this point, but seems to ignore it in his critique of writing well:

"really effective writing involves sitting down and thinking hard about the best way to present that argument to the reader."

Well, to whom am I writing.  If I am writing to other political scientists who study conflict processes (ethnic conflict, civil wars) and political violence (terrorism and counter-terrorism) I use a different prose and metric of writing than if I am writing to my mom and dad about the discoveries I have made in my research.  I would also write differently to policy-makers than to my mom and dad about the same discoveries.  I mean by questioning how well we write to question how well we edit our work for the intended audience.  We academics often forget to ask who the reader is before submitting work for consumption--or maybe I am just writing about myself.  However, what we academics need to further ensure is that in addition to crafting the work for the intended reader is that we grammatically craft our work properly, period.   

China and Tibetan Self-Immolations

So, according to my count from various sites, Tibetan self-immolations hit 100 last year.  According to this article the number is approaching 100.  But more importantly look at what the Chinese are doing in response to Tibetan self-immolation.  Over 70 arrests of people who are inciting the self-immolations and continued denunciation of the Dalai Lama, apparently this is the best the Chinese can do.

Here's my two cents.  The Chinese government might want to investigate why 100 people were willing to set themselves on fire.  The Chinese government might find that some policies can be altered in ways that change the socio-econonomic and socio-political landscape in Tibet.  Policy might even be changed without the Chinese government losing control of the territory.

DOJ White Paper on Targeting U.S. Citizens

I have previously addressed what I consider to be the constitutional issue of killing Anwar Al-Awlaki.  So anyone who knows what I have written and what I stand for knows that I believe in a tight reading and application of the U.S. Constitution.  But, here we go again, thank you DOJ for ensuring that I continue to view my government with suspicion and disgust.

In as few words as possible, the best way to understand the DOJs determination in the white paper is stated by Rosa Brooks at foreignpolicy.com:

"If you were worried about whether it was okay for the U.S. government to kill an American citizen overseas, you can relax: The Justice Department says such killings are hunky dory, as long as some "informed, high-level official" decides that citizen poses and "imminent threat" and capture would be "unfeasible"."  (read the article here)

Kudos to Brooks for then tearing apart, cleanly, and systematically the logic of the papers key claims.  Paramount within these claims are that a senior official can make the decision, and that imminent threat may not actually mean something that we know will happen soon, or even ever.  Who is a senior official?  And, what happened to imminent meaning right now and threat meaning something that will really happen?

Of course, my biggest problem is still that the 4th and 5th amendments to the U.S. Constitution are violated.  I could care less about what Pakistan thinks about us striking targets inside Pakistan, but can those targets include U.S. citizens--not without a trial and a finding by a court that this U.S. citizen is guilty of a crime.  And even then, execution requires a finding of guilty of a capital offense and that proper procedure be followed in the carrying out of the sentence--is death by drone strike cruel and unusual?

Thoughts on France

So, I spent ten days in Nantes (yes, the Nantes of the Edict of Nantes (1598) abrogated by Louis XIV (1685)), Normandy, and Paris.  Surprising, I suspect, those who mistake my making IR jokes about France for a dislike of France.  Remember that the only government that I tell more jokes about than the govt of France is the govt of the U.S.

So, as usual, I do have my own two-cents worth of thoughts about places that I visit.  One, the French nationals in Nantes and Normandy were as friendly and helpful as you will find people anywhere.  Ok, maybe this has to do with my inept attempts to at least ask directions to the bathroom and for a cup of coffee in their language.  Two, Jules Verne rocks--got to go to his house (now a museum) look at the models and posters of movies made from his books and just ponder for a moment or two the breadth of imagination that filled those rooms during Verne's lifetime.  Three, Saumur Champigny is a great red wine varietal.  Four, I still feel like a 10 year old school boy when I see castles and ruins--loved Clisson, Angers, and Guerande.  Five, Normandy was chilling, I walked where death and destruction were mighty and heroes still lie, I'll admit it, I wept.  Point du Hoc (hail to the Rangers), ya'll climbed that under fire--wow.  Omaha beach, that ravine is the path of the beach, through that foliage, and oh yeah the guys shooting at you from up there.  For an old airman, and pointy-headed academic geek, it was a nearly overwhelming experience.  Six, Versailles is a low rent district palace in comparison to the Peterhof, Catherine's Palace and the Winter Palace I saw in St. Petersburg last May, sorry France, but ya'll don't have enough gold leaf covering everything.  Seven, did you see the "Marriage at Cana" by Veronese?  No, but I saw that little painting on the other side of the room called "Mona Lisa".  Of course I saw the Marriage at Cana--it is huge.  You really need several hours or only one hour to go to the Louvre--do you want overload or just to look at some specific art?  Finally, Parisians told me to enjoy the snow because it doesn't happen that often, well if I wanted snow I could have stayed at home.

Anyway, that is the abbreviated two cents.  I'll say more,maybe even share a picture or two later.  Meantime, go to my website to see pictures as I post them:   http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/pols/faculty/stanton/

Final Tibet Self-Immolation Count for 2012

Total Self-Immolations:

         100

And just to make sure the socio-political situation does not change...
  

China appoints new Tibet governor, hardline policies to remain