Tom Ricks Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About by Paul Staniland, Washington Post
Tom Ricks is on a roll – first complaining that the most recent issue of International Security is “boring,” and then arguing that political scientists are irrelevant. I have no idea what he’s talking about.
Ricks’s attack on the new issue of IS is embarrassing. Calling a careful comparison between contemporary East Asia and pre-World War I Europe dull or purely academic makes zero sense. The rise of China and alliance politics in East Asia are top-tier policy issues, and the authors have precisely the language skills, fieldwork experience and historical perspective Ricks claims to want. If he doesn’t like this article, there will never be an article that he does. Ricks also dismisses an article on ethnofederalism solely because he doesn’t like the title (yes, the title). Ethnofederalism is obviously relevant to Iraq, Libya and Syria, and so is Anderson’s finding that “ethnofederalism has succeeded more often than it has failed.“ Dismissing these articles as irrelevant to contemporary policy is just being lazy…
Comments
OTOH, as I start to read through some of Dr. Staniland's latest papers on Kashmir (Indian administered Kashmir) in political science journals, I find assertions made that do not, in my opinion, seem to be supported by the body of the paper (in some cases, because they are not addressed.) Well, perhaps that is too harsh. I would like to explore this theme further.
Dr. C. Christine Fair has done research indicating that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.
Now, my question is more academic, how to reviewers of political science journals deal with this. If a scholar makes such an assertion in a paper, is it standard to ask, "what evidence supports this assertion, and what doesn't?" I will go through some papers and give examples. Yes, of course papers do this, but what I mean is, "is the question too downstream? Is it jumping in without backing up?"
If one were to do a study of political science journals on this subject, how often would one find such "assertion" sentences, and how would one grade subsequent evidence provided in the papers, or even if the author returned to the assertion?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/as.2013.53.5.931?uid=2129&uid=2&u…
For instance, as a reviewer, I would at least ask, even if it isn't important enough to reject a paper, why the focus on the Valley? Is this an assertion? Is it an assertion that merits comment? What evidence supports this thesis? What doesn't? Is the original question or thesis sufficiently examined, before the case for the main thesis is built? Why is Kashmir synonymous with Indian administered or occupied Kashmir? This seems to be a theme in Dr. Staniland's work, although I could be wrong about this. I will keep reading the papers.
An interesting area of study where military intellectuals and political scientists may collaborate is in the area of connections, our increasingly connected world and the importance for the military to understand how to obtain limited but important goals within a limited or constrained campaign. (Policy makers even more so).
I think Kissinger said in a recent interview that the world is more connected than ever and what happens in one sphere impacts another in a way that really is novel in history. Or perhaps, the multipolar nature of certain regions that was a feature of the past is now global. That claim usually brings calls for the US to be a forward global presence militarily, but the lack of interest in the way the US voluntarily shifted some of its hard power (manufacturing and the like) to China during the 90s, combined with the "global NATO" and NATO-centric mindset of some American officials, means that we are not looking at connections and assuming our actions are occurring on some blank slate.
Certain Kissinger-type Cold Warriors seem less interested in this topic, for some reason. Playing China off of Russia had both its good and bad outcomes for Americans, with the bad leading to many 90's era mistakes. Containment is impossible (and stupid), but engagement has its problems too. Probably because we won't be honest about how we ourselves hand power to others and then blame them for it.
How did this turn into a slam on political science instead of a discussion of the sometimes poor study habits of the Washington Consensus and its pundit class?
To be fair, most busy working professionals don't read or study in their own fields as much as they might like, and policy makers are so very busy within the ADD/ADHD crisis world of DC.
Might be easier if they'd not wade into foreign problems so much. There might be fewer crises, but, then again, where's the professional glory in restraint?
I've made plenty of fun of political science myself, especially some of the quantitative stuff. Junk in, junk out!
Still, why not suggest specific academic topics of study if that is the problem?
PS: I find plenty of nationalism in the literature, even Russian nationalism.
For instance, there is someone named Michael McFaul "the Democracy Guy" that might be of interest to readers....
Google isn't an ideal search tool for academics, but if you go to Google Books and search "McFaul Nationalism" or its variants, a whole world opens up. One which I will promptly ignore because I'd rather focus on other topics.
My ideal search engine is a real live librarian. Such a shame the profession is on its way out, there is something really nice about a real live person helping you out. Interlibrary loan is your best intellectual friend. Such a shame we are in a hurry to dismantle so many shared civic spaces which is kind of important in a Republic.
