The realist take on Iraq
The realist critique of the war I alluded to earlier is now public: 33 international security scholars took out an ad in today’s New York Times entitled “War With Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest.” As I said, they’re realists, which means they don’t care about preserving the U.N.’s reputation, just in advancing U.S. ...
The realist critique of the war I alluded to earlier is now public: 33 international security scholars took out an ad in today's New York Times entitled “War With Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest.” As I said, they’re realists, which means they don’t care about preserving the U.N.’s reputation, just in advancing U.S. interests. Their main points: #1: “War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against Al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention away from that campaign” #2: “Even if we win easily, there is no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society” #3: “Iraq has military options – chemical and biological weapons, urban combat – that might impose significant costs on the invading forces.” #4: Invading Iraq “could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests.” Their alternative policy is “vigilant containment” plus a commitment to “invade Iraq if it threatens to attack America or its allies.” I’ll respond to the substance of the criticisms after some sleep, but at this point, two things are worth noting. First, it will be interesting to see if their position moves the policy debate. All of the signatories are highly respected scholars, but whether academics can actually influence the debate at this point will be an interesting test of the power of public intellectuals. Second, any attempt to paint these people as “fringe academics” will NOT work. Tom Schelling was one of the founders of modern deterrence theory (click here). Parts of Bush’s National Security Strategy look cribbed from John Mearsheimer’s latest book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. (For a longer discussion of Mearsheimer's position on Iraq, click here) FULL DISCLOSURE: Two of the signatories are in my department here at the U. of Chicago. As a grad student, I was an RA for another one. And I've had a beer with about half of them. UPDATE: Stanley Kurtz at NRO's The Corner has a response to the ad, though it's not really on point -- it's just a weak attempt to paint some of the signatories as loonies.
The realist critique of the war I alluded to earlier is now public: 33 international security scholars took out an ad in today’s New York Times entitled “War With Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest.” As I said, they’re realists, which means they don’t care about preserving the U.N.’s reputation, just in advancing U.S. interests. Their main points: #1: “War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against Al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention away from that campaign” #2: “Even if we win easily, there is no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society” #3: “Iraq has military options – chemical and biological weapons, urban combat – that might impose significant costs on the invading forces.” #4: Invading Iraq “could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests.” Their alternative policy is “vigilant containment” plus a commitment to “invade Iraq if it threatens to attack America or its allies.” I’ll respond to the substance of the criticisms after some sleep, but at this point, two things are worth noting. First, it will be interesting to see if their position moves the policy debate. All of the signatories are highly respected scholars, but whether academics can actually influence the debate at this point will be an interesting test of the power of public intellectuals. Second, any attempt to paint these people as “fringe academics” will NOT work. Tom Schelling was one of the founders of modern deterrence theory (click here). Parts of Bush’s National Security Strategy look cribbed from John Mearsheimer’s latest book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. (For a longer discussion of Mearsheimer’s position on Iraq, click here) FULL DISCLOSURE: Two of the signatories are in my department here at the U. of Chicago. As a grad student, I was an RA for another one. And I’ve had a beer with about half of them. UPDATE: Stanley Kurtz at NRO’s The Corner has a response to the ad, though it’s not really on point — it’s just a weak attempt to paint some of the signatories as loonies.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
