After 4 years of Donald Trump, the US must "reassure" its allies.
That's what I'm reading/hearing lately, such as in this @nytimes piece. What do international relations scholars know about reassuring allies? Can it be done? Is it even
Indeed, such a tall order that it's been a major question explored by international relations scholars for a long time. A LONG TIME.
https://t.co/97fUw7sIj5
This included Robert Schelling's paper in the first issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution...
https://t.co/rdd1N24HhZ
https://t.co/R9KgFmwOVB
The core difficulty with evaluating deterrence is "selection bias" and an inability to see the "counterfactual" (i.e. we only observe deterrence failures).
https://t.co/2uyzeGHQ15
7/ He does not think the "selection bias" can be dismissed and that accounting for it will have key implications for who we think about deterrence pic.twitter.com/YZriK5KH6B
— Paul Poast (@ProfPaulPoast) March 3, 2019
What the research finds is not supportive.
https://t.co/7jblEd27n8
https://t.co/EdweUhWHd0
https://t.co/2hBOdsNT3F
https://t.co/aHiQlpDWYj
What else can be done?
https://t.co/SGvUwGm8K4
https://t.co/ECh84QJ0Rv
https://t.co/abYBpwkuBp
https://t.co/KRA2wgHN4P
https://t.co/od5Aczh4GT
More from Paul Poast
Why are civil-mil scholars upset about Austin Lloyd's nomination as the 28th Secretary of Defense?
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Was the attack on the US Capitol an attempted coup?
Rather than debate that question here (or in another forum), I'm making it an assignment. Specifically, I'm asking my Quantitative Security students to determine if it belongs in our coup/attempted coup datasets.
[THREAD]
A core goal of this course is to introduce students to how Large-N data on violence and security are created.
We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
First, what happened? @johncarey03755 offers a succinct
Second, I'll ask the students to read some of the recent pieces that say the event was NOT a coup attempt.
These include...
...detailed twitter threads by
Rather than debate that question here (or in another forum), I'm making it an assignment. Specifically, I'm asking my Quantitative Security students to determine if it belongs in our coup/attempted coup datasets.
[THREAD]
A core goal of this course is to introduce students to how Large-N data on violence and security are created.
We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
First, what happened? @johncarey03755 offers a succinct
Second, I'll ask the students to read some of the recent pieces that say the event was NOT a coup attempt.
These include...
...detailed twitter threads by
Let me try this again\u2026 What would it look like if this were a coup (failed, in progress, or otherwise)? 1/n
— Kristen Harkness (@HarknessKristen) January 7, 2021
Let's talk about that "Longer Telegram" making the rounds...and why it's a
First, to be clear, it IS NOT a telegram. It's a report. I mean, it has a flipping 11.5 page executive "summary"...
...a two page table of contents...
...and clocks in at 62 pages (minus the forward and executive summary) or 73 pages (if you include the executive summary).
Of course, the author of "The Longer Telegram" calls it a "telegram" because they want it to be directly and explicitly compared to George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" about US policy towards the Soviet Union.
https://t.co/rHikkOYuoT
First, to be clear, it IS NOT a telegram. It's a report. I mean, it has a flipping 11.5 page executive "summary"...
...a two page table of contents...
...and clocks in at 62 pages (minus the forward and executive summary) or 73 pages (if you include the executive summary).
Of course, the author of "The Longer Telegram" calls it a "telegram" because they want it to be directly and explicitly compared to George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" about US policy towards the Soviet Union.
https://t.co/rHikkOYuoT
Is it true that democracies don't go to war with each other?
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
Democracies do not go to war with each other. There are a lot of empirical data to support that theory. I summarize that literature here. https://t.co/SQLk9J9rZ8 https://t.co/tLlSyisEIU
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) December 12, 2020
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
More from Biden
When Biden talked about unity, he was very specific about what he meant, and the insistence of right-wing tools like @Kredo0 to try to frame stuff like this as “betraying his own ‘unity agenda’” (what is that even a quote from?) shows how pointless it is to try to work with Rs.
Guys like @Kredo0 want to a.) put the onus of unifying the country entirely on Biden and Dems, b.) pretend that “unity” is the same as capitulation, while c.) not giving an inch on their end.
No. No, no, no. Nice try.
Really, get all the way the fuck out of here with that take. “Biden didn’t keep Trump’s POLITICAL APPOINTEES in their position, therefore Biden isn’t unifying the country.” Fuuuuuuck off with that bullshit.
When Biden said “unity,” he was talking about trying to help ALL Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. This, sadly, needed to be said after the Trump administration repeatedly tried to screw over people who didn’t support him.
Remember when the Trump administration INTENTIONALLY let the virus rage out of control (really should have been a bigger scandal, but 🤷🏻♀️) because it was mostly hitting states that voted for Dems?
Late Night Scoop: Victoria Coates, former senior Trump admin official recently appointed to Middle East Broadcasting Networks, fired tonight by Biden appointees. No cause for termination given, no option to resign. Biden already betraying his own \u201cunity agenda\u201d pic.twitter.com/Ys8RbRKydG
— Adam Kredo (@Kredo0) January 23, 2021
Guys like @Kredo0 want to a.) put the onus of unifying the country entirely on Biden and Dems, b.) pretend that “unity” is the same as capitulation, while c.) not giving an inch on their end.
No. No, no, no. Nice try.
Really, get all the way the fuck out of here with that take. “Biden didn’t keep Trump’s POLITICAL APPOINTEES in their position, therefore Biden isn’t unifying the country.” Fuuuuuuck off with that bullshit.
When Biden said “unity,” he was talking about trying to help ALL Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. This, sadly, needed to be said after the Trump administration repeatedly tried to screw over people who didn’t support him.
Remember when the Trump administration INTENTIONALLY let the virus rage out of control (really should have been a bigger scandal, but 🤷🏻♀️) because it was mostly hitting states that voted for Dems?
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
