EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT & APPEARANCES
Defense Priorities—a foreign policy organization focused on promoting a realistic grand strategy—is making several foreign policy analysts, military experts, and defense fellows available for comment and broadcast media interviews. View our available specialists below. Read Politico’s profile on Defense Priorities.
Send media inquiries to press@defensepriorities.org.
MILITARY EXPERT & HISTORIAN
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy, Middle East policy, grand strategy, international relations, international security, counterterrorism
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations emeritus at Boston University. A graduate of the U. S. Military Academy, he served for twenty-three years as a commissioned officer in the United States Army. He received his Ph. D. in American diplomatic history from Princeton...
SENIOR FELLOW & MILITARY EXPERT
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy, Middle East policy, Asia policy, grand strategy, international relations, international security, counterinsurgency
Davis retired from the US Army as a Lt. Col. after 21 years of active service and currently serves as a Defense Fellow and Military Expert for Defense Priorities. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and then to Iraq in 2009 and...
POLICY DIRECTOR
Areas of expertise: Grand strategy, American foreign policy, international relations, international security, DoD budgeting, Asia policy, Europe policy and NATO, Middle East policy, counterterrorism, and DoD budgeting
Benjamin H. Friedman is an adjunct lecturer at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, a graduate of Dartmouth College, and a PhD candidate in political science at the MIT. He previously worked as a Defense Analyst…
FELLOW & MILITARY ANALYST
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy and national security, Middle East policy, grand strategy, international relations, international security, counterinsurgency
Gil Barndollar is a fellow at Defense Priorities, the Director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National Interest, and the Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship. He has written for publications including USA Today…
FELLOW
Areas of expertise: Congressional legislative process, intersection of politics and policy, domestic policy, free trade, and foreign and defense policy
Rachel Bovard currently serves as Senior Director of Policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director...
FOREIGN POLICY SCHOLAR & DIRECTOR, NOTRE DAME INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CENTER
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy, international relations, international security
Desch is an expert on U.S. foreign and national security policies. His current research focuses on how to bridge the gap between academic research and policymaking. He is the co-author most recently of Privileged and Confidential: The Secret History of the President’s Foreign...
FOREIGN POLICY SCHOLAR & FACULTY, NOTRE DAME INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CENTER
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy, international relations, international security
Eugene Gholz is an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He works primarily at the intersection of national security and economic policy, on subjects including innovation, defense management, and U.S. grand strategy. He co-wrote a well-known International Security...
MEDIA CLIPS
Andrew J. Bacevich
Daniel L. Davis
BENJAMIN H. FRIEDMAN
PRESS RELEASES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 30, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Tuesday, an uprising in Caracas unfolded after Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guiadó called on citizens and members of the military to join him in challenging president Nicolás Maduro. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“Venezuela’s economic crisis is a humanitarian disaster for Venezuelans. Americans should offer sympathy, aid, and best wishes for the restoration of true democratic rule, but we should not try to force regime change there.
“Military intervention should be off the table. Forced regime change is never easy and quick, and it is far from certain it would improve the lives of Venezuelans. Toppling governments brings chaos and makes exiting difficult. Regime change could make Venezuela’s problems America’s problems.
“Even non-military efforts to aid Juan Guaidó’s gambit should be approached with great caution. A government of Venezuela that seems like a U.S. creation would lack legitimacy and could totter and induce more chaos. Statements of support are understandable, but it is unclear how much good they do, given the sensitivity to past U.S. interventions there.
“If Maduro prevails, as seems likely, the push to restore democracy in Venezuela will not disappear, but it will have suffered a serious setback. Washington will have to ask whether grudging acceptance of Maduro’s rule is better than prolonged hostility.
“The U.S. should strive to be an exemplar of liberal values and to advocate for those values where they are assaulted, as in Venezuela. But we should be not an exporter, especially by force, of our form of government.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 29, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Monday, the Islamic State released a video message claiming to come from its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s new propaganda video is evidence that he is alive. It is not evidence that ISIS is thriving or that U.S. troops should stay in Syria or Iraq to fight its remnant.
