Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - Protesters who marched around the world last week were wrong to assume that American inaction against Iraq will make their children safer or the Iraqi people better off. (Wouldn't it be nice if the Iraqi people could express their opinion about their country's future rather than having to listen to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein or street protesters speak on their behalf?) The protesters were right, however, to question whether war against Iraq will produce more security at home and real freedom for the Iraqi people.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - First, the collapse of the old regime left a vacuum of state power. The anarchy, looting and interruption of state services that we see in Iraq are predictable consequences of regime change. Second, after the fall of the dictator, expectations about "life after the dictator" exploded. People who have been oppressed for decades want to benefit from the new order immediately. The urgent and angry questions last week from Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress leader now back in Iraq, about why the Americans have not provided more relief faster is typical. The first leaders after the departure of the king in France, the czar in Russia or the communists in Eastern Europe knew Chalabi's situation well. Paradoxically, society's expectations inflate at precisely the same moment when the state is least prepared to meet them. Third, the coalition that opposed the dictatorship dissolved. While the dictator was still in power, this united front embraced one ideology of opposition -- "anti-king," "anti-czar," "anti-shah" or "anti- communist." In doing so, these coalitions consisted of economic, political, ethnic and religious forces with radically different visions for their country after regime change. Unity ended after the dictator fell. In Russia, Bolsheviks and liberals in 1917 and nationalists and democrats in 1991 went their separate ways. In Iran in 1979, Islamic leftists, liberals and militant clerics celebrated their shared goal of removing the shah. Just a few years after the collapse of the old order, many of the coalition partners who brought down the shah were out of power or in jail. Soon after the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan fell, the anti-Soviet coalition forces were killing each other.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
Larry Diamond
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

One group of Washington-based pundits and exiled Iranians wants to push the United States into increasingly hostile and direct confrontation with the Islamic regime, using coercive diplomacy and even military pressure if necessary. This group also wants to encourage demonstrators inside Iran to rise up and confront the regime as quickly and boldly as possible, even if this would prompt violence, revolution or civil war. Some members of this group -- following in the footsteps of the Iraqi exiles and U.S. policymakers who favored installing exiled banker Ahmad Chalabi as leader of Iraq -- are determined to handpick Iran's next leader. Their choice is Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last shah to rule in Iran.

A second group in Washington is pushing for a completely different U.S. policy toward Iran: detente. Increasingly, Iranian hard-liners have hinted that they might be willing to restrain Islamic radicals based in Iran who are stirring things up in Iraq. But in exchange, they've suggested, they would want guarantees that the U.S. will not support opponents of the Iranian regime. Desperate to hold onto power, Iran's leaders seem suddenly willing to deal with the U.S. in exchange for stability.

These proponents of engagement inside Iran have allies in the U.S. Since Hashemi Rafsanjani was elected president of Iran 15 years ago, a group of U.S. scholars, retired diplomats and businessmen (especially oil company executives) has acted as de facto lobbyists for the Islamic regime. They considered Rafsanjani to be Iran's great hope: a "moderate mullah" who wanted rapprochement with the West. When reformer [Mohammad Khatami] was elected to replace him in 1997, they changed horses, but not their recommended strategy of engaging with the existing regime.

All News button
1
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - Last week was a tragic setback for those committed to promoting regime change in the greater Middle East. Terrorists slaughtered dozens of innocents in Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan. In the wake of the carnage, expressing hope for democracy in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan sounds naïve. Even the prospect of stable, effective government in these places seems remote.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul, et al - At a time when relations between the United States and some of its traditional allies are strained, President Bush must be looking forward to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's visit this week. The two men seem to have genuine rapport, and although Putin did not endorse the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, he does speak from Bush's script on the global war on terrorism. Bush also knows that Russia is in a position to offer real help in tackling critical security threats to the United States. The president hopes to secure commitments from Putin for Russian troops in Iraq and for cooperation in attempts to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons and for help in defusing the standoff with North Korea.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
Larry Diamond
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul and Larry Diamond - Everyone seems in a hurry to put Iraqis in control of their country. French President Jacques Chirac last week launched the campaign for Iraqi elections sooner rather than later, and many others -- from Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi to American campaign strategists -- have since joined the chorus. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested a deadline of six monthsfor Iraqi leaders to put in place a constitution.
All News button
1
-

Film screening and panel discussion

About the speakers:

Coit D. Blacker (Opening Remarks)

Coit D. Blacker is the director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Olivier Nomellini Family University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, an FSI Stanford senior fellow, and a professor of political science, by courtesy.

Professor Blacker is the author or editor of seven books and monographs, including Hostage to Revolution: Gorbachev and Soviet Security Policy, 1985-1991 (1993). During the first Clinton administration, Professor Blacker served as a special assistant to the president for National Security Affairs and senior director for Russian, Ukranian, and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council.

Blacker is a graduate of Occidental College (AB, Political Science) and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (MA, MALD, PhD).

