30 United States The EconomistDecember 14th 2019
care), military service and his wish to ap-
peal to “future former Republicans” as well
as Democrats. He emphasises unity and
says America needs a return to civility in
public life. Several who attended his events
said they liked that, along with his caution
on expanding Medicare. He proposes gov-
ernment health insurance for all who want
to buy it, but not to ban the private sort.
Local journalists and authors serve up
supposed rules for caucus success. One
holds that victors should avoid getting
“hot” before November. Late surges often
win out, implying that Iowans wait until
late in the race to make up their minds. Ms
Warren led in September, but has since
drifted. Mr Obama came to lead the polls in
Iowa only two months before caucus night
in 2008. Ted Cruz did something similar,
rising in the last months from third place
to win the Republican caucus in 2016.
Other rules mostly come down to a sim-
ple point: the winning candidates are usu-
ally those who spent plenty of time on the
ground, building a strong organisation. At
this point Iowa political junkies mention
Jimmy Carter in 1976, who spent 17 days in
Iowa (considered an eternity then), chat-
ting to hog and corn farmers and leaving
handwritten greeting notes on voters’
doors. Higher-flying candidates ignored
the state as too small to matter, but Mr Car-
ter’s victory won him such a rush of atten-
tion that the momentum carried him
through the national race.
Candidates must win as many precincts
as possible, not just rack up votes in popu-
lated places like Des Moines, so organisers,
staff and volunteers must be deployed all
around the state. Building such a team
takes time. Mr Buttigieg raised more mon-
ey than other candidates for much of the
past year and spent little early on, leaving
him with $23m on hand in November
(against Joe Biden’s $9m, for example). Like
the former McKinsey consultant he is, he
rather wisely spent on infrastructure. The
fact that he has no onerous Senate commit-
ments, unlike some other candidates, and
comes from a nearby state also helps.
In September his team said it was open-
ing over 20 field offices (it now claims 30)
and employing 100 staff, all in Iowa. Team
Buttigieg has also done well at recruiting
volunteers (some are excited by the idea of
electing the first openly gay president) who
pack events, dish out yard signs and bump-
er-stickers or nag friends to sign a pledge to
caucus. The most committed are people
like Kevin Halligan, who walked away from
his job and left his wife behind in New York
to spend five hours a day driving a pale-
blue, slogan-covered former food truck—
the “Petemobile”—across the state. He sells
campaign merchandise to youthful Iowans
queuing for photos beside a cartoon image
of Mr Buttigieg.
None of this means that Mr Buttigieg isa dead cert on February 3rd. There are signs
in the polls that his bounce has peaked. It
may be that Mr Biden, who was on a bus
tour for eight days in Iowa, can recover
from his fourth place in statewide polls. He
or someone else could enjoy the late surge
that the caucus is known for. It is possible
that Mr Biden or Ms Warren could hoover
up the second preferences of caucus-goers,
allowing them to leapfrog Mayor Pete.
For Mr Buttigieg also has to reckon with
the final rule of success in Iowa. John Skip-
per, the author of a history of the caucuses,
argues that what really counts is to come
near the top while beating expectations.
Managing those expectations when you are
already the front-runner in the state is
hard. Mr Buttigieg looks strong today. That
means anything less than outright victory
on February 3rd could cut short his mo-
ment in the limelight. 7M
ohammad al-shamraniwas at Na-
val Air Station Pensacola in Florida to
hone his flying skills. On December 6th the
Saudi Arabian pilot turned his gun on his
hosts, shooting 11 people and killing three.
That has put a spotlight on the 5,181foreign
students from 153 countries currently re-
ceiving military training in America. In fis-
cal 2017-18 foreign governments splashed
out $462.4m for American security train-
ing, and the American government
chipped in another $39.8m. The main ex-
change programme is the $115m Interna-
tional Military Education and Trainingscheme, funded by the State Department. It
includes 4,000 courses across 150 Ameri-
can military schools.
Such programmes have two aims. One
is to improve foreign armed forces—“ideal-
ly in a manner that contributes to the de-
velopment of a professional, apolitical
military that respects civilian authority,”
says Walter Ladwig of King’s College Lon-
don. The other is to cultivate upwardly-
mobile officers, who are likely to wind up
as generals and admirals. “This might
mean co-operation in a future crisis or a
willingness to grant the usaccess to bases
or overflight rights,” says Mr Ladwig.
There is no doubt that America gains
powerful friends. Between 1957 and 1994,
19% of international graduates from the us
Naval Command College ended up leading
their service. In April the usArmy Com-
mand and Staff College inducted three
alumni into its hall of fame: the current
army or military chiefs of Argentina, India
and Jamaica. More than 280 of the college’s
8,000 foreign graduates have gone on to
lead their countries’ armed forces, and 15
have become heads of state or government.
It is less clear whether the quality of sol-
diering goes up. Countries are supposed to
send their best and brightest, but are often
less exacting. “There were always comedy/
horror stories floating around about the Af-
rican militaries who sent personnel on us-
funded diving courses who couldn’t
swim,” recalls someone involved with
counter-terror training. In May the Penta-
gon cancelled a training programme for Af-
ghan pilots after 48% of trainees deserted.
Critics also complain that American
training simply boosts the repressive ca-
pacity of tyrannical governments. Saudi
Arabia sent 1,652 students in fiscal 2019,
more than any other country. Among other
ruling despots, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi,
Egypt’s dictator, attended the usArmy War
College in 2005-06 (his thesis was aptly ti-
tled “Democracy in the Middle East”).
In fact, the long-term political impact
may be more positive. A paper by Carol At-
kinson in International Studies Quarterlyin
2006 found that military-to-military con-
tacts with America between 1972 and 2000
were “positively and systematically associ-
ated with liberalising trends.” But it may be
a dicey journey. In countries with weak ci-
vilian institutions, training talented and
ambitious officers can skew the balance of
power by making armies stronger and
more cohesive—but not necessarily apolit-
ical. Another study by Jesse Dillon Savage
of Trinity College Dublin and Jonathan
Caverley of the usNaval War College shows
that American training doubled the risk of
a military-backed coup between 1970 and- In other words, America’s military
protégés have usually posed more of a
threat to those who sent them than those
who train them. 7
A shooting in Florida puts the spotlight
on military training for alliesTraining foreign soldiersFriendly fire
Angelic hosts2