“No true military mission is left for U.S. troops in Syria. Baghdadi does not operationally control the so-called affiliates around the world. And ISIS’ losses make others less likely to affiliate in name or to try to travel to Syria or Iraq to fight. The U.S.-led war on ISIS undercut the allure it needs to recruit, inspire, and terrorize. That is a real victory worth celebrating.
“The U.S. does not to be at the front of the already-long anti-ISIS line. Baghdadi and ISIS are hidden and hunted by an array of actors: the Kurds who did the hard fighting against them already, the Syrian government, Russians, Iran-backed militias, Iraq, and tribes who were abused by ISIS in its prime.
“To keep America safe, vigilance is required, but endless war is not. U.S. security is best served by a full military withdrawal from Syria. The U.S. military can monitor anti-American terrorist threats with intelligence and attack them with airstrikes and even raids, if necessary.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 22, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the Trump administration announced it will no longer provide sanctions waivers for nations, including U.S. allies, if they buy oil from Iran after current exemptions expire on May 2. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“The decision not to renew waivers on Iranian oil sanctions is short-sighted, won’t change the regime’s behavior, and will have a higher cost than benefit for the United States.
“The administration’s hope is that economic hardship brought on by sanctions will move the Iranian people to overthrow their government. It is far more likely that hardship will be blamed on the U.S., cause nationalist outrage against the west, and increase Iranian support for hardliners and harm moderates looking to cut more encompassing deals.
“In addition to risking a crisis or war with Iran, these actions are also likely to damage U.S. allies in Europe. And because the sanctions abuse U.S. financial hegemony, they incentivize alternatives to the U.S.-led global financial system and threaten a major source of America’s economic power.
“These risks might be worthwhile if the U.S. truly could not live with the current Iranian government—but we can live with them. The Iranian regime is a problematic actor, but it is not a major threat to Americans today. Whatever threat it does pose to the U.S. should be managed through deterrence and diplomacy.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 17, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, North Korea conducted a weapons test, its first since negotiations with the United States stalled. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“North Korea’s latest missile test is unfortunate, but nothing new that should undermine efforts at diplomatic engagement. Kim Jong-un has launched more than 80 missiles and conducted four nuclear tests in the last decade. Like those before it, this latest test does not threaten the United States. America’s conventional and nuclear capabilities deter great powers, like China and Russia, and overwhelm weak ones like North Korea. North Korea’s leadership knows that attacking the United States would be suicide.
“Today’s tactical missile test is likely an attempt to jumpstart the stalled negotiations with the United States. It should not be rewarded, but the U.S. should continue to engage in diplomacy to reduce tensions, open North Korea, and secure peace on the Korean Peninsula.
“No amounts of threats or rewards will denuclearize North Korea in the foreseeable future, given that its weakness makes it vulnerable and dependent on those weapons for its security. The Trump administration’s approach should instead be to augment South Korea’s search for a series of deals that lead to better relations with the North.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 8, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the White House announced its intention to designate Iran’s IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“Designating a part of Iran’s government as a terrorist organization is a step toward saying, ‘we cannot live with them and have to bomb them.’
“There are valid reasons the United States has not previously designated a state-entity as a terrorist organization. Politicizing who we call a terrorist makes other nations less likely to take seriously the accuracy of U.S. designations, and it could expose U.S. armed forces to scurrilous charges.
“Designating the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) seems to follow a political agenda, not any new intelligence assessment. The Trump administration’s Iran policies are not going to change the regime and are unlikely to improve its behavior, but they may provoke Iran to violate the terms of the JCPOA and provoke a crisis or war.
