The following is a letter written by Obama foriegn policy advisor Prof. Michael McFaul in response to Robert Dreyfuss's blog entitled: The Rise and McFaul of Obama's Russia Policy

July 4, 2008

Dear Mr. Dreyfuss,

I thank Mr. Dreyfuss for his interest in my work for the Obama campaign and my views on Russia. A little more investigative work -- an email or phone call to me or even consultation of some of my writings, all posted at http://cddrl.stanford.edu--might have helped him to avoid printing some statements that are inaccurate and misleading.

First, Mr. Dreyfuss reports that I am back at Stanford "after a stint in Washington, during which he provided advice to President Bush about Russia policy." This sentence is simply untrue. Between 2004 and 2006, I lived in Washington teaching at Stanford-in-Washington, and working for both the Hoover Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. During that period, I never once met with or advised President Bush. Anyone who has read my writings on Bush's foreign policy will know that I am not on the dinner list for this White House.

Second, Mr. Dreyfuss implies that I support disengagement with Russia, citing Dmitry Simes as his only source to interpret my thinking (and the irony of a Nation reporter quoting a long-time Republican, and no one else, to comment on the views of a life-long Democrat was not missed by me). This is also untrue. To be sure, I have written numbers of articles lamenting democratic erosion in Russia. But I also have penned as many pieces arguing for why engagement -- not containment or isolation--is the only strategy for addressing this issue or many other issues in US-Russian relations more generally. As I argued in written testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Relations on May 17, 2007, "it is obvious that President Putin is building a more autocratic regime, an internal process that in turn has strained Russia's relations with the West. The appropriate policy response to these new developments is not a return to containment or isolation of Russia. Rather, a more substantial agenda between the Russian and American governments would create more permissive conditions for democratic renewal inside Russia."

Even a skimming of the titles of some of my articles, including "Reengaging Russia: A New Agenda" or "Realistic Engagement: A New Approach to American-Russian Relations," could have given Mr. Dreyfuss a more accurate assessment of my views than the quip from Mr. Simes. With my coauthors in articles such as "The Right Way to Engage Iran," or "A Win-Win Strategy for Dealing with Iran," it's a strategy I also have advocated for dealing with Iran. (All of these articles can be downloaded at http://cddrl.stanford.edu).

Third and much more importantly, Mr. Dreyfuss implies that an association with a "hardliner" like me means that Senator Barack Obama also favors disengagement with Russia. This is also untrue. Even the most casual observer of the presidential campaign knows that Senator Obama is a fervent believer in engagement and diplomacy even with our enemies let alone with countries like Russia. Senator Obama has voiced his concern about internal political developments inside Russia, but also affirmed that "The United States will need to work with President Medvedev on a range of issues of common concern, such as preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions, reducing our nuclear arsenals and securing stable supplies of oil and gas from Russia." It is Senator McCain who wants to kick Russia out of the G-8, not Senator Obama.

Mr. Dreyfuss somehow believes that because I have criticized Putin's assaults on democratic practices, I must also reject engagement with Russia. Think how silly this logic sounds when applied to the United States. Must French critics of George W. Bush also advocate disengagement with the United States? Must critics of Bush here at home also therefore disengage from any interaction with the US government?

Finally, I am proud of my association with the leaders of the Democratic Russia as they struggled to destroy Soviet communism in the later 1980s and early 1990s. Should I have been rooting for other side? My Russian friends have not succeeded yet in creating a democracy to replace Soviet dictatorship, but the end of communism did create the necessary conditions for the extraordinary economic growth that most Russians now enjoy.

The more general point of Mr. Dreyfuss's article is an important one for Democrats to debate. Dreyfuss believes that the US should favor stability and remain indifferent to those in other countries fighting for democracy and human rights. I disagree today, just as I also disagreed when others made the same argument about privileging stability over our values when embracing Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, the apartheid regime in South Africa, or Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s. In dealing with countries like Russia, Democrats should seek to engage both the state but also societal leaders and organizations advocating democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Championing values of freedom, justice, and equality is an old Democratic tradition that now needs to be recaptured and pursued more pragmatically, humbly, and strategically, and not abandoned in kneejerk reaction to eight years of failed Bush policies.

Sincerely,

Professor Michael McFaul
Department of Political Science
Stanford University

RESPONSE TO MICHAEL MCFAUL

Michael McFaul takes issue with my blog posting, in The Dreyfuss Report, concerning the advice he provides to Senator Barack Obama. He suggests that my posting might have been written differently had I done "a little more investigative work." As an investigative reporter with almost two decades' experience, I appreciate the value of digging, and I admit that had I done a thorough investigation of McFaul's views and influence, I might indeed have written a different piece.

I will take him at his word now that he "never met with or advised President Bush."

It is true that McFaul wants to "engage" Russia, but it is also true that one person's engagement is another person's confrontation. McFaul wrote in the Los Angeles Times that , "Putin and his government increasingly portray the United States as Russia's No. 1 enemy." But McFaul underplays the role of badly misguided US policies since the end of the Cold War in provoking Russian hostility to the United States. They include the needless expansion of NATO to Russia's western and southern borders, the creation of a string of American military bases on Russia's southern flank in the Middle East and Central Asia, the proposed installation of a provocative missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, the US invasion of Iraq (and the cancellation of Russian-Iraqi oil deals), the American threat to Iran, and America's confusing and misguided efforts to promote free-enterprise, privatization, and democracy in Russia and the former Soviet states.

