>
> Yes JM is against the current
> imperial adventure/mishap, as are Waltz and the other doyens of
> Realism, but it's the very amoralism that they regard
> as descriptive that partly feeds the amoral/immoral policy
> prescriptions that have plagued power politics for a long time.
> The dimensions of the gender biases that accompany such
> problematizing are alone worth a serious rethink. The
> amorality of the current IPE is the problem.
>
Mearsheimer, Waltz and company came out against the war back in September 2002, in an op-ed page ad in the New York Times. Their concerns about the war should be awfully relevant to current press accounts about the rift between American generals and the defense "intellectuals" in the Pentagon. But although a few of the signatories (Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Barry Posen, and Shibley Telhami come to mind) have done other academically correct things in the interim, like penning newspaper columns, their ad generated almost no buzz.
There isn't a defense-intellectuals-against-the-war.org web site, or even an organization. When I e-mailed Stephen Walt for a copy of the ad to post on my website, he could only offer me a scanned copy of the ad--useless for search engines, of course.
I did what none of 33 professors could bother seeing the need to do: I transcribed the blessed thing. Six months later, googling "Walt Mearsheimer Waltz Iraq" still shows my two-bit site in the top 10 results.
--tim f-w