Actually, it would be difficult--not impossible, perhaps, but quite difficult--to assemble a comparably distinguished list from the remainder of the academic security studies field. And these are generally quite serious folk, neither generally idiots nor necessarily generally lefties. Most if not all of Pollack's dissertation committee, for example, are signers, as are a number of his (and my) top peers.
None of this means, of course, that their views are correct, simply that they shouldn't be dismissed casually. What I'd say is that their statement reflects the (small "c") conservative wisdom contained in the adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." That is, they are opposed to taking on the known costs and risks of war, occupation, etc., in order to avoid the potential costs and risks of the status quo. Since war is serious business, and history is littered with the remains of those who approached it lightly and gleefully, that's hardly an illegitimate position to take. In fact, in the abstract it's very sensible. The question of the day is, in this particular case, does it still make sense, given everything else we know?
Anybody who thinks that there is only one obvious, easy answer to that question--on either side--has not grappled with the issue carefully enough.
tb@thumbsucker.com |
