John Judis was one of the few people among the punmditocracy who opposed the Iraq war.<\/p>\n
On the 10th<\/sup> anniversary of the war he reveals that dozens of people in the military and defense establishment opposed it too, but were afraid to say so<\/a>:<\/p>\n In the six months before the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the six weeks after the invasion (culminating in George W. Bush\u2019s \u201cMission Accomplished\u201d speech), I often compared my situation in Washington to that of Jeannette Rankin, the Montana congresswoman and pacifist who voted against entry into both World War I and II. Not that I would have voted against declaring war in 1941; the comparison was to her isolation, not with her isolationism.<\/span><\/p>\n There were, of course, people who opposed invading Iraq\u2014Illinois State Senator Barack Obama among them\u2014but within political Washington, it was difficult to find like-minded foes. When The New Republic<\/i>\u2019s editor-in-chief and editor proclaimed the need for a \u201cmuscular\u201d foreign policy, I was usually the only vocal dissenter, and the only people who agreed with me were the women on staff: Michelle Cottle, Laura Obolensky and Sarah Wildman. Both of the major national dailies\u2014The Washington Post<\/i> and The New York Times<\/i> (featuring Judith Miller\u2019s reporting)\u2014were beating the drums for war. Except for Jessica Mathews at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington\u2019s thinktank honchos were also lined up behind the war.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n I found fellow dissenters to the war in two curious places: the CIA and the military intelligentsia. That fall, I got an invitation to participate in a seminar at the Central Intelligence Agency on what the world would be like in fifteen or twenty years. I went out of curiosity\u2014I don\u2019t like this kind of speculation\u2014but as it turned out, much of the discussion was about the pending invasion of Iraq. Except for me and the chairman, who was a thinktank person, the participants were professors of international relations. And almost all of them were opposed to invading Iraq.<\/span><\/p>\n In early 2003, I was invited to another CIA event: the annual conference on foreign policy in Wilmington. At that conference, one of the agency officials pulled me aside and explained that the purpose of the seminar was actually to try to convince the White House not to invade Iraq. They didn\u2019t think they could do that directly, but hoped to convey their reservations by issuing a study based on our seminar. He said I had been invited because of my columns in The American Prospect,<\/i> which was where, at the time, I made known my views opposing an invasion. When Spencer Ackerman and I later did an article <\/a>on the CIA\u2019s role in justifying the invasion, we discovered that there was a kind of pro-invasion \u201cB Team\u201d that CIA Director George Tenet encouraged, but what I discovered from my brief experience at the CIA was that most of the analysts were opposed to an invasion. (After Spencer\u2019s and my article appeared, I received no more invitations for seminars or conferences.)<\/span><\/p>\n I had a similar experience when I talked to Jon Sumida, a historian at the University of Maryland, who specializes in naval history and frequently lectures at the military\u2019s colleges. Sumida told me that most of the military people he talked to\u2014and he had wide contacts\u2014were opposed to an invasion. I confirmed what Sumida told me a year or so later when I was invited to give a talk on the Iraq war at a conference on U.S. foreign policy at Maryland. A professor from the Naval War College was to comment on my presentation. I feared a stinging rebuttal to my argument that the United States had erred in invading Iraq, but to my astonishment, the professor rebuked me for not being tough enough on the Bush administration. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n John Judis was right about the war, of course, and so were the people that he talked to.<\/p>\n The difference is that Judis got a whole sh%$ sandwich for telling the truth, and they<\/b> did not.<\/p>\n On a matter like this, this makes them cowardly punks, and if someone were to call them traitors, I would not object.<\/p>\n