Mutually Exclusive Answer Categories and Ferguson, MO

Perusing the news wire services I came across an article discussing the following poll results



As I looked at the poll, I found nothing very surprising in the results.  Then I looked at the question and the answer categories.  I find a big problem with the answer categories.  Any student who has been in my Research Methods in Political Science and paid any attention to the discussion and readings regarding survey research questions, knows that answer categories need to be mutually exclusive.  In the case of this survey can I reasonably believe that the shooting raises important issues about race AND race is getting too much attention?  The answer to my question is yes.

I believe the shooting raises questions about police policy and procedure in Ferguson, MO and about the racial composition of the police force of Ferguson, MO.  Can a nearly all white police force truly represent/defend the local community security concerns in a community that is majority black?  What opportunity for empathy with racial/ethnic histories exists within a police force that does not racially/ethnically represent the majority of the community which it is designed to serve?  I have serious qualms about the ability of that police force to serve that community because of race issues, indeed important issues about race are found in this particularly troubling event.

I also believe that race is receiving too much attention in the aftermath of the event.  I believe this to the extent that anyone, regardless of race should receive the same consideration under the law.  If (very big IF) the police office inolved in the shooting had legitimate reason for use of deadly force (stop it, stop it, stop it all of you who are saying I am waffling here) then so be it.  Do we know if the officer had reason to use deadly force--NO.  We have speculation, limited pathological findings, and upset friends and relatives (on both sides) spewing vehemently in opposition to one another.  We have a community up in arms about the failure of the police to be forthcoming about the event.  We have a police force faced with violent behavior that the police respond to based on years of training.  If you throw molotov cocktails at the police during a demonstration, they will likely use tear gas, batons, and other force to disperse you.  If you throw rocks at the police, they might even taze you or fire rubber bullets into a crowd containing rock throwers.  Do police respond properly?  Maybe, maybe not, but that response has nothing to do with race.

So, for my two cents, the survey is designed to provoke commentary and thought.  The survey question is not accompanied by quality answer set because it lacks mutual exclusivity.  We get the thoughtfulness and commentary stuff, but please ask questions correctly. 

Japanese Stealth Fighter

Something about fighter aircraft always catches my eye when I am perusing news stories.  I have always been enamored of fast, hot-looking aircraft, and have a great appreciation for what they bring to combat. Seeing an article entitled "Japan to test first homegrown stealth fighter jet: report" in the AFP wire grabbed my attention.  I have been following changes in Japanese defense policy with particular interest since April of this year and first talked about it in my blog on May 30. 

To recap, in April the Japanese announced that Japanese troops might be used in defense of military operations by allies of Japan.  In May the Japanese announced they would begin exporting Japanese arms and components to allies in Asia (not just to the U.S. and other Western governments).  Throughout this spring and summer we have seen an increase in tensions between Japan and China over islands in the East China Sea.  The Chinese apparently developed a stealth figher which shows elements of F-22 and F-35 designs probably stolen by the Chinese in 2007.

For my two cents, this latest development should not surprise anyone.  The Japanese have committed themselves to an expansion of what "defensive" force means under Article 9 of their constitution.  Combine the redefining of "defense" with increased air activity over the East China Sea and the possession of stealth aircraft by the Chinese and the Japanese action is reasonable.  The question is the same now as all year for the Japanese; is expansion of use of Japanese military force, expansion of arms exports, and now the development of stealth technology in aircraft "defensive"?  No need for alarm either, for now keep it all in perspective.  Japan's move does not appear to be a gambit in an arms race, though I would expect the Chinese government through some office to potentially claim Japan is trying to start an arms race.

Nagorno-Karabakh; Why Now?

In case you missed the news, which I almost did, while focusing on Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and a multitude of other conflicts around the world, The Armenians and Azerbaijanis are fighting again in the South Caucuses. The death toll is less than 20 as of the latest report I have read.  Nagorno-Karabakh has been under the control of Armenia and local Armenian militia since the end of heavy fighting for control of the region in 1994.


(map courtesy of wikipedia.org)

Typical of many ethnically fueled conflicts, both sides blame the other for initiation of hostilities.  Interestingly though, neither government seems to want to escalate hostilities.  Also, neither government seems to be really willing to meet and discuss the issue of control or to be beholden to Russia to broker peace.  The government of Azerbaijan, led by Ilham Aliyev, has stated in recent months that they are capable of militarily taking Nagorno-Karabakh by force and Aliyev is currently ignoring Russian requests to meet with Putin in Sochi to discuss the issue.

