Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy

[ODShowtime]

Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy

October 12, 2004
Newark, Delaware - Over 650 foreign affairs specialists in the United States and allied countries have signed an open letter opposing the Bush administration's foreign policy and calling urgently for a change of course.

The letter was released today by "Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy," a nonpartisan group of experts in the field of national security and international politics.

The letter asserts that current U.S. foreign policy harms the struggle against Islamist terrorists, pointing to a series of "blunders" by the Bush team in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. "We're advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging," said Professor Richard Samuels of M.I.T.

The scholars who signed the letter are from over 150 colleges and universities in 40 states, from California to Florida, Texas to Maine. They include many of the nation's most prominent experts on world politics, including former staff members at the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council, as well as six of the last seven Presidents of the American Political Science Association. "I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war," said Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University.

The text of the letter is available at http://www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net/letter.html. A list of signers and other information about Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy may be found elsewhere on this site.

For more information, please contact:

Stuart J. Kaufman
Professor of Political Science and International Relations
University of Delaware
Off: 302 831 1941
Cell: 302 528 7226
H: 302 392 0876
skaufman@udel.edu

Michael E. Brown
Director, Security Studies Program
Georgetown University
Off: :202-687-5727
brownme@georgetown.edu

Michael C. Desch
Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-making
Bush School of Government and Public Service
College Station, TX
Off. 979.458.1703
Cell: 859.396.6854
mdesch@bushschool.tamu.edu

Barry R. Posen
Ford International Professor of Political Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Off. 617 253 8088
Home 617 484 6269
Posen@mit.edu

Jessica Stern
Lecturer in Public Policy
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Off. 617 496-3623
Jessica_Stern@harvard.edu

[ODShowtime]

An Open Letter to the American People:

We, a nonpartisan group of foreign affairs specialists, have joined together to call urgently for a change of course in American foreign and national security policy. We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists. One result has been a great distortion in the terms of public debate on foreign and national security policy—an emphasis on speculation instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest. [1] We write to challenge some of these distortions.

Although we applaud the Bush Administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, its failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the later stages of that war was a great blunder. It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists. [2]

Many of the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by U.S. government agencies. There is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaida, and its prewar involvement in international terrorism was negligible. [3] Iraq’s arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear weapons program virtually nonexistent. [4] In comparative terms, Iran is and was much the greater sponsor of terrorism, and North Korea and Pakistan pose much the greater risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists. Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein. The Administration knew most of these facts and risks before the war, and could have discovered the others, but instead it played down, concealed or misrepresented them.

Policy errors during the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have created a situation in Iraq worse than it needed to be. Spurning the advice of Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, the Administration committed an inadequate number of troops to the occupation, leading to the continuing failure to establish security in Iraq. Ignoring prewar planning by the State Department and other US government agencies, it created a needless security vacuum by disbanding the Iraqi Army, and embarked on a poorly planned and ineffective reconstruction effort which to date has managed to spend only a fraction of the money earmarked for it. [5] As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.

The results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for U.S. interests. [6] While the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime was desirable, the benefit to the U.S. was small as prewar inspections had already proven the extreme weakness of his WMD programs, and therefore the small size of the threat he posed. On the negative side, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Worse, American actions in Iraq, including but not limited to the scandal of Abu Ghraib, have harmed the reputation of the U.S. in most parts of the Middle East and, according to polls, made Osama Bin Laden more popular in some countries than is President Bush. This increased popularity makes it easier for al-Qaida to raise money, attract recruits, and carry out its terrorist operations than would otherwise be the case.

Recognizing these negative consequences of the Iraq war, in addition to the cost in lives and money, we believe that a fundamental reassessment is in order. Significant improvements are needed in our strategy in Iraq and the implementation of that strategy. We call urgently for an open debate on how to achieve these ends, one informed by attention to the facts on the ground in Iraq, the facts of al-Qaida’s methods and strategies, and sober attention to American interests and values.


Signed (All titles and affiliations listed for purposes of identification only),

http://www.sensibleforeignpolicy.net/signatories.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] On the mythology, see Jack Snyder, “Imperial Temptations,” The National Interest, Spring 2003.

[2] See, e.g., James Fallows, “Bush’s Lost Year,” The Atlantic, October 2004.

[3] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” (W.W. Norton & Co., 2004).

[4] The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications,” January 2004; Chaim Kaufmann, “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War,” International Security vol. 29, no. 1 (Summer 2004). Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer concluded Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in an interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” October 6, 2004.

[5] See, e.g., James Fallows, “Blind Into Baghdad,” The Atlantic, January/February 2004; Peter W. Galbraith, "Iraq: The Bungled Transition," New York Review of Books, September 23, 2004; David M. Edelstein, "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail," International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer 2004), Robin Wright and Thomas E. Rick, “Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels” Washington Post, October 5, 2004.

[6] On negative impacts on the war on terrorism, see Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, forthcoming); Ivan Arreguin-Toft, “Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-Terrorist Grand Strategy,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 15, no. 3 (2002); Robert A. Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (August 2003), and “Dying to Kill Us,” New York Times, September 22, 2003, p. A17; Anonymous, Imperial Hubris (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 2004). Regarding problems in Iraq itself, see Anthony H. Cordesman, “The Critical Role of Iraqi Military, Security, and Police Forces: Necessity, Problems, and Progress,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, Third Revised Draft: September 27, 2004 (3.1); David Rapoport, “The Fourth Wave: September 11 in the History of Terrorism,” Current History (December 2001); and Douglas Jehl, "US Intelligence Shows Pessimism On Iraq's Future," The New York Times, September 16, 2004, page A1.

