NEWARK, Delaware - More
than 650 foreign-affairs specialists in the United States and allied
countries have signed an open letter opposing the George
W Bush administration's foreign policy and calling
urgently for a change of course.
The letter was
released on Tuesday by "Security Scholars for a Sensible
Foreign Policy", a non-partisan group of experts in
the field of national security and international
politics.
The letter asserts that current US
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 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The scholars who signed the letter are from more
than 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 US is incurring from this war," said
Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University.
Text of the letter
We, a non-partisan 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. We write to
challenge some of these distortions.
Although we applaud the
Bush administration for its initial focus on
destroying al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, its failure to
engage sufficient US troops to capture or kill the mass
of al-Qaeda fighters in the later stages of that war
was a great blunder. It is a fact that the early shift
of US focus to Iraq diverted US resources,
including special-operations forces and intelligence
capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight
against the terrorists.
Many of
the justifications offered by the Bush administration
for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by
credible studies, including by US government agencies. There
is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaeda, and
its prewar involvement in international terrorism
was negligible. Iraq's arsenal of chemical and
biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear-weapons
program virtually non-existent. In comparative terms,
Iran is and was much the greater sponsor of terrorism,
and North Korea and Pakistan pose the much 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.
As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of
security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much
of the violent opposition to the US military presence,
while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from
outside Iraq.
The results of this policy have
been overwhelmingly negative for US interests. While
the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime was desirable,
the benefit to the US 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 US 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 US 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-Qaeda 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-Qaeda's methods and strategies, and sober attention
to American interests and values.