Robert Kagan? The prize you refer to is really a booby prize. He should be laughed at, with his naive views on the plausible outcomes of the exercise of US military power in the 21st century. Iraq war, anyone?

Instead, he gets praised by blogs like this and is feted on the DC dinner party circuit. I really don't know how or why you would describe this as anything other than as a mysteriously dumb move for Brookings - they are now becoming more intellectually irrelevant than ever. Well, at least this post didn't talk about what a wonderful guy he is.

Why won't' anybody in FP circles discuss Israeli or Chinese spies in America? Especially, Israeli spies at State Dept and Pentagon? Are they afraid of Israeli lobby's reach and influence?

Kagan will feel right at home. Saban is as guilty as those ten Russian spies for serving as agents of a foreign government. But nobody seems to mind, especially the FBI.

Steve wrote this in 2005:

Institutional Suicide at Brookings: Carlos Pasqual Selected by Strobe Talbott to Succeed Jim
Steinberg as Brookings Foreign Policy Czar

"...For various reasons, Brookings was missing in action during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and early 2003, and Brookings being AWOL contributed, in my view, to the pathetic, inchoate response by Democrats to Bush's foreign policy vision...

Strobe Talbott should have selected Ivo Daalder in my view because he's the foreign policy guy with vision, publications, and a tenacity to be the kind of warrior our current foreign policy debates need. I don't agree with Daalder on everything -- but do in a significant number of areas.

But my objection is not based on whether I agree with Daalder or not, it's based on my view that Talbott has selected a candidate who will keep Brookings AWOL -- rather than get it deeply enmeshed in the foreign policy scramble that is going on..."

Here's more on now Ambassador to Mexico Pascual:

In a fascinating report for The Nation magazine, titled “The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” Naomi Klein describes such long-projected “rebuilding” schemes as follows:

“Last summer, in the lull of the August media doze, the Bush Administration's doctrine of preventive war took a major leap forward. On August 5, 2004, the White House created the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, headed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual. Its mandate is to draw up elaborate ‘post-conflict’ plans for up to twenty-five countries that are not, as of yet, in conflict. According to Pascual, it will also be able to coordinate three full-scale reconstruction operations in different countries ‘at the same time,’ each lasting ‘five to seven years.’”

Here we get a glimpse of the real reasons or forces behind the Bush administration’s preemptive wars. As Klein puts it, “a government devoted to perpetual pre-emptive deconstruction now has a standing office of perpetual pre-emptive reconstruction.” Klein also documents how (through Pascual’s office) contractors drew “reconstruction” plans in close collaboration with various government agencies and how, at times, contracts were actually pre-approved and paper work completed long before an actual military strike:

In close cooperation with the National Intelligence Council, Pascual's office keeps ‘high risk’ countries on a ‘watch list’ and assembles rapid-response teams ready to engage in prewar planning and to ‘mobilize and deploy quickly’ after a conflict has gone down. The teams are made up of private companies, nongovernmental organizations and members of think tanks – some, Pascual told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in October, will have ‘pre-completed’ contracts to rebuild countries that are not yet broken. Doing this paperwork in advance could ‘cut off three to six months in your response time.’”

The following was written in 2008:

"Neoconservative internationalists, such as Robert Kagan, are reaching out to liberal internationalists, such as Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution: the two recently authored an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the establishment of such a league to fulfill ‘the responsibility to protect.’ Daalder is an influential advisor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, while Kagan, Newsweek noted, is ‘McCain’s foreign policy guru.’"

To me it is amusing that CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.

In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush got his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard.

In hiring Robert Kagan, it may well be that Brookings does win the prize... for bagging one of the country's most venomous snakes.

Amazing. These pieces of shit are lauded like this?

What a resume this monster has. Membership in the PNAC, the FPI, and a list of cohorts that would make a great cast of characters in a movie about the march to nuclear holocaust and global eradication of Muslims.

When one observes the celebration that accompanies the rise to power and prestige these fuckin' abominations achieve, one cannot help but ponder how we have managed to stray so far from sanity. We are a nation and a people run amok, with not a shred of the Founding Father's dreams and designs surviving our fall.