“The Iranian regime’s bad actions are hardly a threat to the United States or grounds for crisis and armed conflict, which holds the potential for disaster. The United States should stop trying to manage that part of the world with our military and avoid another foolish war there.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 4, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congress voted to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-UAE-led coalition intervention in Yemen’s civil war. For more information on the Yemen crisis, view the Defense Priorities explainer and one-pager.
THE SAUDI-UAE-LED INTERVENTION IN YEMEN’S CIVIL WAR UNDERMINES U.S. SECURITY INTERESTS
America’s vital interests in the Middle East are narrow
Prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon hostile to the United States
Avoid major disruptions to the flow of oil
Eliminate transnational terrorists who threaten (capability + intent) to strike the United States and the West
Washington’s support of the Saudi-UAE campaign undermines American interests
Prolonging Yemen’s civil war strengthens Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
Increases resentment directed at the United States without a justifying security benefit
Undermines America’s moral authority and reputation as an exemplar of liberal values
Allows relatively minimal Iranian support to Houthis in Yemen to bog down Gulf countries
Enhances Iran's influence in Yemen far beyond any plausible post-conflict scenario
The Trump administration is right to press for an overdue settlement to the war in Yemen—ending U.S. military support for the coalition encourages them to settle
End military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive missions in Yemen: refueling (announced end in November 2018), targeting assistance, operational intelligence, arms, and any other activities which enable the coalition
Support U.N.-led peace talks by pushing Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and their allies to settle with the Houthis
The U.S. cannot produce a political settlement between native Yemeni parties, but ending outside intervention and assistance will encourage one
U.S. strategic interests should guide arms sales
Arms sales decisions should be guided by our strategic interests, not merely our economic interests
The U.S. should not end all arms sales to Saudi Arabia
As with other nations that are not hostile to America, it is appropriate for the United States to allow the sale of weapons that enable Saudi Arabia to defend itself, such as missile defenses
Restrict arms sales that enable the Saudi-UAE-led coalition's ongoing prosecution of its war in Yemen because that war undermines U.S. interests
External intervention by regional powers—including Iran and Saudi Arabia—has inflamed Yemen’s civil war
Worsens humanitarian disaster initiated by the civil war
Exposes civilians to airstrikes and other harms
No political-military victory over the Houthis and associated forces is imminent
No achievable security or prosperity gains in Yemen justify the costs associated with U.S. involvement—U.S. military support for the Saudi-UAE coalition should end
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 3, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—NATO, a Cold War military alliance formed to protect western Europe, and thereby the United States, from the threat posed by the Soviet Union, turns 70 today. With NATO foreign ministers meeting in Washington to mark the alliance’s anniversary, questions about the future of the alliance are front and center.
Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement about the serious, foundational challenges NATO must confront if it wants to sustain buy-in from its benefactors, the American people:
“Those who claim there is a NATO crisis brought on by President Trump’s hostility, Vladimir Putin’s machinations, and insufficient spending on the continent are wrong. NATO is ailing under the weight of over-expansion to include weak states; insufficient common interests undergirding the alliance; European over-dependence on U.S. security guarantees; and lack of a serious conventional threat to Europe.
“The Soviet Union’s collapse took away NATO’s raison d’être. But instead of shifting responsibility to our now rich and capable allies facing little threat, Washington confused NATO for a U.S. interest, rather than the means to secure our interests.
“Twenty-two of the 28 non-U.S. NATO members spend less than they pledge to on defense because of Europe’s safety and permanent U.S. security guarantees. For that to change, the United States should do less to defend Europe and shift burdens to our allies, rather than just lecture Europeans about burden-sharing. There should be a clear understanding that Europe defends with U.S. help, rather than we defend with their help. The ‘Four 30s’ initiative is a start.
“Somewhere along the way, Washington’s aim switched to keeping Europe dependent so that it could not practice geopolitics independent of U.S. tutelage. That mistake made the alliance into a permanent subsidy that Americans pay to Europeans and undercuts its collective power.
