Ronald Moe's lucid article, “Political Science and the Savings and Loan Crisis” (1991), considered what the political scientist's role might have been in regard to that crisis (had not our profession given up its expertise in that area). His comments led me to reflect on the role of the political scientist in relation to another national crisis—the Gulf War of 1991. During the war, and in the months preceding it, it seemed that political science—or at least my specialty, international relations (IR)—had no role to play. This strange fact results from certain paradoxes that actually encourage us to foster a separation between academic expertise in international relations, and public knowledge of how foreign policy decisions are made.

Within hours of the war's beginning, I called several IR colleagues to get their opinions as to why the United States had taken the plunge. I got appropriate, you might say textbook, answers. One colleague went right for the military rationale: “to save us from the Peace Dividend,” “to give us the chance to test new weapons,” and—one that I wouldn't have thought of myself—“to deplete inventory.” Another mentioned the more abstract balance-of-power principle, expressed in this case as “to keep our little brothers (i.e., the Third World) in their place,” while others thought of domestic factors, such as “to divert attention from the S&L crisis,” or economic advantages, such as “Saudi is footing the bill.”