The Think Tank Arm of the Military-Industrial Complex
An interesting article from Nathan Hodge starts with the observation that many of the think tank experts brought on to television or op-ed pages to opine about the merits of an Afghan surge were in fact part of the team that designed the surge. He moves on, however, to the more interesting point that a lot of the institutions that “analyze” national security policy in the United States are essentially branches of the military-industrial complex:
But there are still a lot of blanks to fill in here. Some think tanks do not disclose donor names (but if you look at the name of endowed chairs for scholars, you can figure out who is paying some of the bills). Big defense contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing — also contribute to many of the defense-oriented think tanks, although getting specific amounts is tricky (Form 990 does not break down individual donations).
We here at Danger Room are not trying to knock the these think tankers — some of them, like Biddle, Cordesman and Exum, are as smart as they come. We’re as fond of quoting them as anyone. But it’s also worth asking who pays the piper.
While agreeing that Biddle, Cordesman, and Exum are all “as smart as they come” I think it’s also worth being a bit less polite about this. Smart, honest people have smart, honest disagreements about all kinds of stuff. But if it’s easier to get funding for smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy than for smart, honest ideas about the need for less activist policy, then each smart, honest person who has some smart, honest ideas implying the need for more activist policy is going to find him or herself primarily working on smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy. Even if you assume that nobody in the system is corrupt or dishonest, the system itself contains a systematic bias in favor of military action and against counsels of restraint. It’s a real problem, and it’s something that smart, honest people should be able to acknowledge.
A related point that both reflects and re-enforces the military’s extraordinary prestige and political influence is that having a good relationship with the senior military leadership is a very useful career asset for a defense policy analyst. This is a huge contrast to what you see in other areas. The fact that, say, EPI has a closer relationship with teacher’s unions than do other think tanks isn’t regarded as giving EPI extra credibility in analyzing education policy issues. That, again, serves to distort the terms of the debate. One-note guys like Bill Kristol or Robert Kaplan who think the answer to every policy question is “invade!” are treated as about a thousand times more credible than people who think countries shouldn’t be invaded or bombed for reasons other than self-defense.
35 Responses to “The Think Tank Arm of the Military-Industrial Complex”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
think it’s also worth being a bit less polite about this.
That was still way the hell too polite.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Doesn’t Cato raise more money than any think tank in Washington? I guess they would be the exception that proves the rule – you hardly ever see any of their members invited to advise State, DoD, or NSC on foreign policy and/or military affairs.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Even if you assume that nobody in the system is corrupt or dishonest, the system itself contains a systematic bias in favor of military action and against counsels of restraint.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
The deeply seated cultural assumption is that “invade” = serious, and “don’t invade” = unserious. No idea how we get from here to there, when we’re still here after the last few years.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Again with the Robert Kaplan bashing – this time pairing him with Bill Kristol. What, did the guy piss in your coffee cup at the Atlantic? I urge anyone to read some of the man;’s articles and make up their own opinion about the guy. His views are far more nuanced than ‘all war, all the time – please invade.’
Regarding think tanks and their funding; who pays the bills for liberal think tanks and what do their donors expect to get for their money? Some professions and some organizations, by nature of what they do must exclude completely certain viewpoints because such viewpoints are useless in that context. Pacifists don’t join the military, much less rise to the rank of general. Racists don’t join the NAACP.
If your job is to analyze defense related issues – and be extension, war, war-planning, military hardware etc – then wouldn’t, I don’t know, a military background be helpful for such a job? What’s a liberal arts major and war protester going to bring to the mix except constant, useless dissent?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Smart, honest people have smart, honest disagreements about all kinds of stuff. But if it’s easier to get funding for smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy than for smart, honest ideas about the need for less activist policy, then each smart, honest person who has some smart, honest ideas implying the need for more activist policy is going to find him or herself primarily working on smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy. Even if you assume that nobody in the system is corrupt or dishonest, the system itself contains a systematic bias in favor of military action and against counsels of restraint. It’s a real problem, and it’s something that smart, honest people should be able to acknowledge.