“A good first step to reduce Europe’s dependence and push allies to do more is to end the European Deterrence Initiative, an unnecessary, new commitment to something U.S taxpayers already over-provide. NATO is Europe’s deterrence initiative.
“Europeans should develop more military capability independent of U.S. power. That would strengthen NATO and produce no less security with less reliance on U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
View the Defense Priorities one-pager on Europe and NATO.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 13, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the U.S. Senate voted to pass S.J.Res.7, a bipartisan resolution to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-UAE-led coalition’s intervention in Yemen’s civil war. The Senate passed the same resolution last Congress, following the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Following the vote, Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement:
“The Senate vote today reflects the American people’s broad support for ending U.S. involvement in yet another Middle East civil war. It is long past time to rethink our post-9/11 foreign policy.
“The Obama administration erred in 2015 when it agreed to support the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen's civil war without congressional approval. Such a ‘necessary evil’ alliance is not necessary. No U.S. national security interest justifies American involvement. The war in Yemen has been both a strategic failure and a humanitarian disaster.
“Ending U.S. support for the Saudi-UAE campaign in Yemen will aid negotiations that could settle the civil war. That is not only good for Yemenis, but also for accomplishing U.S. counterterrorism objectives in Yemen.”
To read more about the Yemen crisis, view Defense Priorities' explainer and one-pager.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 11, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Sunday, The New York Times published an opinion editorial by Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of Security Studies Program at MIT and author of Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy.
In this piece, Posen argues for a reappraisal of the U.S. role in NATO, a military alliance formed during the Cold War to defend Europe from the Soviet Union.
President Trump has many bad ideas. Reconsidering America’s role in NATO isn’t one of them.
NATO, a military alliance, was formed specifically to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating Europe, whose principal powers—Germany, France, Italy and Britain—had been so devastated by World War II that they were vulnerable to Soviet coercion, subversion or conquest. NATO also became a vehicle for rehabilitating the Axis powers—Germany and Italy—under the victors’ tutelage.
America had an enduring interest in ensuring that the Continent not fall under the domination of a single, capable, hostile power: That could pose a serious threat to America. The Truman administration was clear on this point: The main purpose of stationing American military forces in Europe in the early 1950s was to stay long enough to right the balance of power, not to stay forever...
...The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 removed the last vestiges of a major security threat to NATO, and with it, the rationale for the American military presence in Europe.
...NATO’s founding mission has been achieved and replaced with unsuccessful misadventures. The United States has urgent business at home, and arguably in Asia. Though President Trump has no strategy for returning the European allies to full responsibility for their own futures, the American foreign policy establishment could better spend its time devising such a strategy than defending the counterproductive trans-Atlantic status quo.
A reappraisal is long overdue.
Read the entire op-ed in The New York Times.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 28, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—The second Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi ended without a deal. In response, Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman and Military Expert Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, USA, Ret. issued the following statements.
Benjamin H. Friedman:
“The United States can afford a hitch in talks. We have little to lose. With or without a deal, U.S. security vis-à-vis North Korea is already guaranteed by deterrence and North Korea's relative weakness. That gives the United States considerable leverage and the ability to patiently accept the outcome of this summit and look for future progress in other talks.
“The United States does not to take the lead in negotiating with North Korea. We should let the South Koreans do that; and really they have been the ones creating most of the progress thus far. The United States can agree to relax some sanctions if they find it useful in their talks.
“Denuclearization is an ambitious, if not impossible, goal in the near term. Negotiations with North Korea should continue as part of a process that aims to strengthen peace and allow for normalization of diplomacy and opening of North Korea. Denuclearization and other internal reforms should be seen as eventual goals.”
Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, USA, Ret.:
“Despite this less-than-ideal ending, the fundamentals have not changed: American security rests firmly on our unblinking military deterrent, and we are just as safe today as we were before. The long, difficult process of negotiations should nevertheless continue. Diplomacy—however slow and sometimes unsatisfying—is still in our interest and remains the best path to peace.”