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.
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 U.S. Army as a Lt. Col. after 21 years of active service and currently serves as Senior 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…
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…
SENIOR FELLOW & MILITARY EXPERT
Areas of expertise: American foreign policy and national security, Middle East policy, grand strategy, international relations, maritime security, counterinsurgency, anti-terrorism
Gil Barndollar is a fellow at Defense Priorities and the Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America’s Center for the Study of Statesmanship…
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...
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
Daniel L. Davis
BENJAMIN H. FRIEDMAN
Gil Barndollar
PRESS RELEASES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 14, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Earlier Saturday, two Saudi Arabian oil installations came under attack. Houthi rebels from Yemen, who receive limited support from Iran, claimed responsibility. Secretary Pompeo blamed Iran, but provided no evidence to support that claim. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“Core U.S. interests in the Middle East are limited to eliminating anti-U.S. terror threats and avoiding significant, long-term disruptions to global oil supply.
“While unfortunate, the attacks early Saturday on Saudi Arabian oil processing installations appear to be primarily extensions of the war in Yemen, where the Saudis are attacking the Houthis, who get Iranian support. The attacks are not a threat to the United States or a major issue for the global economy. According to Saudi Arabia, production will return to normal levels by Monday.
“If the attacks were indeed carried out by Houthis, it is more reason for the Saudis to find a negotiated settlement to their intervention in Yemen—it is not a reason for the United States to fight Saudi Arabia’s wars for them.
“Washington should not pick sides in the Sunni versus Shiite fights in the region, nor should it risk U.S. lives and dollars to clean up Saudi Arabia’s mess.
“Iran is a middling power that can cause Saudi Arabia headaches, but it is not a threat to dominate the region. It can easily be checked by its neighbors. Regional actors should take the lead in confronting this type of malign activity.”
Defense Priorities explainer: The case for ending U.S. military support for the Saudi-UAE-led coalition’s war in Yemen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 13, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Wednesday night, the White House released its hold, pending national security review, on $250 million in military aid to Ukraine following intense pressure from some congressional members. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“Despite the politics involved, the United States and Russia jointly possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—it is therefore critical our two nations find a way to co-exist. Taking steps that improve, rather than degrade, the U.S.-Russia relationship enhances U.S. and global security.
“Increased military aid to Ukraine—a nation that is not a U.S. or NATO ally—worsens U.S.-Russia relations without any justifying security payoff for Americans.
“Russia and Ukraine have a long, complicated history—and Russia’s 1,200-mile border with Ukraine means it has a strong security interest there. The United States has no such security or prosperity interests at stake.
“Ukraine cannot match Russia’s capabilities, and sending U.S. military aid may create a dangerous perception in Kiev and Moscow that the United States would support Ukraine in a direct confrontation with Russia. It encourages the continuation of the conflict there, rather than its political resolution.
“Unlike his predecessor, recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is attempting to negotiate a peace with Russia and the separatists in the east. Washington should support that process.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 10, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Tuesday, President Trump announced the removal of National Security Advisor John Bolton. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“With all due respect to Ambassador Bolton, his removal is good news for U.S. security. President Trump has said he wants to end long-running U.S. conflicts abroad, negotiate an end to nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea, improve relations with other great powers, and ensure our allies contribute far more to their own defense.
“The incoming National Security Advisor should be someone who supports these positions and is committed to implementing—rather than thwarting—them.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 4, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Monday, media reports offered details of a tentative U.S.-Taliban agreement to draw down some U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“The reported U.S. agreement with the Taliban to remove 5,400 U.S. troops within 135 days is progress, but it is insufficient to end the 18-year U.S. war in Afghanistan.
“The United States should not continue to expend lives and dollars fighting for the success of the Afghan government. If this agreement leads to the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it will be worth celebrating. The danger is that it will provide political cover for leaving a smaller but perpetual U.S. military presence, making an already long war permanent.
“This agreement, if implemented, would leave behind roughly 8,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan—that would be 8,600 too many.