Funny that Matthew seems to dismiss similar problems in his “It Takes a Village” post, below. What ever could cause the difference?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
BTW, who funds CAP, again?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
That dude who sponsored all the anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe back in the day funds CAP. So?
Actually, one of the odd things I’ve discovered about the DC think-tank-ocracy is the presence of people who were DFHs, and went to DC to wage peace, and were willing to do the hard work to become actual subject-matter wonks on all sorts of war and defense issues, in order to better argue their case, and ended up as DFHs who are also experts on throw weights, missile systems, strategic doctrines, and other issues one normally considers the purview of warmongers.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Great post.
There are other tricky relationships like this.
For example, tune into news programs like, say, Meet the Press or This Week.
These programs air because the networks are paid lots of money by advertisers between the segments.
Now, this Sunday, these two particular programs will almost certainly be airing segments on Obama’s new escalation in Afghanistan. So, between the segments, make a note of those corporations who will pay NBC and ABC to advertise their wares. Note for example the companies embedded in the military industrial complex and their bankers on Wall Street. Are or are not these companies making lots and lot and lots of money selling [or financing] weapons of mass destruction to the government in order to fight the war?
Now, ask yourself, in turn, how objective is David and George going to be in discussing American foreign policy in Afghanistan when their jobs depend on folks whose paychecks depend on the very people who arm the government to prosecute this endless death and destruction.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Slight OT, but responsive to george walton: it’s time to sell your stocks when Meet the Press features more ads from financial companies than from military, aerospace, and energy companies.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
His views are far more nuanced than ‘all war, all the time – please invade.’
There are infinite ways to justify bombing and invading an oil-rich country. That is why AEI has all those scholars.
Same reason Cato has so many experts from diverse backgrounds, who can all prove the capital gains tax should be abolished.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
So whats exactly the criticism? Glasshouse stones and all. Who pays the Center for American Progress? Is that any better disclosed, and what about that trips to Germany or Denmark are those any better disclosed?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
And how many retired union leaders are paid network news “consultants” on labor and employment stories, comparable to the ubiquitous grave ex-generals? Or, for that matter, how many retired energy company executives are accorded paid “expert” status on energy issues? Or for THAT matter, when did the mainstream broadcast news organizations decide it was okay to have paid experts at all? Are we supposed to think of these retired generals as reporters? Sources? Shills? Do they have any undisclosed conflicts, like seats on boards of defense contractors (yes)?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Urgs, when bike paths and high speed rail spending are 5% of GDP then your concerns will be equivalent. Until then the comparison is slightly laughable.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If you have even the slightest bit of evidence that CAP is funded by people with a direct financial stake in universal health care, gay marriage, and a more progressive tax code – the way so many military-oriented think tanks are funded by people with a direct financial stake in Pentagon spending – by all means, share it. I’d love to see it.
Otherwise, you’re just asserting an equivalence without any evidence that it actually exists, beyond your own desire to believe so.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
So whats exactly the criticism? Glasshouse stones and all. Who pays the Center for American Progress?
The difference is that those AEI-type people actually have a direct and huge influence in creating the policy (more war forever), then selling it via the media.
By the way, go through this list of “experts” like the Kagans: they don’t know anything about Afghanistan. Very few of them (none?) speak an Afghan language. They are about as qualified as Matt is (or I am) to design an occupation strategy for Afghanistan. And probably less qualified, given their record in Iraq, a country they didn’t know much about either.
Yet these people are in charge, because the military industrial complex wants them there. A bit different from Matt’s blog, and more worrying, don’t you think?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@N:
Pacifists don’t join the military, much less rise to the rank of general. Racists don’t join the NAACP.
The equating of pacifists with racists is duly noted. Could you have maybe said robber barons don’t join unions instead?
If your job is to analyze defense related issues – and be extension, war, war-planning, military hardware etc – then wouldn’t, I don’t know, a military background be helpful for such a job? What’s a liberal arts major and war protester going to bring to the mix except constant, useless dissent?