Here is a perfect example of why I think Rick made his comments and largely he was correct.
If one takes the time to Google say the following---Russia, nationalism, fascism and imperialism--you will start to see a series of articles, studies, and books all starting in the 2008 timeframe exactly focusing on what we are seeing now in the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now go back and google 2008 and see what one of the interesting developments of 2008 was --Georgia and Russian actions towards Georgia.
And what were our actions---well OK it occurred and then it was back to business as usual viewing it as a hiccup in the time space quantum.
Putin's actions should have caught absolutely no one by surprise---it is just we have been sidelined since 9/11 by a group of jihadi's we seem to think are all set to attack the water towers in the center of Des Moines, Iowa. Or are we Americans still thinking the jihadis' plan of dropping the middle span of the Golden Gate bridge into the San Fran Bay will somehow occur in the next two centuries?
Again the author is totally wrong with his idea that the "ethnofederalism" is and or was successful anywhere in this planet of the 21st century.
If the author is and or was correct then just how does it explain the thinking of this particular Russian ideologue and Putin's actions based on his thinking?
A core question that the author seems to have missed---where are the leading US political scientists and or International Relations types when this Russian "fascism" based on ethnicity trend started appearing in Russia in about 2002---I personally somehow missed their articles if there were some.
But again a large number of US PS and IR types do not even speak a foreign language--since the general US education system opinion is the rest of the world speaks English.
Staunton, September 25 – At a time when Vladimir Putin has made what was earlier unthinkable into reality, it would be a major mistake to ignore a recent statement by Vladimir Zhirinovsky about how Ukraine will be reduced in size or even eliminated altogether in the coming years, according to Andrey Illarionov.
In an article today on Svobodnaya Zona, the Russian commentator says that those who have dismissed the often outrageous remarks of Zhirinovsky in the past have regretted it because stripped of his often hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, they have often served as earlier warnings about the direction Putin subsequently takes.
In an interview to the German newspaper Bild this week, Illarionov points out, Zhirinovsky said that Ukraine “in its current form does not have a future. If the process of the disintegration of the country continues at its former tempos, then already by 2019, Ukraine as an independent state will not exist.
Because of what the Russian parliamentarian describes as the anti-Russian policy of the Ukrainian government, Kyiv has infuriated Russian speakers in Ukraine and thus created “with its own hands” the crisis it now faces. Russia has claims against its territory as a result, as do for historical reasons Poland, Romania and Hungary.
“Five years from now,” Zhirinovsky says, “in place of Ukraine will be six or seven regions with a population of ten to twelve million people. And that,” he continues, “is the most optimistic scenario” for the part of the world.
Illarionov argues that everyone should pay attention to Zhirinovsky’s words, “not of course because they reflect the real situation of the majority of ethnic Russians and/or Russian speakers of Ukraine toward the Ukrainian state … but because Zhirinovsky … is fulfilling the most important public function of revealing the character of thought and the direction of preparation for action of the Supreme Ruler,” Vladimir Putin.
And the need to take Zhirinovsky seriously in this case is all the more true because the ideas he shared with “Bild” are ones that he has promoted before. In March of this year, for example, he send messages to Warsaw, Budapest and Bucharest proposing the “de facto partition of Ukraine.”
According to Zhirinovsky at that time, if the others took their share of Ukraine and Russia annexed Crimea, Sevastopol, and the eight regions (oblasts) of the so-called “Novorossiya,” what would remain of Ukraine would be nine regions plus Kyiv on the territory of which now live approximately 14.7 million people.
Another reason for thinking that Zhirinovsky is speaking for more than himself is that two weeks ago, an identical idea about the partition of Ukraine was floated by the Czech radio station Impuls, a reflection of the thinking of pro-Putin Prague leader Vaclav Klaus.
Somewhat before that, in May 2014, Illarionov points out, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Urban made some similar comments about ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine.
What all these figures have in common is that they are operating under a “common” political and ideological conception long pushed by Putin. Speaking at the Russia-NATO Council meeting in Bucharest on April 2, 2008, the Russian president said the following:
“In Ukraine one third of the population are ethnic Russians. Of 45 million people even according to the official census, there are 17 million Russians. There are regions where only Russians live, such as Crimea: 90 percent are Russians. Ukraine in general is a very complex country. Ukraine in that form in which it exists today was one which was created in Soviet times. It received territory from Poland after World War II, from Czechoslovakia and Romania and even now not all the border problems on the Black Sea with Romania have been solved.