Yes, it is only a matter of years... or maybe centuries, but we WILL convince those enemies that they are going to lose. We are the
US friggin' A; don't they realize that?

"General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years.

The four-star general said the U.S. military moved beyond conventional warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan "long ago" and that the focus is now on the people. Casey highlighted job, education and economic growth as essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked if enemies of the U.S. have to be a part of the reconciliation process for it to be considered a success, Casey said that is a "matter of debate," but that enemies have to be convinced they will lose.

The general's comments were made at a session moderated by the New York Times' David Sanger at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was in the audience and his wife Meryl Chertoff, the Institute's Co-Director of Justice and Society Programs, introduced Casey."

Robert and his fellow neocons must be damaging their fat hands with all those high fives!

1) Did Marty Indyk and Kenneth Pollack ever find those nukes of Saddam Hussein's? The families of 4500+ dead American soldiers would like to know.

See http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/1219iraq_indyk.aspx

and also Kenneth Pollack's arguments for Saddam's nukes in his 2002 book "The Threatening Storm".

Petraeus is a neocon favorite with the likes of Kagan (and Russian born Max Boot as evidenced by the following that has appeared widely on the Web this past week but has received no coverage in the US mainstream media):

Phil Weiss was on Antiwar Radio talking about Max Boot/Petraeus scheming:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/10/philip-weiss-8/

Here is the original post by Phil Weiss about the Petraeus/Max Boot scheming:

Petraeus emails show general scheming with journalist to get out pro-Israel storyline (see the comments section at the bottom of the following URL as well):

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/petraeus-fed-his-pro-israel-bona-fides-to-a-neocon-writer-including-pathetic-recitation-of-meeting-wiesel.html

"Phil Weiss was on Antiwar Radio talking about Max Boot/Petraeus scheming...."

When the Los Angeles Times dumped Robert Scheer, and took in the drooling jackass Max Boot, they lost my subscription and any claim they might have had on credibility or a lack of bias.

Who are you kidding? Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, serious intellectuals?

Con-men posing as intellectuals is more like it. The term neocon men describes them perfectly.

Good job Brookings! Well on its way to claiming the highest density of psychopaths per square foot.

No wonder it's called the Brookings Institution.

"General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

March 8, 2005:
In a rare appearance in Washington, General Casey offered an optimistic but cautious assessment of the situation in Iraq, where he commands more than 140 thousand U.S. and coalition troops. "We're actually a little further along than I thought we would be at this point."

The general said the Iraqi insurgency is still capable of launching devastating attacks, but he says it is weaker than it was a few months ago thanks to continuing offensive operations by his troops and the new Iraqi army and police.

"In general terms, they are falling off and not effective. We took a look at the election attacks, because we said, 'the elections ought to tell us something about the strength of the enemy.' Well, we saw about 300 attacks (and) maybe 70-percent of those were ineffective."

June 27, 2005:
WASHINGTON - The momentum in Iraq has swung toward democracy and against terror, the top American commander in Iraq said today.

The insurgents are "not nearly as capable" as they want people to think, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" program today. In fact, he said, insurgents represent "one tenth of one percent of the Iraqi population."

September 30, 2005:
During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were necessary to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force." A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.

GROUP THINK.

The Conspiracy grows to monstrous proportions. Et tu, Brookings?

But you know your audience.

Naomi Klein is a one-person think tank of the first order.

Regarding "enemies of the United States who must be convinced that they will lose," they have a dogged tendency not to (cf. Viet Nam, which has proved a decent member of the world community since successfully driving the occupiers - first the French and then the Americans - out). At least the US, via the efforts of Kerry and McCain, had the good sense to establish normal relations with the country we had previously wrought havoc and inflicted serious ecodestruction on. Americans would not be so forgiving as the Viet Namese are.

The USA contracts out many of its important functions -- war training & support, intelligence, prisons, etc. -- why not its thinking, also?