I love this. Just like tobacco policy should be set by people who know how to sell cigarettes. Why bring in a bunch of hippies and their useless dissent.
War planning should definitely be done by people who know about planning wars. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. The policy decision about whether to go to war or expand a war is not the same as war planning. And in any event, what we’re doing in Afghanistan is a hell of a lot more complex than what we traditionally refer to as “war”.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Even the guy talking about the topic at danger room has to genuflect towards the military-industrial lobbyist zone. Why? Because without genuflection he won’t be considered a “serious” journalist and will be excluded from access. Reporting on military issues is generally awful for this reason.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[THINK TANK SYSTEM OF SYSTEMIC MILITARY ACTION BIAS]
[10K/7K/5K/ or review]
The [EU/NATO] response to the Media Messiah Imperial Messiah seems to have been, well we will think about it, discuss it at the [NATO] conference, we will get back to you after our taught full deliberations. In less than [48hr.] forty-eight hours, the numbers are dropping in one direction down. The [NATO] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, will first provide an additional [10K] Ten-Thousand Troops, well not that many, maybe [7K] Seven-Thousand, but not until the [NATO] meeting at the end of January we saw the last [NATO] meeting it will almost warfare in the streets, then it’s well maybe [5K] Five-thousand but not until after the [NATO] meeting, maybe a few more, maybe;
Britain, Georgia, Poland and Slovakia have all pledged more troops Poland are considering sending a few hundred more.
Belgians, Denmark France, Germany while calling the Media Messiah Imperial Presidents speck courageous, are being more cautious stating that for the moment there was no need for increasing the number of troops already committed, they would only look at what was possible both politically and realistically, when the request was made in concrete terms.
Italy, will send more troops but also will have to review both the political reality, but beyond that will remain unspecific for the present time.
[18 is 14 and Euros to Burn]
Now, if the withdrawal is scheduled for [18] Eighteen-months that means that [NATO] won’t even discuss additional troops until [16] Sixteen-months are left, a months or so to them there [15] months, and another month or so to get them back home [14] months. And with Euros to burn there is the cost of this adventure upon the [EU] European Union, but the Economic Downturn is over and they have Euros to burn. And they will need them paying the cost to support the [400K] Four-Hundred Thousand Afghanistan Military and Police Force they are going to have trained and left there in just [14] months, plus the bill for [105K] One-hundred-five-thousand, [Contractors] Agriculture experts who have been [embedded] with the Empire Army (unreported for months), outnumbering the Empire troops even with the [18] eighteen month surge of Empire troops.
[The Deafen Silence]
And why the deafen silence of the normally vocal Republicans remain mute, with no loud attacks on everything the Media Imperial President has done, with no rhetorical shouting points repeated ad nauseum, just taking the high road with a few reasonable discussions over actual policy points? Simple vote with the Democratic, who vote for the Surge, hand the War of Economic Stimulus Blood for Money, Markets and Resources over to the Democratic, and when it goes sour, it’s the Democratic War. And with the elections only [10] Ten-months away and after [NATO] says it has looked at what was both politically and realistically possible see’s no need for increasing the number of troops already committed, the question will be how many new members in Congress has this speech cost, The Democratic eat their own.
[Think Tank Bias]
It is getting old when the as smart as they come, and often quoted, Think Tank Endowed chairs for scholars, [Biddle, Cordesman, Kristol, Kaplan, and Exum] dance for the paid of the piper, the big defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, only and first answer to every policy question is [INVADE SEND THE MARINES THE SEVENTH FLEET], create more black op-sites, build large prison facilities, fortress Apache embassies, bomb them back into the stone age, we need to encircle the evil still [USSR] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, posing as the Russian Federation. So what do we end up with an insane Surge with an [18] eighteen month withdrawal date. Like a Marine is going to risk his life in a surge when in [18] eighteen months there coming home for good. Some idiot office giving order to take a position that’s going to be the enemies in [18] eighteen months anyway, ya right buddy why don’t you go take it yourself, going home alive and in one piece seems the better plan. If this is the best the Think Tanks can come up with a war weary public, they aren’t as smart as they think they are, and it only took [95] ninety-five days.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I have to protest this mischaracterisation of Robert D. Kaplan’s body of work. Kaplan is a hard-nosed realist who doesn’t always call for invading other countries. He’s successfully carved out his own unique niche in foreign policy writing, which is calling for a new defence procurement programme or the expansion of an existing programme in every single column.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:03 am
[...] “The Think Tank Arm of the Military-Industrial Complex“, Matthew Yglesias, 3 December 2009 — Excerpt: While agreeing that Biddle, Cordesman, [...]