Larry Diamond (Moderator)

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; a Stanford professor of political science, and sociology by courtsey; and coordinator of the Democracy Program at the Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). A specialist on democratic development and regime change and U.S. foreign policy affecting democracy abroad, he is the founding co-editor of the Journal on Democracy.

During 2004, Diamond served as a senior adviser on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. He has written extensively on the factors that facilitate and obstruct democracy in developing countries and on problems of democracy, development, and corruption, particularly in Africa. He is the author of Squandered Victory:The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq; Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation; and Promoting Democracy in the 1990s.

He received a BA, MA, and PhD from Stanford University, all in Sociology.

Charles Ferguson (Film Director and Producer)

Charles Ferguson is founder and president of Representational Pictures, LLC, and director and producer of No End In Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq, which is his first film. Ferguson was originally trained as a political scientist. He holds a BA in mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley, and obtained a PhD in political science from MIT in 1989. Following his PhD, Ferguson conducted postdoctoral research at MIT while also consulting for the White House, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Defense, and several U.S. and European high technology firms. From 1992-1994 Ferguson was an independent consultant, providing strategic consulting to the top managements of U.S. high technology firms including Apple, Xerox, Motorola, and Texas Instruments.

A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Ferguson is the author of three books on information technology. He is also co-founder of Vermeer Technologies, the developers of FrontPage.

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Gibson (Panelist)

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Gibson is a national security affairs fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution. He comes to Hoover from the 82nd Airborne Division, U.S. Army, where he commanded the 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne, an assignment that included two tours to Iraq in support of all three national elections there to date. Earlier in his career, Gibson fought in the Persian Gulf War, served in the NATO peace enforcement operation to Kosovo, taught American Politics at West Point, and served two liaison tours with the U.S. Congress. He holds several graduate degrees from Cornell University (MPA, MA, and PhD in government) and was the Distinguished Honor Graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Among his personal awards and decorations are three Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge with Star, and the Ranger Tab. He was recently selected for promotion to Colonel. His research at Hoover focuses on civil-military relations.

David M. Kennedy (Panelist)

Professor David M. Kennedy is the Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History at Stanford University. Reflecting his interdisciplinary training in American Studies, which combined the fields of history, literature, and economics, Professor Kennedy's scholarship is notable for its integration of economic and cultural analysis with social and political history. His 1970 book, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger, embraced the medical, legal, political, and religious dimensions of the subject and helped to pioneer the emerging field of women's history. Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1980) used the history of American involvement in World War I to analyze the American political system, economy, and culture in the early twentieth century. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War (1999) recounts the history of the United States in the two great crises of the Great Depression and World War II. In 2000, the book was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, the Francis Parkman Prize, the Ambassador's Prize, and the California Gold Medal for Literature.

About the film:

From the Sundance Film Festival - 2007 Documentary Competition:

"On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared an end to combat in Iraq. More than three years later, 3,000 American soldiers and an estimated 790,000 civilians are dead, and Iraq still burns. What happened? The first film to examine comprehensively how the Bush administration constructed the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, No End In Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq exposes a chain of critical errors, denial, and incompetence that has galvanized a violent quagmire.

Drawing on jaw-droppingly frank interviews with an impressive array of high-level government officials, military personnel, and journalists, many on the ground in 'postwar' Iraq, Charles Ferguson zeroes in on the months immediately before and after toppling Saddam. Despite intelligence strongly warning that transforming Iraq into a democracy would be long and brutal without careful planning, massive troops, and international support, Bush launched the invasion after only 60 days of preparation. Baghdad's infrastructure fell along with the city, leaving large-scale looting, lawlessness, and violent chaos in its wake. Installing neither police forces nor self-governing institutions at this crucial juncture, Rumsfeld's inexperienced team disbanded Iraq's military and intelligence, marginalizing 500,000 armed men--only one of a relentless stream of ill-advised moves that ignited resentment, fomented desperation, and fueled a still-raging Iraqi insurgency.

Ferguson's surgical analysis of the way the U.S. government sparked disaster in Iraq is riveting, information packed, and airtight. In his capable hands, the situation has never been so transparently clear, which makes it even more shocking and tragic."--Caroline Libresco

The 2007 Sundance Film Festival Documentary Jury presented a Special Jury Prize to No End In Sight "in recognition of the film as timely work that clearly illuminates the misguided policy decisions that have led to the catastrophic quagmire of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq."

For more information about the film, please visit:

www.noendinsightmovie.com

Kresge Auditorium

Coit D. Blacker Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University Speaker
Larry Diamond Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and Professor of Political Science, Stanford University Moderator
Lt. Colonel Christopher Gibson 2006-2007 National Security Affairs Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University Panelist
David Kennedy Donald J. McLachlan Professor, History, Stanford University Panelist
Charles Ferguson Film Director and Producer Panelist
Conferences
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Two years ago today, American troops and their coalition partners invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein, President Bush argued, was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons to augment his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Before the menace grew any stronger, Saddam had to be toppled.