Do other countries have this war/think-tank nexus? To ask the question is to answer it.

Perhaps it would be better if we didn't know squat about think tanks and followed sports, thus giving attention to more honest people.

Why not contract out its war/think-tank nexus?

I would offer that it is due to an inherent mindset of the present American neo-con crowd that the ideas that originate in their think-tanks are flawless in development and presentation and only fail in application because of the incompetence of the operatives. Intellectuals reside in a place where errors are never publically acknowledged. The true test of an intellectual’s theories are performed by others, and therein lies the fatal flaw; the failings of an intellectual can be blamed on someone else. It’s never bad strategy, it’s always bad tactics.

Have you ever heard a neo-con admit to a gross error?

Why not out source US strategic thinking?

Seems to have happened already. Many of the Neocon men are notorious for the ambiguity of their loyalty to the US. The intransigent, "war is the answer" mindset seems to have been lifted directly out of Israel.

Brookings' Michael O’Hanlon has enjoyed a 20-year personal relationship with General Petraeus, extending back to graduate school. So it's no surprise that he has come out with these recent puff pieces on the Afghanistan mess.

O'Hanlon: "Petraeus a Reassuring Choice in Afghanistan -- The announcement that General David Petraeus will now be nominated to succeed McChrystal is enormously reassuring. It alleviates or eliminates virtually all of my earlier worries about what would happen if a change of command were made at this crucial moment in the war. Petraeus is of course remarkably accomplished in this kind of complex operation."

General Petraeus, news report, Oct 2009: Washington, D.C. today, U.S. commander in the Middle East and Central Asia David Petraeus discussed why, in his mind, it is unwise to draw close comparisons between Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam or assume what worked in one conflict will work in another. "I'm trying to resist the notion that what worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan," Petraeus said.

O'Hanlon: "Reasons For Hope On Afghanistan --
There are indeed weaknesses in U.S. strategy, including problems with the Afghan police and an inadequate plan to fight corruption. Gen. David Petraeus and military and civilian leaders should focus on these and other matters. But on balance, we have many assets and strengths in Afghanistan -- and better-than-even odds of leaving behind a reasonably stable place if we persevere."

Other countries aren't so hopeful. Germany aims to begin handing over security responsibilities for Afghanistan's northern provinces to local forces by 2011, amid the continued unpopularity of the mission at home. Britain is to announce that it will withdraw its 1,000 troops based in the Sangin area of Afghanistan, where the UK has lost about a third of the 311 of its soldiers killed in the war. Next month the Dutch army leaves and next year Canada is due to pull out.

The Kagan family are a collective piece of work. Despite all their academic and intellectual 'fruit salad,' has there ever been a family so myopically wrongheaded about contemporary history and foreign affairs?

I'm not sure how seriously the neocons are taken these days within the decision-making structure, however, their propaganda structure continues to prop them up to the public as experts, despite a horrific track record--with disastrous results for the US as a whole.

To paraphrase the right-wing snuff queen, 'How's that 'Project For A New American Century' thingie workin' out for ya?'

Here is a first-person reportage referencing the Kagans and the neocon think tank apparatus:

by Adam L. Silverman

June 2010

"When I was deployed in Iraq the Kagans and General Keane came through a part of our OE for a quick tour. It was a comparatively stable and secure area. I found out about it a couple of days after the event when reading the battalion commander's weekly summary. This coincided with the WSJ op-ed that the three authored about how Iraq was well on its way to becoming a peaceful, successful democracy and how the Surge was working and showing real benefits all because of what they had observed at their visit. I forwarded the op-ed to the battalion commander and his XO, who were both amused to see what their guests had written. Certainly their portion of the OE was largely stable, but to use it as an indicator for all of Iraq was a bit much. The XO then asked me what I knew of the Kagans. So I informed him that Dr. Mr. Kagan is the AEI Freedom scholar and their expert on Iraq and Iraq, though by training he's a historian, specializing, if I recall correctly the Soviet Union, Russia, and the Cold War (I've seen reporting indicating that these were the subjects that he taught on at West Point, as well as the history of military art). I explained that Dr. Mrs Kagan runs the Institute for the Study of War, which is a neo-Conservative oriented organization that promotes the use of the military to solve any and all of America's problems. I also informed him that while I was completing my pre-deployment training I found the Operation Iraqi Freedom 2008 Order of Battle into and out of Iraq posted on the Institute's website, which was an operational security breach. It had been posted by an intern who was identified as an ROTC cadet. I turned this into the security officer we dealt with, but don't know if anything came of it.