December 4th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Who do you think signs Frank Gaffney’s paychecks? Lockheed, Boeing, et. al. undoubtedly.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:09 am
For the definitive takedown of Kaplan, look here:
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/summer/bissell-euphoria-perrier/
December 4th, 2009 at 8:27 am
The Kaplan defenders in this thread sound a lot alike.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:16 am
“I urge anyone to read some of the man;’s articles and make up their own opinion about the guy. His views are far more nuanced than ‘all war, all the time – please invade.’”
This is true. Kaplan’s “nuanced” views seem to incorporate a belief that imperialist foreign policy can be conducted peacefully whenever and wherever the happy darkies are sufficiently impressed by America’s strength and manly virtues.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:23 am
No, his arguments are far more nuanced than that, but nonetheless, he deploys those arguments in the service of foreign policy vision that is Inhoffian in its simplicity and bellicosity.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I would pay more attention to what Mr. Yglesias has to say abourt military planning if it wasn’t painfully clear that he is a f*cking knee jerk pacifist.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Knee-jerk pacifists didn’t support the Iraq War in 2002-2003, as Matt did, Hector.
So, no.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am
My apologies. Yglesias’ knee jerks when there is actually a good reason for going to war, like bringing Osama to justice and making him pay for his crimes. But it doesn’t jerk when the proposed war has some damn fool, airy pie-in-the sky nonsense justification like ‘democratising the Middle East’.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Matt: “Even if you assume that nobody in the system is corrupt or dishonest, the system itself contains a systematic bias in favor of military action and against counsels of restraint.”
And I assume that most of these people are *highly* dishonest; the Iraq War proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. We saw these neonmen making glorious promises, and then walking backwards as needed (and only as needed) until ’success’ was redefined as – well, as whatever was clearly going to happen anyway.
As for ’smart guys’, Larry H. Summers’ career should have buried that ridiculous idea forever.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:46 am
From a recent Kaplan article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911u/berlin-wall), titled ‘The Fall of the Wall’:
“Iran holds the key to changing the Middle East, much as the collapse of the Berlin Wall held the key to changing Europe. With a reformist regime in power in Teheran, turmoil in Iraq will lessen and Hezbollah may eventually be robbed of a sturdy patron, even as Syria is forced to make its peace with the West, and hopefully with Israel, too. All that, taken together, will release nascent democratic forces that can truly reform the Middle East.”
Wow, I think that I heard that sh*t before, but with a similar country whose name started with ‘Ira…’.
But America is much too alone in taking on this work. Europe, having been liberated from nuclear terror at the conclusion of the Cold War, proved unable to muster the gumption to deal with Yugoslavia on its own, or, as the case of Afghanistan shows, to demonstrate much enthusiasm for any great collective effort. Which leads to the question: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Note that the USA spent years watching the wars in Yugoslavia, and has spent decades watching mass slaughters in Africa without lifting a f*cking finger. But somehow something’s wrong in Europe, not us.
And not the last phrase (which I bolded; which might not have survived posting).
That last phrase sums up Kaplan’s whole theory, and identity as a true warmonger, one who lives to support war.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:49 am
That’s a joke, right Barry?
Barry?
Barry, tell me that’s a joke.
“Arab Spring didn’t fail, because REAL Arab Spring has never been tried!”
