33 “Realist” Scholars Oppose War – The academic petitions against war in Iraq continue to pile up. Now come 33 international relations scholars of the “realist” persuasion who, according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (link requires subscription), are about to take out an ad in the New York Times claiming that a military attack on Iraq “would be profound and costly mistake.”
The statement is said to make four points:
There is no evidence that the Iraqi regime is in league with Al Qaeda.
The Iraqi regime would not dare use nuclear weapons, because it fears retaliation from the United States or Israel.
A war in Iraq could be very costly in terms of U.S. casualties and regional instability.
Postwar Iraq would be extremely difficult to occupy and govern.
Unlike the last academic anti-war petition, at least all of the signatories to this one can claim professional involvement with their subject.
“What we tried to do here,” said Mr. Mearsheimer [Univ. of Chicago, one of the organizers] in an interview, “was to restrict the list to scholars who focus on international-security affairs, and to scholars who believe that power matters in international politics — that it’s sometimes necessary for the United States to go to war to defend its national interests. This is not a group that could be identified as left-wing or dovish.”
Still, I wonder how they know there is “no evidence” of Iraqi co-operation with Al Qaeda or what Saddam “would not dare” do.
