The Quantitative Peace

Stuff is still happening in (the sequel)...

I really don't know how many times I'll be able to use that title, but given that the American audience has become so distracted by the Washington debt ceiling battle, I decided to check on some old favorites and post a quick update on goings on elsewhere.  

Libya:  Apparently Libyan rebels have made "significant" gains in the past week, taking control of some key cities on the way to Tripoli.  NATO planes have damaged or destroyed over 150 targets in the past week alone.  However, who really knows what qualifies as a "military target" for these purposes.  Sources in the article also indicate that some of Ghadaffi's forces have begun consolidating in Tripoli and have begun removing their uniforms, apparently gearing up for a transition in tactics.  It will be interesting to see what the next month brings.  

Syria:  It sounds like the body count in Syria is continuing to rise steadily.  Syrian security forces are apparently combating "armed gangs" in an effort to protect the people.  This includes firing into Palestinian refugee camps as well it seems.  The article also mentions a Youtube video that has surfaced, purportedly showing some pretty graphic scenes from the crackdown.  I've not seen it, but it sounds pretty unsettling.  

Bahrain:  It sounds as though things have quieted down for the time being, but Bahrain is still dealing with the fallout from the previous protests and crackdowns.  Quiet doesn't necessarily mean good, however, as the BBC is reporting that hundreds of people are still in jail and there are reports of widespread torture.  Not terribly surprising, but it's important to keep in mind the fact that the violence carries on even once the streets have cleared.    

War Songs

Blogging has been lite lately, but in response to Phil's subtle nudges, I've decided to offer up my own list of war songs.  I'm approaching this from a more general angle of "war songs" as opposed to songs that are strictly anti-war.  These songs are not necessarily supposed to reflect any particular personal views of war--they just happen to be drawn from the general body of music that I grew up listening to.  That said, there are most certainly some common themes.  

As a general rule I will list songs by song title and then artist.  Some of these will probably be songs/bands that many people are familiar with, but others less so (as an aside, it was almost a sport in high school to seek out rare and obscure records--not because the music was particularly good, but that's how you win, duh).

1. The Trooper -- Iron Maiden: (Song link)  Everything about this song is amazing--the narrative, the guitar work--everything.  The guitar riffs in particular are simply classic.  But aside from the musical component, the lyrics are especially good, as they tell a graphic and coherent story.  Furthermore, this story takes us back a ways to a time when we're talking about fighting with muskets and cavalry charges.  I mean just look at the imagery!
2. Aces High -- Iron Maiden: (Song link)  Yes, another Maiden joint.  They're fantastic.  Anywho, unlike the Trooper, Aces High is all about dog fights.  The guitar work is again phenomenal, having this sort of frantic quality to it that matches up with the song's lyrics quite well.  The chorus serves as a nice foil to the rest of the song and gives the listener a sense that they are almost soaring through the air.  
3. World War II -- English Dogs: (Song link)  The English Dogs made a transition shortly after this song toward more of a punk-metal style, some of which is available on the iTunes.  Nowhere near the more poetic and technical styling of an Iron Maiden tune, this song has nevertheless always stuck with me.  I think what's always fascinated me about this song is the context in which it was written.  During the early to mid 1980s many other English punk bands were (as the song suggests) singing about the perils of nuclear war and the impending nuclear apocalypse.  This seems sort of obvious given the backdrop of the Cold War at the time.  Alternatively, this song points out that World War II was a pretty hellish experience, and in so doing, sort of asks the question, "what more do you want?"  
4. War Ensemble -- Slayer: (Song link)  This is probably one of their more aggressive/famous songs, and the connection is pretty obvious.  Their lyrics are also incredibly graphic, which I think is appropriate given that war is a pretty miserable thing.  We don't need to experience it directly to know that it's not something that we should seek out for enjoyment.  That said, we're surrounded by music, movies, video games, etc., that try to find the poetry or excitement in an otherwise hellish experience, and I think this song speaks to the far darker aspects of war.  Like Iron Maiden, but in a totally different way, old-school Slayer has a way about them when it comes to evoking a particular type of imagery.  Honorable mention should also go to "Hallowed Point" (Song link) which is also on the Seasons in the Abyss album.  While this song is not directly about war, I think it definitely relates quite closely.  
5. Generals -- GBH: (Song link)  Another song that has stuck with me for a long time.  This song speaks to a few different points, but I think the most important of them are these ideas of the exploitation and manipulation of the common foot soldier, and asking these questions about why/how an individual is told to fight.  The song ends by raising these questions of the human costs that are incurred, and combined with the chorus, I think does a successful job at linking these themes of serving some abstract and higher cause with the aforementioned micro-level themes of the human suffering and costs (of those on the winning side, might I add).  
6. Let's Start a War -- The Exploited: (Song link)  This speaks to some of the same themes as the previous song, but I think it more directly speaks to the different costs that are incurred by members of different classes in society.  I've never been a huge fan of the Exploited, but this is another song that I've always remembered.
7. Viva la Revolution -- The Adicts: (Song link)  Not so much about war in an interstate sense, but more about social upheaval and civil conflict.  Still, a great song and perhaps appropriate given the current state of things around the world.  This band was a great one in large part because of their style--they drew heavily on clockwork orange imagery for the band's (and especially the lead singer's) look.  While not as graphic as the other songs, this was just a really fun one. 

