Avoidable Ignorance

In April, I wrote Michael McFaul about an op-ed piece he had written with Peter Berkowitz. Their argument was that universities are producing too few people who know the languages and cultures of the Middle East. They suggested that the Federal government fund such study, much as it did with Soviet studies after World War II. My comments draw on my own experience in academia a decade ago:

Dear Professor McFaul,

I enjoyed your op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post. However, I just sent the following to the Post message boards:

"It is not enough for the money to be available to promote language skills and regional expertise. Academia must also believe that they are necessary. But academia does not. There has long been a bias against multidisciplinary area studies. This was epitomized by an advertisement for a teaching job at a major university. The applicant was advised that he or she would be teaching courses in Russian politics, but that a comparative approach was needed. That is, Russian specialists need not apply."

"In political science, one is encouraged to study comparative politics, but not the politics of a region. It is often true, as well, that quantitative work that requires deep knowledge of data sets is favored over more qualitative analyses that require knowledge of the local language and culture. Economics shows such biases even more. Where are our Middle Eastern specialists to come from?"

"It is optimistic to say that this will take a generation to change, even if foundations and the government are generous."

I ended there. But let me add that I, too, believe that much depends on our ability to develop a cadre of experts in the Middle East. Like you, I was trained during the last years of the Soviet Union. The knowledge that those who preceded us had of Russia, the other 14 republics, and the rest of the Soviet empire was invaluable. We must indeed, as you argue, develop a cadre of Middle Eastern experts whose understanding rivals that of Kennan, Nove, Mosely, Fainsod, and the students that they and their work produced. Let's hope that someone is paying attention.

Jim Voorhees

It should be noted that the recent report of the WMD Commission also noted the absence of regional expertise in the intelligence agencies, noting, among other things, that "the Intelligence Community did not sufficiently understand the political dynamics of Saddam Hussein's Iraq" (page 174). My basic point is that academia is unlikely to produce such people--they do not see their value.

That leaves the question of where they can come from. In the short term, at least, it will have to be government itself. Of course, it will take a minimum of two years to give someone the proper skills. As the report argues further, changes must be made in the way analysts are treated in the Intelligence Community.

It leads to the depressing conclusion that our ignorance of the regions we are operating in will remain undimmed for some time. Mistakes that stem from it can be expected to continue, with unfortunate results.

Note: Michael McFaul was kind enough to respond, saying that he agreed with me. No one on the Post's message boards addressed my points either way.