All News button
1
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies has been selected to join the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, Stanford Law School, the University of Virginia School of Law, and William & Mary School of Law, as partnering institutions in the Miller Center of Public Affairs' newly constituted National War Powers Commission, it was announced on February 28, 2007, by Gerald L. Baliles, director of the University of Virginia's Miller Center and former governor of Virginia. The commission will be co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, a graduate of Stanford Law School and former President of the Stanford University Board of Trustees. The commission has ten distinguished public members: former U.S. Senator from Washington Slade Gorton, former Representative from Indiana and Iraq Study Group Co-Chair Lee H. Hamilton, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills, former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr., former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Abner J. Mikva, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet J. Paul Reason, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, the Dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Brookings Institution President and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot.

Co-directed by John C. Jeffries, Jr., dean of the University of Virginia School of Law, and W. Taylor Reveley, III, dean of William & Mary School of Law, the commission will seek a practical and constitutional consensus on how the three branches of government - the President, Congress, and the Courts - are to exercise their respective prerogatives to shape American war and peace. As the conveners note in their initial brief, "For over two centuries war powers issues have bedeviled a host of Presidents, Congresses, and at times the Courts." Competing claims to war powers have remained more unsettled than almost any other issue of American constitutional law. The country lacks a consensus about how the President and the Congress are to make decisions about war and peace, and whether and to what extent the Courts should resolve disputes or adjudge the uses of war powers by the President and Congress. Consequently, they note, "Presidents, members of Congress, Courts, scholars and pundits continue to debate which branch should set policy concerning (1) the initiation of conflict, (2) how conflict is to be conducted once begun, and (3) when and how conflict is to be terminated."

As the conveners state, "we badly need a consensus on how the President and Congress are to share their overlapping powers to shape American war and peace, about who should decide what, and when each must participate meaningfully in shaping national policy." In addition, the practical and constitutional consensus the commission seeks to reach, "should comport with not only the text of the Constitution and the intent of its Framers, but also the experiences of our history." Members of the War Powers Commission were selected on the basis of their diverse and impressive experiences, and bipartisan backgrounds, in the hope that they can recommend "a process, formula or result that could be embraced by future administrations or Congresses." The commission intends to release a report reflecting its views, and emphasizes that the recommendations it expects to issue will be entirely prospective in nature and not intended to apply to the current administration or the present Congress.

For those seeking a new national consensus, the National War Powers Commission has been born at a propitious time. "During this time of war, as the nature of war changes, and as Congress and the President demonstrate a capacity for both contention and agreement," the conveners state, "the Commission will be well-poised to contribute to a resolution that has eluded the country for well over two hundred years. America's policymakers need it, America's voters deserve it, and now make be an auspicious time to seek it."

For more information, please visit the Miller Center's website, www.millercenter.org, or contact Lisa Todorovich, Assistant Director of Communications at the Miller Center, 434-924-4096, or by e-mail, ltodorovich@virginia.edu.

All News button
1
-

David Patel (speaker) is a 2006-2007 predoctoral fellow at CDDRL (fall quarter) and postdoctoral fellow at CISAC (winter and spring quarters). His dissertation examines questions of religious organization and collective action in the Middle East, with a theoretical focus on the relationship of organization and information in particular. Empirically, his study looks at Islamic institutions and their role in political action in a wide range of settings including 7th century garrison cities of the early Islamic empire, through the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. Patel has spent a great deal of time in the Middle East over the last several years, including extended visits to Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, and Iraq, where he spent seven months in Basra conducting research beginning in the fall of 2003. He works with David Laitin, Jim Fearon, and Avner Greif at Stanford.

Patel received his PhD in political science from Stanford University in March 2007. In fall 2007 he will join the faculty at Cornell University as an assistant professor of political science.

Walter W. Powell (respondent) is a professor of education and affiliated professor of organizational behavior, sociology, and communications at Stanford University. He is also an external faculty member at the Santa Fe Institute. At Stanford, he is director of the Scandinavian Consortium on Organizational Research. Powell works in the areas of organization theory and economic sociology. He is coauthor of Books: The Culture and Commerce of Publishing (1983), an analysis of the transformation of book publishing from a family-run, craft-based field into a multinational media industry, and author of Getting Into Print (1985), an ethnographic study of decision-making processes in scholarly publishing houses. He edited The Nonprofit Sector (1987, referred to by reviewers as "the Bible of scholarship on the nonprofit sector"). Powell is currently directing a large scale study, Stanford Project on the Evolution of the Nonprofit Sector, of the circulation of managerial practices in the Bay Area nonprofit community, mapping the flow of ideas among consultants, philanthropists, founders, business leaders, government officials, and nonprofit managers. Powell is widely known for his contributions to institutional analysis, beginning with his article, with Paul DiMaggio, "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields" (1983) and their subsequent edited book, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (1991). At Stanford, he is a faculty affiliate of the Center for Social Innovation at the Graduate School of Business, a member of the Public Policy faculty, and serves on the governing board of the France-Stanford program.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

David S. Patel Speaker
Walter W. Powell Professor of Education; Affiliated Professor of Organizational Behavior, Sociology, and Communications Commentator Stanford University
Seminars
Subscribe to Iraq