“Plans for full withdrawal have not been revealed and appear to be contingent on further talks with the Taliban or peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. That would be a mistake.
“The Taliban may refuse to strike a power-sharing deal with the Afghan government, and they might renege even if they do. U.S. troops should not be made hostage to the settlement of Afghanistan’s civil war, which has been ongoing, one way or another, for 40 years.
“The United States can best serve its interests by withdrawing all U.S. military forces—with or without Taliban cooperation.
“Combating anti-U.S. terrorism can be done remotely via long-range attack assets and local forces, without a permanent U.S. ground presence. Retaining a force of any size would only serve the failed nation-building mission that has trapped U.S. forces in Afghanistan for nearly two decades.”
Defense Priorities explainer: Exiting Afghanistan
Defense Priorities explainer: U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan—with or without an agreement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 29, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Thursday, President Trump announced his intention to draw down U.S. force levels in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 8,600 and stated that “you have to keep a presence.” Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“President Trump’s decision to leave 8,600 soldiers in Afghanistan is a return to the troop levels of the Obama administration and a reversal of his intention to end Washington’s nearly 18-year war there. Anything short of full withdrawal is a mistake.
“The counterterrorism mission that took U.S. forces to Afghanistan in the first place—to decimate Al-Qaeda and punish the Taliban for harboring those terrorists—was long ago accomplished. Successful counterterrorism there does not require a permanent ground presence, let alone 8,600 troops. That force level only perpetuates the failed nation-building mission.
“U.S. security is protected by its global military capabilities to monitor and eliminate anti-U.S. terror threats, intelligence cooperation, and homeland security. Policing Afghanistan is a separate mission entirely.
“The president was right when he said great nations don’t fight endless wars—President Trump should finally end this one.”
Defense Priorities explainer: Exiting Afghanistan
Defense Priorities explainer: U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan—with or without an agreement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 16, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
In a new explainer, “U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan—with or without an agreement,” Defense Priorities Senior Fellow Gil Barndollar addresses the four pillars of the recent Afghanistan agreement and explains why complete withdrawal is in America’s security interest.
Following 9/11, the United States was right to go to war in Afghanistan. Targeting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government which harbored them in the aftermath of the attacks was a sensible and achievable mission.
After a swift victory and the establishment of a new, popular Afghan government, policymakers should have removed U.S. troops. Instead, Washington pursued a nation-building effort to establish a central authority to govern all of Afghanistan—a goal impossible to achieve at reasonable cost and unrelated to the core security interests that justified the initial campaign.
After nearly 18 years of war and our key goals accomplished long ago, it is past time to withdraw all U.S. forces to focus on vital national security interests.
Four pillars of the Afghan withdrawal agreement
The latest withdrawal, coming on the heels of apparent progress in negotiations, was announced on August 1, 2019, and would leave between 8,000 and 9,000 troops in country.
The agreement currently being negotiated, which both sides have agreed to in principle, rests on four pillars:
The Taliban agrees to renounce Al-Qaeda and all terrorists
A cease-fire covering all parties
The Taliban agrees to negotiate with the Afghan government
U.S. military withdrawal
While the ongoing negotiations have often been referred to as “peace talks”—and the agreement alludes to a draw down—complete U.S. military withdrawal should be the objective.
If the final agreement makes withdrawal contingent on the other three conditions being met, it is a recipe for a permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan. The Taliban are untrustworthy, and any agreement is non-enforceable after a U.S. exit anyway. What safeguards U.S. interests is deterrence by punishment: the ability to strike the Taliban should they facilitate harm to the United States, regardless of the state of the Afghan government and security forces post-withdrawal.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 1, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Thursday, a U.S.-Taliban deal was announced that included a draw down of the 14,000 U.S. forces currently in Afghanistan. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“A deal to reduce U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by 5,000 to 6,000 in exchange for the Taliban’s renunciation of Al-Qaeda, a cease-fire, and an agreement to begin direct talks with the Afghan government is good news, provided it leads to a full U.S. military withdrawal in the next year.
