He has served in a variety of roles in government. From 1988 until 1995, he was an analyst on
Iraqi and
Iranian military issues for the
Central Intelligence Agency. He spent a year as Director for
Near East and
South Asian Affairs with the
United States National Security Council. In 1999, he rejoined the NSC as the Director for
Persian Gulf Affairs. He also served two stints as a professor with the
National Defense University. Outside of government, he worked for the
Brookings Institution as the director of research at its
Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He previously worked for the
Council of Foreign Relations as their director of national security studies. He has also written seven books, the first two of which were published in 2002. His first
monograph,
Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness 1948-1991, advanced reasons as to why Arab states had been so continuously unsuccessful at fighting Israel between
World War II and the
Persian Gulf War. He currently is an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program of
Georgetown's
Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Advocacy of Iraq invasion In his second book,
The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (pub. 2002), Pollack details the history of United States actions against Iraq since the
Persian Gulf War of 1991. He says that the United States should invade Iraq, and describes ways of going about it. Pollack argued that
Saddam Hussein was simply too volatile and aggressive in his policies to be trusted not to begin another conflict in a volatile region. In
The Threatening Storm, Pollack argued "the only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Pollack predicted, "It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars." Likewise, he wrote, "we should not exaggerate the danger of casualties among American troops. U.S. forces in Bosnia have not suffered a single casualty from hostile action because they have become so attentive and skillful at force protection." Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war. New York Times columnist
Bill Keller, in supporting the Iraq war in 2003, wrote "Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush." Liberal writer
Matthew Yglesias in the
LA Times also attested to Pollack's influence: Of course, those of us who read Pollack's celebrated 2002 book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn't actually have) might feel a little too bitter to once again defer to our betters. Many have criticized his support for the
Invasion of Iraq, including Middle East correspondent
Robert Fisk, who called
The Threatening Storm the "most meretricious contribution" to the pre-war "debate" on military action and included it in the select bibliography section of his 2005 book
The Great War for Civilisation in order to "show just how specific – and misleading – were the efforts to persuade Americans to invade." Many critics, as well as many of those who used the book to justify their support of the invasion, overlooked the more balanced presentation on the pros and cons of war to be found in
The Threatening Storm. As Chris Suellentrop of Slate pointed out before the invasion on March 5, 2003: Six months after The Threatening Storm's publication, however, Pollack's book reads as much like an indictment of the Bush administration's overeagerness to go to war as it does an endorsement of it. A more appropriate subtitle for the book would have been The Case for Rebuilding Afghanistan, Destroying al-Qaida, Setting Israel and Palestine on the Road to Peace, and Then, a Year or Two Down the Road After Some Diplomacy, Invading Iraq. In interviews and op-ed articles, Pollack himself still supports the war, saying that now is better than never. But it's fair to say that his book does not—or at least not Bush's path to it. Pollack responded to the Suellentrop article by saying that he was unhappy that many people seemed to have read only the subtitle of his book, which had not been his choice. He also said: given how far down the road the Bush Administration has taken us, I think that we have no realistic choice but to go to war this year. And yet I think the Administration has handled the diplomacy and public diplomacy of coalition building very poorly, and I am deeply concerned about the impact this will have both on postwar reconstruction and on our ability to garner allies for the inevitable next crisis. Pollack later was a strong supporter of the
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 advocated by General
David Petraeus, which entailed a buildup of US ground forces to improve the security of the Iraqi population and help Iraq increase its governmental capacity, develop employment programs, and improve daily life for its citizens. He laid out some of his arguments in support of the surge in the June 2007
NY Times article "A War We Just Might Win," which was co-authored with
Michael E. O'Hanlon of Brookings. ==Other publications==