December 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Look, the simple fact here is that At Least half the country’s population is being bribed in one way or another to do or say or think something according to the briber’s agenda.
Regardless of whether the result is harmful to anyone, the agenda is always resulting in the Briber gaining revenue without really earning it.
And one can easily surmise, the half thats being bribed, is not in the bottom half of the Average income scale.
December 5th, 2009 at 3:24 am
COIN is clearly, by comparison to the alternative military concentrations on consideration, still a low-profit enterprise.
Secondly, you repeatedly call the people you are critiquing “honest.” What, then, is the critique, and why involve those who do the thinking, i.e. Exum. You raise his name in conjucnction with who funds his think tanl, thus clearly besmirching his honor as an honest analyst. If you think the money is there for pro-interventionist writings, fair enough, but then clearly Exum’s employment itself is the thing that is determined in your construction by the substantive aims of those funding CNAS. That’s because you grant his honesty; ie you say he is honestly offering his views. So why drag him into it as if his particular deliberations are influenced by CNAS funding prerogatives? Clearly, if he is honest as you say he is (and he clearly is in my view), the his views have been contracted because as they stood they were thought to be valuable to the CNAS project, whatever its larger game entailed. Why suggest he himself is retrofitting his views to the demands of the sponsoring corps.?
December 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
In his Dec. 3rd Abu Muqawama blog post “Abu Muqawama Sells Out!” Andrew Exum wrote:
“I think this is another case of “they disagree with me on policy, therefore they must be intellectually dishonest. Or, hey, maybe we instead have a different set of assumptions, educations and experiences which lead us toward different conclusions.”
However, it would be nice if Mr. Exum actually extended the courtesy of assuming others have honestly reached different conclusions than himself. Before his short “retirement” from blogging, Exum has been quick to hurl ad hominum attacks at other writers instead of addressing the merits of arguments with which he disagrees. A couple of recent examples:
“He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked” (Nov. 9th):
“My theory is that [Seymour] Hersh’s journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target. … such is his reputation that people only remember the articles of his that actually exposed something new and none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned out to be just crazy talk.”
“On Martial Virtue … and Selling Jon Krakauer’s Crappy New Book” (Nov. 2nd):
“A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer’s new book by the Washington Post… Alas, the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. … So Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman’s chain of command for any of the stupid things that happened in the aftermath of his death. … in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.… Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him.”
I believe Mr. Exum is either woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman story or is awfully good at feigning self-righteous anger. Previously, I’ve addressed McChrystal’s central role (as well as that of Senator Webb, NYT reporter Thom Shanker, etc.) in the handling of the aftermath of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death at feralfirefighter.blogspot.com.
In his September 13th Washington Post book review, Mr. Exum neglected to mention General McChrystal’s culpability in the Tillman case or disclose his close personal and professional ties with him (e.g. this past summer, Exum spent a month working closely with McChrystal in Afghanistan after being asked by McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team). Andrew Exum is a fellow at CNAS, “Washington’s to-to think tank on military affairs.” CNAS has spearheaded the advocacy of General McChrystal’s Afghan war “surge” and has close ties with McChrystal (meets with him weekly by videoconference) and his mentor General Petraeus.
Quite possibly, Mr. Exum believes his own BS about the purity of General McChrystal. As the saying goes, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Guy Montag, SSGT Co. “F” (Ranger) 425th Infantry, MIARNG 1983 — 1991
December 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: While agreeing that Biddle, Cordesman, and Exum are all “as smart as they come” I think it’s also worth being a bit less polite about this. Smart, honest people have smart, honest disagreements about all kinds of stuff. But if it’s easier to get funding for smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy than for smart, honest ideas about the need for less activist policy, then each smart, honest person who has some smart, honest ideas implying the need for more activist policy is going to find him or herself primarily working on smart, honest ideas about the need for more activist policy. Even if you assume that nobody in the system is corrupt or dishonest, the system itself contains a systematic bias in favor of military action and against counsels of restraint. It’s a real problem, and it’s something that smart, honest people should be able to acknowledge. [...]