“This deal would only take U.S. troop levels back to about where they were when President Trump took office. That’s not enough. After nearly 18 years of failed efforts to build the Afghan state by defeating its enemies, more than $1 trillion in spending, and more than 2,400 U.S. servicemembers killed, it is time to fully end the war. Negotiations with the Taliban can be useful, but the United States shouldn’t wait on them to leave Afghanistan.
“The deal, as reported, would entail meaningful Taliban concessions, especially on the ceasefire. Their willingness to officially disown Al-Qaeda is also useful as symbolism, even though their fear of being attacked again by the United States is stronger than any declarations.
“The danger of the deal is it could preserve, rather than end, the U.S. war. The Taliban leadership may lack the power to enforce a ceasefire on all their commanders. They may renege on some promises. Peace talks with the Afghan government will be difficult in the best circumstance. Some in Washington may then seek to stall progress toward a complete U.S. military withdrawal. That would be a mistake.
“The United States protects itself from terrorism through its ability to track and attack threats directly via missiles and raids, through willingness to use that capability, and its ability to deter groups like the Taliban from harboring anti-American terrorists. Those factors will operate to protect Americans with or without a deal with the Taliban and in the absence of U.S. combat forces.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 30, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—North Korea reportedly fired multiple unidentified projectiles off of its eastern cost. Defense Priorities Senior Fellow and Military Expert Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, USA, Ret. issued the following statement in response:
“North Korea’s latest launch seems to mimic other recent weapons tests. This type of saber rattling is not threatening, but rather is intended to get the attention of North Korea’s more powerful neighbors. Kim Jong-un wants to negotiate and signal his ability to take actions the U.S. and others don’t like in an effort to speed up diplomacy.
“There’s an opening to negotiate for freezes and potentially rollbacks in exchange for limited sanctions relief. But unless Washington is willing to make such trade-offs and normalize relations, expect Kim to continue developing weapons and testing them.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 24, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—On Wednesday, North Korea fired two unidentified projectiles into the East Sea. Defense Priorities Senior Fellow and Military Expert Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, USA, Ret. issued the following statement in response:
“Reports of another North Korean weapons test shouldn’t come as a surprise. This latest move seems like an attempt to restart negotiations with the United States, not a provocation or security threat.
“Kim Jong-un is a brutal leader of a weak state, but he faces pressure to provide economic relief for his people who have long suffered under his family’s rule. The U.S. faces no such pressure—we don’t need any deal. Deterrence already guarantees our security.
“Engaging in diplomacy toward peace and the normalization of relations between the Koreas could result in progress on other issues, such as freezes or rollbacks in North Korea’s missile program, and denuclearization as an eventual goal. North Korean missile tests are an irritant that should not sway the United States from that path.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 18, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org
WASHINGTON, DC—Earlier today, the U.S. military reportedly shot down an Iranian drone over the Strait of Hormuz. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:
“The U.S. shoot-down of an Iranian drone is the latest escalation in the crisis between the U.S. and Iran—an outgrowth of more than a year of U.S. pressure on Iran in the wake of U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal. Conditions are set for a miscalculation that could quickly spiral into a broader war. While the U.S. has an unquestionable military advantage, a war would be catastrophic for U.S. and allied interests—likely leading to high casualties, prolonged chaos in the region, and renewed Iranian determination to acquire a bomb.
“Maximum pressure has harmed Iran's economy, but it has failed in its aims—it has encouraged Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program and increase its hardline polices.
“To de-escalate and avoid war, the U.S. should explore the Iranian offer to relax sanctions in exchange for its commitment to verifiably comply with the additional protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Barring that, the U.S. should end secondary sanctions on our European allies and other buyers of Iranian oil and other goods. That step would likely cause Iran to again comply with the JCPOA's limits on uranium enrichment.”
View a brief explainer on U.S.-Iran policy from Defense Priorities or download the PDF.