So, why the hostility now?  For my two cents, the hostility is most likely the product of local commanders making poor, snap judgement decisions and not a direct result of a desire to change the current status quo by force on the part of either government.  Given the statements of the Aliyev government keeping our eyes open on this trouble spot is wise, and I hope I am right that this latest incident will not be a spark to renewed larger scale hostilities.

Again Thinking Bullpup

Always looking at new and interesting bullpup designs.  This one by Desert Tech reminds me a little of the Israeli Tavor (a model I do like).  So, hey maybe I could be persuaded to look closer since it does come in 7.62x51 NATO.

Shameless Personal Advertisement

For my interested readers in the area, I'll be on Night Talk: Get to the Point Friday August 1st as part of a panel of local academics discussing current events.  The program is live from 8 to 9 pm on PCNC.  Looking forward to hearing the thoughts of my fellow panel members.

Foreign Policy "Creation" or "Zen"

I, like most international relations/security studies folks, have been following the events in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza with great interest.  I make no claim of special knowledge and fact.  I do, however, have my own opinions regarding the facts (thanks Daniel Patrick Moynihan for the great statement).  Human opinions regarding facts and what the facts indicate for the future is what truly drives the development of foreign policy.  In thinking about how I would recommend the U.S. government should respond to the facts (particularly in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, but also thinking about North Korean statements, Chinese actions/statements, continued unrest in Libya, South Sudan, and I can go on with the list), I found some interesting commentary in the last few days provided by Daniel Drezner (here is the Drezner Link) and Josh Busby (here is Busby Link).   I recommend to everyone a quick perusal of these articles.

For my own two cents, I caution people to remember that taking the long arching view of humanity and ideological growth in our world does not mean isolationism.  The "Zen" crowd might be wary of taking hasty actions, but this does not equate to inaction.  Structural realists generally believe that you must determine which interests are the most important (the interests are facts, which ones are most important are opinion) and act on those specific important interests.  In other words, do not sweat the small stuff, do not run off to fight battles that do not need to be fought just because someone offers you a battle.

Further, I caution against being hard on the "Reality Creators".  The proponents of this view (neoconservatives and liberal internationalists) are also looking at facts.  In the opinion of reality creators the facts justify/warrant/demand immediate action.  Busby says that there is room to manuever between the two positions and he is, in my opinion, correct.  So, read up, enjoy and use these ideas to figure out your own opinion regarding the facts we are presented and the appropriate responses.  Makes for good arguments over good cigars.

CAR Ceasefire?

Seeing a headline that said rebels signed ceasefire agreement in the Central African Republic caused me momentary happiness this morning.  Then I read the accompanying story.  The rebel leader signing the ceasefire agreement was Mohamed Moussa Dhaffane, a Seleka general who split with the leadership of the Seleka movement last year.  Recently Michel Djotodia, the Seleka leader who took the presidency of CAR after the Seleka uprising and then abused the population greatly before being forced into exile in January of 2014 has been reinstated as the head of Seleka.  Named as Djotodia's two deputies are Nourredine Adam and Dhaffane.

For my two cents regarding the veracity of the commitment, I'll wait and see.  I am not so happy as I was because the agreement was signed by Dhaffane and not Djotodia or all three of the Seleka leaders.  The problem is that Djotodia and Adam are both under sanction by the UN and arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court exist for both Djotodia and Adam.  The threat of arrest for former government leaders by the ICC and by courts claiming human rights jurisdiction beyond their own borders (remember that European state courts have tried to arrest several former leaders of countries other than their own for human rights abuses--think about the Spanish judge ordering the arrest of Pinochet for crimes against humanity while Pinochet was in England for medical treatment) hampers the ability for all relevant parties to be part of a negotiated settlement.  Djotodia and Adam cannot be included in the negotiations because of fear of arrest--this is problem number one with this ceasefire agreement.  Problem number two, Dhaffane split with the leadership of Seleka last year.  I realize he has been named one of the deputies this year, but does his view regarding the ceasefire equal the view of the entire leadership of Seleka?