This means that [Ukraine] received enormous territories from Russia on the east and south. This is a very complex state formation. And if one introduces there the NATO problem and other problems, this in general can put on the brink of existence its statehood as such. Consequently, it is necessary to act very, very carefully. We do not have any right of veto…but I want that all of us when we decide on issues of this kind understand that we also have our own interests. Well, 17 million Russians live in Ukraine. Who can tell us that we do not have any interests there? The south, the south of Ukraine is completely [Russian]; there live only Russians.”
“Thus,” Illarionov says, “Putin’s strategic goal, the liquidation of contemporary Ukraine has remained unchanged at a minimum since the spring of 2008, which by the way does not leave a stone on a stone of the infantile commentaries of certain Western observers (like former US ambassador to Russia Mjchael McFaul) about the annexation of Crimea as “a sudden, emotional and instinctive reaction of Putin to the Maidan revolution and the flight of Yanukovych.”
“The fresh statements of V.Zhirinovsky, V. Klaus, and V. Urban are valuable,” Illarionov continues, “because they shed light not only on the strategic goals of V. Putin” but also on his “active measures” with other members of what is becoming “the Putin international.”
Just a side note---notice this above article is not reflected at all in whatever our current strategy is for this region AND if an university political science department used this article for their Master's thesis requirements---there are at least five major areas that a thesis could be written on.
Therein lies the relevance of PS--we urgently need a generation of new thinkers---the old thinkers simply have no more answers.
Before one decides to condemn or not condemn Rick for his comments on the topic of relevance yes or no for political science as a whole---inhale and slowly exhale and think it through.
Ask the simple following questions reference just the Ukrainian events--not even taking in the ME for which I could as well provide at least five questions;
1. can anyone fully define the following series of words ethno imperialist nationalism using language as the driving force
2. can anyone actually today in the US even define the words nationalism and or fascism--has any ongoing political science student or political scientist in say the last three years reread Orwell's 1984
3. can any reasonable political scientist and or political science department define exactly what political warfare really is and how is the new Russian military strategy as well as the new Chinese military strategy using a new form of UW in support to political warfare
4. just what the heck is political warfare
Actually not many current political scientists and or university departments could answer any of the above questions--WHY because the studies of nationalism, fascism or ethno imperialism died out years ago due to the lack of demand.
Will give an example---on a SWJ thread concerning the Ukraine military aspects since August I posted a link to understanding Putin's actions through the eyes of Orwell's' 1984 and no one really got it---actually some pushed back saying it had no relevance.
Poly Sci has been a disappearing subject matter for a long number of years--why--bluntly put--there are no jobs and it is a dead end---try to find a PS or even International Relations position inside the military civil service side of the house.
One might find a few at the CIA or DIA but again limited to none there as well.
I love the pundit world especially those that write for large US media outlets---if one looks at the following sentence he writes--my core question would be exactly what success is he pointing to and where has the writer been especially in light of the Crimea and east Ukraine where ethno imperialism is being used as an excuse to annex and invade countries.
Just a side note---online net bloggers and twitters were concerning the Ukraine out producing the global mass media with actual reporting that was both accurate and at a far faster pace than did many of the western media outlets---and by the way they were far more critical in challenging the accuracy of their reporting than some US mass media outlets that republished a large number of "fake" Russian provide articles completely unchecked just to fill a news cycle.
AND by the way Russian/Putin using ethno driven imperialism has done more to "destroy" the myth of the importance of PS and IA than any particular event in the past 30 years---we did not even see the Wall coming down 25 years when field based collectors who were well trained PS types kept saying the indicators were there to be seen. I was one of the few field collectors providing to national a series of questionnaires being filled out by former East Germans which provided insights we had not heard about before---but no interest was ever expressed in making it far more involved in judging GDR attitudes in the critical 80s years leading up to the Wall--ever wonder why?
QUOTE: Ethnofederalism is obviously relevant to Iraq, Libya and Syria, and so is Anderson’s finding that “ethnofederalism has succeeded more often than it has failed.“ Dismissing these articles as irrelevant to contemporary policy is just being lazy…UNQUOTE
Personally challenge the author of this article to actually point to a successful "ethnofederalism" event in the last 30 years---where is it out there?--definitely not in Europe and or the ME since 1990.