I'm sure there are probably some songs that I'm leaving out, so this list may be revised if I think of anything.  My thanks to Phil for the idea--I had a lot of fun thinking about this idea and sifting through my music collection.  And as I mentioned before, some of these songs don't necessarily have a particular message about war itself, but when you comb through this stuff it just reminds you how influential warfare has been in shaping the musical world.

Evolution, Secrecy, and Bureaucracies

This sort of reminds me of this.  Really one passage in particular, I suppose:

We tend to marvel at the Darwinian perfection of organisms now, saying 'this must have been highly selected for, it's a tuned and sophisticated machine'.  In fact, it's a mess - there's so much unnecessary complexity.

Bear with me.  The preceding passage is from an article I found on the BBC regarding flaws in proteins that are believed to be linked to more complex biological structure emerging.  While not directly related to Walt's post on bureaucracies, the passage quoted above just sort of struck me as appropriate.

Walt's basic argument is that America's foreign policy, being one that he generally describes as imperialistic, could not be sustained without a large and complex bureaucratic organism that can manage foreign policy activity.  These bureaucracies, Walt argues, are more prone to secrecy because it makes the perpetuation of American foreign policy easier.  Basically, secrecy allows bureaucratic actors to pursue their own policy preferences and use the tactics and strategies that they want to use.  Without secrecy the public may find out about the reprehensible policies that bureaucrats are employing and put a stop to it.

Like the preceding passage, Walt's argument seems to assume that the functions of the bureaucracy are finely tuned and selected for because they better enable the bureaucracy to do its job.  The first mistake here is treating the national security bureaucracy (as he refers to it) as a monolithic entity that controls foreign policy.  Indeed, one of the core elements of bureaucratic politics theory is the existence of multiple bureaucratic agencies, all with their own particular mission/mandate, and that are often "competing" with one another to influence the direction of foreign policy.  These theoretical models often focus on the individuals within these bureaucratic agencies, arguing that membership in a particular agency, previous experience, and one's rank within the organization all determine views and preferences.  It may be more appropriate to say that these factors partially shape preferences, and partially determine the extent to which an individual can pursue their preferences.  The "previous baggage" component suggests that preferences are partially determined by factors other than an individual affiliation with a particular agency.  Nevertheless, bureaucratic politics theory assumes that these individuals will seek to enhance their own standing and, as a result, the standing of their organization within the broader organizational context (i.e. the Pentagon/DOD will try to maximize its influence within the broader foreign policymaking community).    

Now I don't doubt that some of these bureaucratic actors enjoy having a certain level of secrecy associated with their work, as Walt suggests.  This surely opens up opportunities to do things that would not otherwise be possible if these actors were subject to a higher level of public scrutiny.  But I think one mistake is thinking that this is all completely deliberate.  The redundancy of bureaucratic functions likely accounts for a substantial amount of the secrecy that exists in the American foreign policymaking "apparatus."  Since there are multiple organizations all competing for influence within the system there is a strong incentive to not share information with those actors/organizations that are perceived to be your competitors.  The FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and other intelligence gathering agencies are in many ways rivals when it comes to gathering intelligence.  Indeed this was argued to be a major problem in the wake of the September 11 attacks.  The solution?  Create the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to oversee much of the broader intelligence and security community.  

The result?  The CIA, who had arguably been top-dog in this field prior to the creation of the DNI is still far more entrenched in the national security bureaucracy than the newly created DNI.  This is largely due to path dependence and the fact that the CIA had 60 years to establish its own contacts and relations with other agencies.  Again we see the CIA in a position where there are strong incentives to jealously guard any agency-exclusive information in an effort to stave off the DNI's growing influence.  The CIA is therefore in a position to undertake its own operations and only report successes once they have become, well, successful.  Failures of course should never see the light of day.

