Eliot A. Cohen

Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."[13]

Later in 2001, Cohen, in what was becoming a dominant theme of his writing, advocated war against Iraq once again and proceeded to outline how effortless such a military campaign would be:

After Afghanistan, what? Iraq is the big prize... One important element will be the use of the Iraqi National Congress to help foster the collapse of the regime, and to provide a replacement for it. The INC, which has received bad, and in some cases malicious treatment, from the State Department and intelligence community over the years, may not be able to do the job with U.S. air support alone.[14]

As a result of his public statements on why a war against Iraq was necessary, Cohen was invited to appear on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and amongst other statements given in response to questioning from Blitzer offered the judgment:

We know that he [Saddam Hussein] supports terror. There's very solid evidence that the Iraqis were behind an attempt to assassinate President Bush's father. And we—by the way, we do know that there is a connection with the 9/11 terrorists. We do know that Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. So...[15]

In testifying to a Congressional House committee later in 2002, Cohen was quoted as saying:

..the choice before the United States is a stark one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the regime of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, acquire weapons of mass destruction and pose a lethal threat to his neighbors and to us, or to take action to overthrow him. In my view, the latter course, with all of its risks, is the correct one. Indeed, the dangers of failing to act in the near future are unacceptable.[16]

In a piece for the Wall Street Journal on 6 February 2003, Cohen fervently praised the presentation given by then Secretary of State Colin Powell in which he outlined the case for military action against Iraq to the United Nations. He went on to indicate that it was time for those who doubted that the case had been proven to support the Bush administration in their efforts.[17]

An article written for The Washington Post on 10 July 2005 raised the attention of commentators in the media and "blogosphere". The piece, an attempt to articulate Cohen's self identified roles as academic, pundit, and father, was written as his son prepared to deploy to Iraq to fight a war the elder Cohen had been calling for since early 2001. The piece ends:

There is a lot of talk these days about shaky public support for the war. That is not really the issue. Nor should cheerleading, as opposed to truth-telling, be our leaders' chief concern. If we fail in Iraq—and I don't think we will—it won't be because the American people lack heart, but because leaders and institutions have failed. Rather than fretting about support at home, let them show themselves dedicated to waging and winning a strange kind of war and describing it as it is, candidly and in detail. Then the American people will give them all the support they need. The scholar in me is not surprised when our leaders blunder, although the pundit in me is dismayed when they do. What the father in me expects from our leaders is, simply, the truth—an end to happy talk and denials of error, and a seriousness equal to that of the men and women our country sends into the fight.[18]

External video
Q&A interview with Cohen on his Washington Post piece, "A Hawk Questions Himself as His Son Goes to War", July 31, 2005, C-SPAN

As a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Cohen had also been engaged in meetings involving US President George Bush. During these meetings Cohen provided advice on strategy in the Iraq conflict.[19]

In 2002, Cohen defended the PNAC membership against the charge that its personnel were chicken-hawks. Cohen found unsupported the opinion that, compared to civilians, veterans possess "sheer moral authority" or "are uniquely qualified to make judgments on matters of war and peace." As an example, Cohen states:

There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?[20]

On 2 March 2007, it was reported by The Washington Post that Cohen was to be appointed as Condoleezza Rice's "counselor" at the United States Department of State. Cohen replaced Philip D. Zelikow and said he would fill time before appointment in April 2007 by acting as a consultant for Rice.

The tone of the Washington Post article—Cohen is described as a "critic" of the Iraq war—was soon criticised. An article by Ximena Ortiz in the National Interest Online called Cohen's ability to do the job into question and attempted to juxtapose his previous statements on the Bush administration foreign policy with the resulting war in Iraq.[21] Adding to the criticism was Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com who, describing Cohen as "extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets", suggested an internal significance of the appointment for the Bush administration:

The Cohen appointment, is clearly another instance where neoconservatives place a watchdog in potential trouble spots in the government to ensure that diplomats do not stray by trying to facilitate rapprochements between the U.S. and the countries on the neoconservative War hit list.[22]

As the controversy played out in the media, a rebuttal of sorts from Ruth Wedgwood, international law scholar at Johns Hopkins University, sought to defend Cohen from criticism.[23] Ortiz was subsequently supported in her criticism by fellow commentator at National Interest Online, Anatol Lieven, who raised the level of criticism to include Cohen's efforts as a historian and analyst as well as tackling other pronouncements on US foreign policy in the Middle East made by Cohen.[24]

In March 2006, Harvard Kennedy School's academic dean Stephen M. Walt along with Professor John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, both political scientists, published an academic paper titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The paper criticizes the Israel lobby for influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East away from U.S. interests and towards Israel's interests. Eliot Cohen wrote in a prominent op-ed piece in The Washington Post that the academic working paper bears all the traditional hallmarks of anti-Semitism: "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews", accusations toward Jews of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments", as well as selection of "everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group" and equally systematical suppression of "any exculpatory information".[25] Mearsheimer and Walt have denied Cohen's assertions as false, dishonest and ridiculous, noting that criticism of Israeli state policy and influential American advocates of that policy, such as Cohen, is not the same thing as demonization of Jewish people.[26]

Along with a large number of other Republicans, Cohen opposed Barack Obama's prospective nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel as U.S. Secretary of Defense in late 2012. Cohen was quoted as saying:

If you have somebody there [at Defense] who's already made it clear that he does not want to engage in a confrontation with Iran, what kind of negotiating leverage do we have? ... You want to have as secretary of defense somebody who's the heavy. Somebody who's the guy who looks as if he's perfectly capable of waging war against you and happy to do it. That's just kind of elementary negotiating tactics.[27]

Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on 3 March 2014, between the ousting of Viktor Yanukovich on 22 February and the Crimean referendum on 16 March. In it, he maintains that "Putin is indeed a brutal Great Russian nationalist who understands that Russia without a belt of subservient client states is not merely a very weak power but also vulnerable to the kind of upheaval that toppled Yanukovych’s corrupt and oppressive regime." He mentions The New York Times publication of the op-ed by Putin on the Syrian chemical arms question and links to the text of the NATO accord as a token of good faith.[28]

Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on 15 November 2016 after the 2016 presidential election affirming his stance against the presidency of Donald Trump. In the piece he states:

I am a national security Never-Trumper who, after the election, made the case that young conservatives should volunteer to serve in the new administration, warily, their undated letters of resignation ready. That advice, I have concluded, was wrong. [...] My friend was seething with anger directed at those of us who had opposed Donald Trump — even those who stood ready to help steer good people to an administration that understandably wanted nothing to do with the likes of me, someone who had been out front in opposing Trump since the beginning.[29]

Cohen also wrote an op-ed piece in The Atlantic on 29 January 2017 commenting on his distaste for Donald Trump as a person:

Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump's policies but his temperament; not his program but his character. We were right. And friends who urged us to tone it down, to make our peace with him, to stop saying as loudly as we could "this is abnormal," to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong.[30]

In 2020, Cohen, along with over 130 other former Republican national security officials, signed a statement that asserted that President Trump was unfit to serve another term, and "To that end, we are firmly convinced that it is in the best interest of our nation that Vice President Joe Biden be elected as the next President of the United States, and we will vote for him."[31]