Hagel Announces Pentagon Budget Cuts...and Peace Activists are Unhappy?!

I was almost certain the peace activist community would rejoice at Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's announced budget cuts, much in the same way that I'd expect conservatives such as Dick Cheney to argue that cuts would be "absolutely devastating."  Other news outlets  such as NPR and  NYTimes also predicted a backlash from Army proponents, defense contractors, Congressmen etc... Thus, I was surprised to see Hagel's announcement drawing flak from activists like Bruce Gagnon who wrote, "Despite mandates for cuts in military spending after agreements with Congress under sequestration, Hagel actually calls for an increase of more than $115 billion for war making." Gagnon's focus is more about where the budget is being reallocated (i.e. what the Pentagon is buying) rather than cuts to troops, housing, and military pensions. As Gagnon writes, "The writing on the wall is clear - cuts in troop levels and increase in high-tech space directed war-making capability." Anyone want to fact-check this?

Update: David Edelstein at Georgetown suggests that military cuts functions as a signal from Washington to our allies and adversaries that the U.S. is "tying its hands." That is we're letting adversaries (i.e. Iran) know that we really do have no intentions of attacking by decreasing are capabilities. And we're telling allies (i.e. Japan, Korea) that they will need to contribute more for their own defense. Over at the Duck, Musgrave and Ward have their own take on the tying hands logic...that this will prevent future administrations from taking on costly, unilateral actions.  Of course, this assumes that the Obama Administration made the decision based on a long term horizon  - why would he care how future administrations address security crises which may require having all options on the table. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that given the United States' tremendous military edge, the U.S. could still engage in some misguided adventure. 

No wonder why peace activists don't see this announcement as relief. Joe Gerson at AFSC announced that "the reduction of the size of the U.S. Army grows in large measure from its new Air-Sea Battle doctrine for possible future wars in Asia and the Pacific."

Social Movements and World Politics: Ukraine and Venezuela

Ukraine and Venezuela are the two latest countries where massive protests have erupted. CFR compiled some background articles to the Ukraine protests as did Josh Busby at the Duck. I'm also posting a couple CNN and NY Times.

RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin)

articles on Venezuela from

I'm less interested in examining how or why protests erupted in these two places than in understanding what implications the dyamics of protest in Ukraine, Venezuela, and other countries have on world politics. Thinking back to a paper I wrote outlining different mechanisms in which social movements, the protests in the Ukraine do suggest some relationship between social movements and international relations with the Ukrainian state playing an intermediary role. In particular, Ukrainian protests have clearly signalled to the outside world strong dissatification with President Yanukovych's earlier decision to break-off a potential deal with the EU. How else might social movements relate to world politics in this case? Movements may...

1. Signal to outsiders the level of domestic support for either the EU or Russia
2. Reify lines between East and West as the EU and Russia propose diverging policy positions to address the Ukrainian crisis.
3. Potentially force the Yanokovych government to reverse course on international policy.
4. Draw in outside powers to respond and intervene in a domestic crisis.
5. Produce demonstration effects in other countries

The above arguments indicate a signalling and bargaining effect generated by social movements. Domestic regimes must bargain with opposition movements to meet specific political demands (i.e. government transition, new international deals etc...). Meanwhile, protest movements signal to outsiders the size, power, and degree of resolve the opposition has in challenging the regime. This may help determine to what extent outside actors (states, NGOs, IGOs etc...) might intervene on behalf of either the opposition or incumbent regime.