Now this may sound a lot like what Walt is proposing.  However, the major difference is that a great deal of secrecy is introduced into the system as a byproduct of other actions---not because a high level of secrecy is optimal for the pursuit of some foreign policy goal.  This secrecy also exists in an intra-governmental fashion, and is not simply an issue of external transparency.  Again, as we have seen over the past few years, and as many folks have argued, the refusal to share information between government agencies has resulted in a decidedly suboptimal system for ensuring our national security.

The current bureaucratic structure has not evolved, its characteristics have not been selected for, because it is the best suited system for pursuing national security.  Certainly policymakers, while delegating substantial powers to the actors within these agencies, can face very negative consequences when bad policies or tactics are uncovered, so internal transparency is not necessarily desirable for political leaders either.  The creation of the DNI and Homeland Security have definitely increased the size of the national security bureaucracy, and have probably increased the level of secrecy in the system, but I don't think this is the intent.  These agencies were created in an effort to facilitate communication between other agencies in the system and to keep political leaders better informed.  While I don't totally disagree with Walt's assessment, I think there are probably some more nuanced organizational factors that contribute a great deal to our understanding of why we see the structures and behavior that we see.    

 

Osama Bin Laden is Dead

A significant event in an ongoing story that has been a driving force in defining my generation.

Wikistrat Competition

I received an email this afternoon from Wikistrat inviting political scientist graduate students to participate in a competition for $10,000.  Before this email, I have heard nothing about this program/website and I am still relatively ignorant about their presence and history, but it seems, at the very least, worth getting a bit more information about.

The actual competition is for a team of 5-10 political science graduate students from the same university to:

1. Forecast their team’s national trajectory;
2. Develop scenario pathways and national policy options for specific strategic issues;
3. Articulate national grand strategies;
4. Brainstorm future regional security environments (alternate futures); and
5. Simulate plausible scenarios of geopolitical crises.

 

The simulation, to occur in June, will last 4 weeks with an expectation of 5,000 words per week of output by the university team.  Each team will be role-playing a particular country and developing plans of action for the country they are representing.

The competition is intriguing.  For a relatively new enterprise, it seems like a decent way to generate content and information for a starting investment -- perhaps similar to other prize competitions for science based projects (rocket design, fuel efficiency, etc.), but this one is strategy oriented.  

Maps Maps Maps, Part Deux

I posted a few days ago about openheatmap.com, a website that will convert your csv files into fancy thermal maps.  One problem with our initial attempts to map out the presence of American military forces abroad was that the data are highly skewed.  Some countries host upwards of 50,000--60,000 American military personnel in the year we're looking at (2005).  In the past this figure was even higher---Germany at one point plays host to roughly 250,000 members of the American military during the Cold War.  

As you can imagine, we don't have that many soldiers in most countries.  The original map I posted was somewhat misleading, as countries such as China and Russia appeared to have more soldiers within their boarders than they actually have, and this was mostly the result of the combination of skewed data and the way that software color-coded countries.  Phil Arena suggested logging the troop values to see if this would help to take care of the issue:

 

I've changed the colors from blues to reds, as I think this helps a bit, but the figures used to generate the map above are the logged values of troops within the country.  The paler countries obviously have fewer soldiers than the darker countries.  Overall I think this map looks better, but there is still a fairly substantial amount of variation that is being masked by the limited range of tones.  For example, Iran is actually coded as having one American soldier present during 2005, which explains why it's a pale tan/organge.  Nevertheless, I think the important information that the map is intended to convey (namely the extent to which the US military has at least some presence virtually everywhere) is still there. 

On a final note, I also found that the map doesn't distinguish between 0 values and positive values---rather, a 0 and a 1 will share the same color.  Any observations that have a 0 value need to be dropped out of the data before the map is created.  This is kind of a funny feature, but something that users should be aware of.   

Sounds About Right

courtesy: www.smbc-comics.com

Maps Maps Maps

Back in December I had a brief post about CRACK, a mapmaking software package for Macs.  The downside was that CRACK only worked for making maps of the United States.  As the need has arisen, Michael Allen and I began looking for something similar that could handle world maps.  This brings me to OpenHeatMap, an online platform for making those fancy looking thermal heat maps using data from a spreadsheet.  We were looking for something to visually display some data that we have on US Military Personnel abroad, and this seems to work pretty well.  Here's an example:

The program lets you mess with some of the details, such as borders, colors, etc.  The only downside is that it does not appear to allow you to save an image.  Mac users have the option of taking screen shots by selecting particular areas on the screen, but I don't think PCs have this feature yet.  Anywho, if you have a Mac, this lack of a downloadable file probably won't matter too much to you.  Also, there are some small troop deployments to some microstates that this map does not display--getting it to recognize some of the country names in the data may also be a bit of a struggle.   