[ODShowtime]

Go look at the list of names. I see plenty of big titles in there. Who do you want to believe? gw? or a bunch of people who study and think about this everyday?

WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!

[conmee]

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, write about foreign affairs.

I believe it's just so much easier to blather on about policy issues from the ivory tower, and have heated debates in the comfy confines of university digs with the luxury of time and research, than it is to actually meet up regularly with heads of state and allies, etc, and make real decisions based on real world information in hand. Not to say that there isn't merit and value in these types of open letters and groupthink opinions, but it's very different in the real world, whether it's Bush or Kerry in the White House.

All this coming from someone who has two graduate degrees (yes, I know how comfy the ivory tower is.. lol) and would prefer a different approach to Iraq.

Icon.





lol

Icon.

[FORD]

In case you haven't noticed, one of the traits of a fascist government has always been attacking the intellectuals, and this regime and their media whores have done it better than any regime since Adolf and the boys back in the 30's.

The stupid people have their stupid pResident and as long as they believe God talks to the Idiot, they aren't going to believe anything a scholar tells them

[conmee]

I think it's more a point that the administration ignores the scholars, rather than attacts them, wouldn't you say?

Icon.

[ODShowtime]

Both of you are correct. I just wanted this here so when I talk about all the other informed people who disagree with Bush, BAM here it will be.

It's not just a bunch of crazies and hippies who know Bush's Iraq policies are bullshit.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
In case you haven't noticed, one of the traits of a fascist government has always been attacking the intellectuals, and this regime and their media whores have done it better than any regime since Adolf and the boys back in the 30's.

The stupid people have their stupid pResident and as long as they believe God talks to the Idiot, they aren't going to believe anything a scholar tells them

You're stupid...

[Sgt Schultz]

I'm sure most of us can agree that the professors who instructed us in college were intelligent, well meaning people.

We all realize though that well earned advancement and promotion in the abstract academic world does not necessarly equal a realistic and common sense perception of the concrete world. Intellectuals who choose to work in the acedemic field for the most part operate in a sheltered, incestuous, inbred environment of people who publish books mostly for the edification of themsleves and peers who are also engaged in the same endevour.

Something else to consider is the very real discrimination against 'other than left wing' intellectuals within the acedemic establishment over the last 30 years. There is a very real entrenched ideology in academia that is very hostile to any thoughts that go against the established left wing canon.

So we must all take these things into consideration when we read that another clique of left wing fashion conscious academics engage in another anti-Bush mutual weenie-rub.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
So we must all take these things into consideration when we read that another clique of left wing fashion conscious academics engage in another anti-Bush mutual weenie-rub.

Yeah these guys sound like they joined the club just to get a cool sticker!

Gordon Adams
Director, Security Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs
George Washington University

Jose E. Alvarez
Professor of Law and Executive Director, Center on Global Legal Problems
Columbia Law School

Lisa Anderson
Dean, School of International and Public Affairs and Professor, Political Science Department
Columbia University

Nancy Bermeo
Professor of Politics and Acting Chair, Politics Department
Princeton University

[ELVIS]

Oh, they have fancy titles...

We should all gather around and listen to them...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Oh, they have fancy titles...

We should all gather around and listen to them...

"sho 'nuff! what do we need with all that thar book-learnin'? Everythang I needed to learn I don learned from my pappy. sheet."

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I'm sure most of us can agree that the professors who instructed us in college were intelligent, well meaning people.

We all realize though that well earned advancement and promotion in the abstract academic world does not necessarly equal a realistic and common sense perception of the concrete world. Intellectuals who choose to work in the acedemic field for the most part operate in a sheltered, incestuous, inbred environment of people who publish books mostly for the edification of themsleves and peers who are also engaged in the same endevour.

Something else to consider is the very real discrimination against 'other than left wing' intellectuals within the acedemic establishment over the last 30 years. There is a very real entrenched ideology in academia that is very hostile to any thoughts that go against the established left wing canon.

So we must all take these things into consideration when we read that another clique of left wing fashion conscious academics engage in another anti-Bush mutual weenie-rub.

Very thoughtful quote Schultz. These intellctuals all do live in a sheltered world of theory where common sense and the needs and desires of the common man do not exist.

Has anyone ever noticed that professors only congress among themselves, because, one, they only look down at the harder working, lesser educated because they neither know, or care to know, about their hackneyed theries, or two, many of their ideas eventually get around to insulting people who are not doctorate-level educated and no one, be you a rocket sceintist or a mill worker, wants to get in hit in the face for expressing an idea.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by McCarrens
Has anyone ever noticed that professors only congress among themselves

Probably because the bile rises in their throats everytime they see a moron like you open your mouth.

[ELVIS]

When George Bush is crowned King of the World, I mean re-elected president, It will be proof that conservative working class people (like myself) who believe in thinking and doing for ourselves, are the American majority, and the pathway for the future of a prosperous America...