Perhaps McFaul can convince Obama that it is possible to continue with these policies and at the same time, win Russia's support on critical national security items such as Iran, counter-terrorism, and nonproliferation.

I believe there must be a better way of engaging Russia and, thereby, improving US-Russian relations.

-Robert Dreyfuss

Comments (5)

1. Actually I don't think I got it wrong. In 2006 I did a long piece on the Office of the Vice President (OVP) for the American Prospect. During the reporting for that piece, two sources told me that McFaul was one of three Russia specialists called in to advise Cheney and/or his staff (then, Scooter Libby, John Hannah, and David Addington) on policy toward Russia. When I called McFaul to confirm this (twice) he didn't return my calls. So it's not entirely correct of him to say that I didn't call him to confirm this. But, as I said, for now I am willing to take him at his word.

   Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 07/07/2008 @ 2:16pm

2. "...the extraordinary economic growth that most Russians now enjoy"

   Russia is world number 2 in billionaires. Behind only the USA. Trickle down economics is alive & well in Russia. The middle class is minuscule. Knowing that an oil or car baron is wealthy beyond comprehension must be so gratifying to the average Russian.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2008 @ 7:33pm

3. I'm somewhat confused by Mr. Dreyfuss' response to the meat of Professor McFaul's position. His mention of provocative US actions seems problematic for two reasons. One, it doesn't seem like it's a helpful response. None of the Russian leadership even remotely believes that the US has any intention of invading or otherwise militarily attacking them. They're much too smart for that. So why do the things he's describing, even if we believe that they're bad policies, explain Russia's response? Two, this seems, quite frankly, like a convenient rationalization. I assume Mr. Dreyfuss is not suggesting that US policies somehow justify sustained human rights abuses, but it really does seem like he places a premium of stability even at the expense of such abuses. Like Professor McFaul, I don't see how a foreign policy that takes morality seriously can simply pretend that such abuses are not important or, even more insidiously, that they're necessary "for the greater good."

   Posted by Thrawn at 07/07/2008 @ 11:27pm

4. I echo the sentiments of Mr Dreyfuss and Dr. Cohen against pushing NATO into Russia's backyard. It is foreign policy 101 that major states have a "Sphere of Influence" with regard to their neighbors. During the Cold War, NATO was organized as a hostile alliance against the Soviet Union's Warsaw pact. It was and is a military alliance, and pushing it into the countries that are near neighbors to Russia can only be interpreted as a hostile act. While Russia no longer has Communism as a "missionary " foreign policy, it does have a traditional Russian interest in defending Serbia. This is where World War I began! As to that useless missile defense system, it is not designed to defend Europe against Iran, but, as a symbolic threat against Russia. Most of my military service was in Europe during the Cold War. This period began with the Hungarian Uprising and ended with the rise of the Berlin Wall. Aside from going on alert, I felt no personal discomfort. Both sides were deterred in Europe. However, when I got back go to the states, up popped the Cuban Missile Crisis, and we were on the verge of a nuclear war. I felt some real discomfort. The lesson I learned from the "Cold War" is you don't play games with nuclear weapons or with people who have them. We had one "Cold War", and we don't need another one.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/08/2008 @ 3:26pm

5. Dear Mr. Dreyfuss,

   Your response to my response makes me sound like I am some kind of liar about my "work" for Mr. Bush. This is really quiet an incredible tone after you printed a blatant lie about me, obviously designed to smear my reputation as was the quip about me being an "almost neocon". I have no recollection of your calls to me (perhaps you called my Stanford office when I was living in DC?) and I just checked my email records and have no email ever from you. If you called and I didnt respond, I sincerely apologize. Call again ! Im always happy to talk and very easy to find. To answer you query now, I of course have met with many Bush administration officials over the years and will always meet with them if they want my advice. And if Bush called me up tomorrow, I would happily meet with him. I, afterall, am an engagement guy ! But you printed something very different -- that I was living in DC to advise President Bush. Both the facts and the innuendo of the statement you printed (that I was in DC specifically to work for Bush and that I am some kind of neocon who has now infiltrated the Obama campaign) were wrong. Rather than "taking my word for it" , an obvious phrase of suspicion, you should either (a) just admit your mistake like a serious investigative journalist with 20 years experience would do, or (b) do some more investigative journalism and prove me wrong. Call the White House. Call Tom Graham, the president's Russia advisor for several years, now at Kissinger Associates. Call other reporters in DC who covered the White House during this time. Having just read Katrina's excellent piece on what's wrong with American democracy, I could not help to think that our "fourth estate" is also in need of some serious repair. (I wonder if you taught at Stanford, how you would grade a paper in a journalism class that printed 3 factual errors and relied on one source, and the source, btw, was a Republican commenting on a Democrat in an election year? Would you really call that investigative journalism?) As for your indictments of US policy towards Russia, thats all fine and interesting. Another time and place, Id be happy to express my opinions about these important questions. But why am I, an academic who has never worked in the governememt, to be held responsible for Bush's policies? How is rolling out this list "evidence" that I support confrontation with Russia? I just dont get the logic, (And this was your "opinion", just to be clear, and had nothing to do with investigative journalism. I think there's a good reason why we try to keep a distinction between oped and news pages.)

   Sincerely, Michael McFaul

   Posted by michael_mcfaul at 07/10/2008 @ 07:48am