Also, the data used for making this map was obtained from Tim Kane at the Heritage Foundation. 

 

The Domestic Side of Things

Clearly I'm trying to make up for a post drought from the past couple of months.  I'll leave the more in-depth commentary to someone who has been following this situation more closely, but it looks like the Wisconsin State Government is experiencing a wheeeeee-bit of a principal-agent problem (via Boing Boing).

Wisconsin Police Have Joined Protest Inside State Capitol

I will say that it's not immediately clear to me whether we're talking about off-duty cops only, or if we're talking about both on and off-duty police officers.  If the latter are protesting that would seem to be less of a problem, but the article seems to indicate that on-duty officers are the ones refusing to remove protestors from the capitol.  On the other hand, the man in the video looks more to be an off-duty officer expressing support (if his jacket is any indication).   

The International Relations Implications of Chinese Parenting Practices

By now I'm sure most people have come across Amy Chua's recent Wall Street Journal article.  After reading David Brooks' response to Chau's article, I've begun to think of some of some of the international relations implications of Chua's Chinese parenting style.  Specifically, I'm curious to see what her revelations imply for China's ascendency in the global community.  In spite of  her in-text caveats, I will assume that her described style indeed applies to all Chinese mothers and in no way, shape, or form is a blanket generalization that might not apply quite so broadly.

1. Espionage -- Historically espionage and subterfuge have been incredibly important in advancing national objectives.  Well--placed operatives can provide decision-makers with valuable information on the intentions and capabilities of rival powers.  And a relatively simple act of misinformation or sabotage can achieve what might take millions of dollars and thousands of military personnel to achieve.  But it appears that we have very little to fear from China in terms of espionage.  Chua claims that a ban on playdates was one of the imporant steps in creating a driven, high-achieving child.  And let's not even talk about participating in a school play.  Do we really expect the Chinese government to field skilled intelligence operatives if they don't even allow their children to partake in afterschool drama activities?  Where are they supposed to learn the  skills necessary to fool other highly trained intelligence operatives?  Denying a child from an early age the basic opportunities that contribute to shaping their social skills and ability to feign interest in the stories of self-involved peers doesn't seem like a very effective means of imbuing budding spies with spy-type skills. 
2. Military -- One of the two categories that Chua lists as being acceptable for her children to under achieve in is gym class.  I've watched enough movies featuring basic training programs to know that big wall and the rope climb are omni-present features of military life.  Furthermore, a basic neglect of physically demanding activities does not seem like a particularly effective way of building up a strong military.  Granted this ignores the emphasis on more technologically advanced means of warfighting, but as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have emphasized the importance of boots on the ground, I'd say physical prowess is still important.
3. Strategy -- Chua doesn't allow her children to watch TV or play video games.  I assume this ban also extends to surfing the internet as well.  We all know newspapers are dying out, so how will Chinese children keep up on current global affairs?  I predict there will be a severe expertise deficit in China as a consequence of this neglect.  It will take several additional years of education before young Chinese adults will have caught up on all that back reading.  This might also cause the Chinese leadership of the next generation to pursue moot strategies---had they watched TV in the here and now they'd know that the Jersey Shore was already destroying America from the inside out and that there was no need for a more heated contest.  China could preserve valuable military and financial resources had they only watched a little MTV and gave it another 5 years.
4. Soft Power -- At first glance it would seem that China has an advantage in this department.  So many gifted, classically trained musicians and an emphasis high academic excellence should make China an attractive place.  A well educated population provides the country with an enormous pool of expertise and talent which can then provide a boost to China's academic institutions, perhaps making them more attractive to foreign students.  Through attending China's universities, foreign students will experience Chinese culture and develop a greater affinity for the country.  However, the standards by which Chinese parents apparently raise their children has likely had a perverse effect in this area.  Admissions standards to Chinese universities must be incredibly high.  If the lower and upper bounds of the typical grade distribution in China are A+ and A+, where do the A students go?  University admissions standards are likely so high that strategic-thinking foreign students realize they can't hope to compete and apply to universities in other countries, thus depriving China of the opportunity to difuse its values and culture to the rest of the world.  And, really, what do you as a country do with an enormous surplus of high-quality pianists?  China may soon come to have an enormous population of struggling artists to support, placing enormous demands on its economic system as funds are syphoned off to support the glut of unemployed virtuosos.       

I'm sure that there are furhter areas in which parenting will matter when it comes to international affairs.  If anyone can think of anything in particular that I've missed, please feel free to contribute.