For the past two years, Professor Peter Feaver has held office hours in Washington, D.C., aiding the George W. Bush administration in crafting a surge plan for the war in Iraq. Since returning to campus, the he has continued to be a voice in the debates raging on Capitol Hill.
Feaver, a political science professor, worked as the special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform on the National Security Council staff, where he helped develop the long-run plan of the 21,500-strong troop surge.
"I wanted a career where I could do more than just one thing," Feaver said of his time spent in the capital. "I was working on research, teaching and public policy."
Through his work with the Bush administration, Feaver has also become a public figure in the debate over the future relationship between Democrats and Republicans concerning the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
"The Democrats have started to sound themes that aren't inconsistent with the administration's positions," he told The Wall Street Journal Sept. 7.
Feaver said recent comments of the leading Democratic contender for the presidential nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, indicated that some Democrats are realizing that immediate withdrawal may not be the best solution.
"When Senator Clinton said this, it really wasn't too far from President Bush's message," Feaver said. "They aren't saying we should reduce to zero-that would be too drastic."
Bruce Jentleson, former foreign policy adviser to Al Gore and a professor of public policy, however, said Democrats and Republicans are not unifying on the issue.
"The president's speech was not convincing," said Jentleson, who is a friend of Feaver.
Feaver said there are many components to the surge-the military, the political and economic situation in Iraq and the political situation at home.
"I believe the military component went better than expected, the diplomatic went roughly as expected, but the American domestic component went worse than expected," he said.
Feaver added that he was disappointed with the outcome of the American domestic component because he expected more opportunities for bipartisan support. Although Democrats were involved in the planning of the surge, the two parties remained split on the issue, he said.
"It would be good for the next president if there was a bipartisan agreement," he said. "It is something worth working towards."
As the surge comes to a close, Feaver said history should be the nation's guide in deciding how troops should be pulled out of Iraq.
"It is not a permanent commitment but usually a long-term one," Feaver said. "If people leave early, the situation often returns. Bosnia is a perfect example of how the issue could flare up, and so is Korea, since we have been there for 50-plus years."
Jentleson said he has a different view on how the situation in Iraq should be handled. With a genuine diplomatic effort with other countries in the region, stability could increase in the area and troops could be out by 2008, he said.
"I believe this would be more effective than the current policy of the president," he said. "But in the end, it's the president's decision and he is the president until 2008."
Sophomore Samiron Ray, president of Duke Democrats, said he believes that immediate withdrawal of troops would be best.
"Bush's failure to delineate a clear plan for complete withdrawal represents a failure in planning to protect American soldiers in the future," he said. "Democratic plans for immediate withdrawal, such as the one proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, provide the greatest hope for ending the war as soon and safely as possible."
Although Feaver and Jentleson both agree to disagree on many issues, both said discussion is key to resolution.
"We agree on the need to have a constructed debate where the differences of the two parties are identified and where the motivation of each side is not put into question," Feaver said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.