 FPIF Advisory Committee Member*
Michael Klare
contact via email
Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies (a joint appointment at Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke, and Smith Colleges and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst) and Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS), a position he has held since 1985. Before assuming his present post, he served as Director of the Program on National Security of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC (1977-84).
Professor Klare has written widely on U.S. defense policy, the arms trade, and world security affairs. He is the author of: Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (Metropolitan Books / Henry Holt, 2001); Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws (Hill and Wang, 1995); American Arms Supermarket (University of Texas Press, 1984); and War Without End: American Planning for the Next Vietnams (Knopf, 1974). In addition, he is the editor or co-editor of Light Weapons and Civil Conflict: Controlling the Tools of Violence (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999); Lethal Commerce: The Global Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1995); Low Intensity Warfare (Pantheon, 1988); World Security: Challenges for a New Century (three editions); and Peace and World Security Studies: A Curriculum Guide (two editions).
Professor Klare is also the defense correspondent of The Nation magazine, a contributing editor of Current History, and a member of the editorial board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He has contributed articles to the these journals and to Arms Control Today, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Harper's, International Security, Issues in Science and Technology, Journal of International Affairs, Le Monde Diplomatique, Technology Review, Third World Quarterly, and World Policy Journal.
Michael Klare serves on the Board of Directors of the Arms Control Association, the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, and the Advisory Board of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch; he is also a member of the Committee on International Security Studies of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Professor Klare received his BA and MA from Columbia University in 1963 and 1968, respectively, and his Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute in 1976.
In a September 2, 2002 editorial in The Nation, Klare says the way to stop the war against Iraq is to raise the level of doubt among policymakers in Washington:
This past week confirmed that the American political establishment is not united in support of the Bush administration's policy of forcible "regime change" in Iraq. Armey and Levin are just two of a number of important political actors--including several prominent senators, forces within the military and worried figures on Wall Street--who have recently expressed qualms about the proposed military invasion. These voices need to be amplified and reinforced by others if the United States is to avoid a potentially disastrous intervention in the Middle East.
None of these groups can be described as flat-out opponents of an American invasion. Most would probably support the President--even cheer him wildly--if U.S. intervention was thought certain to result in a speedy, casualty-free occupation of Baghdad and the replacement of Saddam with a democratic, pro-Western, peace-seeking regime. The problem, in their eyes, is that Bush can guarantee none of this. The concerns among the country's elite deserve widespread public attention. They can be compressed into nine critical questions:
1. Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of "containment"--entailing no-fly zones, sanctions, technology restraints and the deployment of U.S. forces in surrounding areas--not only has clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years but also in weakening Iraq's military capabilities?
2. Why has the administration found so little international support for its proposed policy, even among our closest friends and allies (with the possible exception of Britain's Tony Blair), and what would be the consequences if Washington tried to act without their support and without any international legal authority? Isn't it dangerous and unwise for the United States to engage in an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq?
3. Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives--a strong possibility in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?
4. Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq's civilian population if, as expected, Saddam concentrates his military assets in urban areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in the eyes of much of the world?
5. Wouldn't an invasion of Iraq aimed at the removal of Saddam Hussein remove any inhibitions he might have regarding the use of chemical and biological (and possibly nuclear) weapons, making their use more rather than less likely?
6. Are we prepared to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that, in the event of a U.S. attack on Iraq, are sure to erupt throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-U.S. governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?
7. Can the fragile American economy withstand a sharp rise in oil prices, another decline in air travel, a bulging federal deficit, a drop in consumer confidence and other negative economic effects that can be expected from a major war in the Middle East? And what would an invasion mean for an even more fragile world economy and for those emerging markets that depend on selling their exports to the United States and that are vulnerable to rising oil prices?
8. Even if we are successful in toppling Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the inevitable Iraqi hostility if U.S. forces destroy what remains of Iraq's infrastructure and kill many of its civilians?
9. Are we willing to deploy 100,000 or more American soldiers in Iraq for ten or twenty years (at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a year) to defend a U.S.-imposed government and prevent the breakup of the country into unstable Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite mini-states?
So far, the Bush administration has not provided honest or convincing answers to any of these questions. It is essential, then, that concerned Americans ask their congressional representatives to demand answers to these (and related) questions from the White House and hold further hearings to weigh the credibility of the administration's answers. It is vital that our representatives play their rightful constitutional role in this fateful decision. The American public clearly would welcome such moves: A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that while a majority support the President at this point, they want him to seek authorization from Congress and approval of America's allies before going ahead. And when asked whether they would favor a ground war if it were to produce "significant" U.S. casualties, support plummeted to 40 percent and opposition rose to 51 percent. If you worry about the future of America, clip or copy these nine questions and include them in letters to your senators and representative. In addition, get involved locally: Help organize a teach-in, write a letter to your newspaper, raise the subject at civic meetings.
Klare's book Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict will be published in 2001 by Metropolitican Books.
|