On Monday Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress released their third bipartisan survey of national security experts’ opinions on the state of America’s foreign policy.  Not surprisingly the outlook of these Democrats and Republicans, most of whom have served in previous administrations, was not optimistic. 

When looking to the future, some say that a glass is half full.  Some say it is half empty.  These experts seem so dismayed that they have a hard time seeing a glass at all.  My view is that their pessimism is certainly warranted.  The following are a few of the more interesting findings.

Regarding the troop surge in Iraq:

“More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all.”

Some critics may say ask how these “foreign policy experts” sitting in comfortable offices in the US can really make such an evaluation about what is working and what isn’t without being there on the ground.  Aren’t these people just naysayers who were dead set against the surge from the start?  Well, actually, no.  In fact, if you look at the historical record, just the opposite was true.  In the January 16th poll, 31% identified the surge as negative.  In the most recent poll, 61% felt that the surge was overall a negative.  It is quite clear that even in January of this year the group was willing to give the surge a chance.  Even if these experts are not in the combat zone, there are sufficient reports from those who have spent time there to make an informed assessment.  What’s more, even those who do spend time in Iraq can have very different conclusions – case in point are the recent conflicting accounts written by Ken Pollack, Michael O’Hanlon and Anthony Cordesman who were all on the same assessment trip. 

Another notable conclusion from this report has to do with the Bush administration’s assertion that withdrawing from Iraq will mean that we need to fight the enemy here at home.  This line has been repeated constantly by both the President and the supporters of the war and it has been effective.  In the 2004 Presidential campaign Bush and his spokespeople regularly returned to the theme that a Democratic administration would lead to insecurity at home and possibly another attack on American soil.  The administration has continued this fear campaign in its effort to ensure that our troops stay in Iraq.  One of the most important benefits of this survey of foreign policy experts is that it so clearly dismisses this argument:

“Only 12 percent believe that terrorist attacks would occur in the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Eighty-eight percent of the experts said that either such a scenario was unlikely or that they see no connection between a troop withdrawal from Iraq and terrorist attacks inside the United States. This line of thinking was consistent across party lines, with 58 percent of conservatives saying they did not believe terrorist attacks would occur at home as a result of a military drawdown in Iraq” 

So, what does the group say about solutions to the conflict?  Well, a bipartisan majority, 68%, argues for a troop redeployment within the next 18 months.  Only 20% favor an immediate pullout.  This seems to be pretty much in line with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and also with public opinion that have called for us to begin a withdrawal process that would be done in a responsible manner. Granted, the ISG called for the removal of US combat troops by April 2008 – a date that is not so distant, but at the time of publication was still 14 months away. 

Although I’m encouraged to hear that these respected foreign policy figures actually agree on many of the contentious points surrounding the conflict, I’m also dismayed by the realization that bipartisan sensible approaches to this conflict seem to be a forbidden fruit for this administration.  This administration is single mindedly following its own path regardless of what the experts or the American public have to say about it. 

What is most tragic is that the collective wisdom of these foreign policy experts did not foresee the Iraq disaster nor attempt to prevent the decision to invade.  Granted, some of those in the group were individually critical of the decision.  However, it is only recently that a bipartisan majority has come together that recognizes both the severity of our predicament and the need to choose the least harmful of the bad options available to us. 

No related posts.