When War Strikes, Washington Calls

The road from Harvard to Washington D.C. is a well-traveled path. The boundaries between academia and public policy have always been slim ones here, where countless professors have exchanged their scholarly robes for three-piece suits.

High-profile policy makers, like Ford Administration Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger '50 and one-time National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy '48, once taught at Harvard before their newsmaking days. Bundy was even dean of the Faculty prior to joining the President's inner circle in 1961.

Indeed, at that time, President John F. Kennedy '40 transported several Harvard professors to Washington under his administration.

And today, even with a Yale graduate in the White House, Harvard's professors are making headway--in Cabinet chambers, in the Justice Department and in the Defense Department, among other branches.

In particular, the recent outbreak of war and conflict in the Middle East has emphasized the position of scholars, particularly regional specialists and military strategists, in the Bush Administration entourage.

During the Vietnam War, planners looked to various experts to help them formulate public and military policy for the effort. And in these times, more than ever, Harvard professors say both media and government officials are seeking their advice.

ABC News

Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine general and former Vietnam War strategist, has appeared around-the-clock as a top military analyst for ABC News. In his spare time since the war started, he is director of the National Security Program at the Kennedy School of Government.

Reflecting on his experience in the military, Trainor says he is able to compare the current Middle East crisis to those that the U.S. has faced before. As a scholar now, Trainor can take the time to think about long-range issues--problems that often escape current military officials.

Trainor and other policy analysts, notibly Walburg Professor of Economics emeritus John Kenneth Galbraith, say that policy makers' inattention to military history and scholarship has led them astray. For instance, Galbraith and Trainor both say the Administration is relying too heavily on the use of air power against the enemy--a tactic that proved largely ineffective during World War II and Vietnam.

"Historical evidence has proven that the use of air power does not necessarily win the war," says Trainor. "In World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, it had little impact."

Beyond the military experts, scholars of public policy and international relations have sought to add their voices to the Middle East conflict. The U.S. role in that region's future, some professors say, is equally vital to the Administration's planning process.

After World War II, the U.S. emerged with the financial ability to help rebuild devastated European and Japanese economies, says Albert B. Carnesale, an academic dean and Littauer professor of public policy and administration at the Kennedy School. But today, the scholar and occasional foreign policy advisor says many industrial nations, including the U.S., "are not in the best of economic shape."

Getting the short-term go-getters to think about long-term goals is not always easy, some Harvard scholars say.

Kurt M. Campbell, an assistant professor at the Kennedy School who just returned from a stint as special assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says some advisors are "trying to spur long-term planning, but it is not yet at an advanced level."

It is the pressures of politics that often accounts for the wide gap between the scholar's and official's worldview, some professors say.

"Policy makers face different pressures," says Cabot Professor of Social Ethics Herbert C. Kelman, who has officially acted as a mediator between Israeli and Palestinian groups in the Middle East. "They are subject to the political realities of the time."

These pressures contribute to the short-sightedness in government goals, Kelman says. Policy makers are faced with many concerns in a limited amount of time and do not have the opportunity to examine the many facets of a problem, such as the one facing strategists in the Middle East.

Role of the Scholar

Yet Kelman and others say it is the role of the scholar in government to offset the imbalance between long-term and immediate planning. The scholar should initiate an environment that encourages broad thinking, Kelman says.

For scholars, government appointments offer many benefits. Some say the experience allows them to apply their scholarship to practical problems. Others say the opportunity is educational in itself.

"Some scholars find that scholarship is enriched by involvement from time to time with the government," says Ashton B. Carter, professor of public policy at the Kennedy School. "It is the hope to improve the world we live in."

Says Carnesale, "There are those who want to apply scholarship. There are those who want the experience of scholarship. You will find that peculiar to scholars."

Despite the great opportunity and prestige that Washington appointments offer both schools and their faculty, Kelman says there are some negative reprecussions. Some academics become more like politicians, he says, responding to pressure and offering short-term answers to complex questions.

"Policy makers say, 'you scholars have the leisure to think these things through, but we don't have the leisure,'" says Kelman. "And scholars want to be a part of the process and not seem naive so they fall into the same pattern [of thinking]."

Campbell, however, says the pressures work both ways. "It is a two-way street," he says. "Scholars learn the day to day pressures on policy making and policy makers get a long-term perspective."

Harvard's Policies

Harvard, well-known for its flexible 'revolving door' policy, allows scholars to shuttle between their Unversity appointment and their Washington responsibilities. For two years, they can remain a member of the faculty. After that length of time, scholars must decide whether to return to Cambridge or remain in their post.

For most leaves of absence, faculty members are required to return after one year. But Washington posts carry the promise of special consideration because administrators feel that one year is too short a time for an academic to have substantial influence on public policy.

"The reason why there is two years is we feel that public service is important," says President Derek C. Bok. "Two years is pretty much the minimum amount of time. It is impossible to take an assignment like [a government post] for less than two years."

Continues Bok, "We're a little worried about more than two years because if you stay more than two years, your metabolism begins to change...you get so into the excitement and pace that it becomes difficult to just come back and be a professor again."