Letter to Daniel Drezner

Dear Mr. Drezner,

Thanks for responding. And I’m glad to see that your tone has changed. Of course it’s legitimate to ask questions about supporting evidence for stories we post on Big Peace. But to call Big Peace “unadulterated horses***t”? Is that your habit when you believe an opponent lacks evidence? Why not simply ask some questions? The approach reminds me of–hold on– Henry Kissinger’s old saying that in academe “the fights are so vicious because the stakes are so low.”

Your main argument with me seems to be over the question of whether Soros has influence over Obama’s foreign policy. Michael Moriarty will be responding to you directly on that subject since it was his post. But I do find it curious that you argue since Soros is “at best ambivalent and at worst disappointed” with Obama that means he doesn’t have much influence. Surely you are politically sophisticated enough to know that there is a difference between the two. You may be too young to recall (I’m not saying this as a slight) but conservatives were disappointed with Reagan early on in his first term because they felt he didn’t go far enough. Does that mean conservatives lacked influence on Reagan? Ditto for the administration of George W. Bush. Read Kissinger’s memoirs and you will find plenty of examples of his disappointment with Richard Nixon.

You might not be persuaded–that’s fine. But why condemn an entire website? If someone is not persuaded by the merits of your zombie book does that mean none of your work has merit? Does it mean that it’s all “horses***t?” That seems to be your standard toward Big Peace. That would not be my standard toward you.

I can’t help but peek at your letter to Mr. Moriarty and note your suggestion that you would welcome a whole new set of critical readers to your blog. Do you actually mean it? Or is this wordplay?

Here’s an offer: we will add foreignpolicy.com to our blogroll and will link to some of your work, when it fits, on Big Peace. (Your recent post “The death of the China lobby?” for example, would be of interest to our readers.) In exchange, I would ask that you do the same. We have more than one hundred contributors including retired generals, senators, congressman, scholars, realists, neocons, libertarians, etc. Certainly there is something there to interest you.

There is plenty of loose talk on the internet about the exchange of ideas. Blah, blah, blah. Why not actually do it?

Sincerely,

Peter Schweizer