Similarly I caught the Long War Journal, which appears to be tied to Frank Gaffney and Cliff May's Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, and a similar outfit to the Institute for the Study of War, also posting classified information. About 1/2 way through my tour in Iraq I was looking for something using an open source search on the unclassified side. One of the links that came up was to a Long War Journal piece that had a jpeg image of a strip map of Baghdad, which I recognized. I recognized it because I had seen it a couple of weeks before while catching up on the intelligence summaries - it was a hand drawn map, made by an intel source, of anti-Iraqi forces infil and exfil routes for Baghdad! And off again I went to the security officer - this time my BCT's, who took it so seriously he got mad at me for forwarding him the link to the article from my unclassified email, because the article was on the unclassified side!

Unfortunately, and ultimately, I don't think any of this made any difference. None of these folks seem to have been stopped from having access or getting war zone junkets or cheerleading. Its all well and good to have real forums and discussions that deal with these topics, like the one we participated in at NYU last year and that happen here all the time. Its quite another thing to do one sided presentations that are basically marketing and sales.

The real question I have for those who were very supportive of the surge like efforts in Afghanistan, but have begun to argue that they won't work for a variety of reasons and who advised on those decision making processes, is: when you all were on the advisory committee helping GEN McChrystal develop his courses of actions and ways ahead did you tell him this or are you now preparing the ground to throw him under the bus to protect your own reputations and your brand(s) such as COIN, irregular warfare, etc? I have no problem with outside experts being consulted, either formally or informally (full disclosure: I've done some informal/unpaid advising for some folks in both Iraq and Afghanistan as follow ups to work I did for them when I was working with HTS), but the person providing the advise and expertise has special responsibility to tell those consulting him what they need to know; not what they want to know or what they want to hear. The unfortunate reality is that many of these experts and consultants seem to tell those they're interacting with what they want to hear in order to preserve future access, which is, of course, the profitable way of doing things."

Finally, General Michael Flynn writes, "In recent years there has been a tendency for like-minded think tanks and military officers to jointly pursue policy objectives, sometimes in direct conflict with the stated preferences of the president and his advisers. According to some observers, this trend raises questions about the appropriate role of both military officers, who are part of a chain of command, and think tanks, which present themselves as "non-partisan" appraisers of public policy."

In a excellent two part article, Flynn elaborates on this subject:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51859

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51877

via Susan's post -- yeah it's worrying that the neo-con's plan hasn't died and is still very much out there. Now being pushed by our own so called "liberal internationalists." Maybe it was the economy that sidelined the timetable -- but it seems they are back on track now. Note, Dennis Ross signed two PNAC open letters.

"..."General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Blast from the past -- From Amy Goodman's Democracy Now [March 02, 2007]:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Www.stopiranwar.com.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq—the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you’re too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don’t know." He said, "I guess they don’t know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs"—meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office—"today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don’t show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!"

AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With Saban -- he's still out there... During the Virginia Governors race the guy put gobs of his own money into Clinton's man: Terry MCAuliffe. I'm sure he's also active in the 2010 election -- supporting via his network of friends and family only the most uber zionist democrats.

http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_donors/2577

"During the Virginia Governors race the guy put gobs of his own money into Clinton's man: Terry MCAuliffe."

This is supposed to be evidence of Saban's perfidy? Supporting a moderate Democrat who was a supporter and key political ally of the Clintons'? (And someone who, by the way, actually stood a chance of winning the Virginia Governor's race, as opposed to the hapless "progressive" who was made mincemeat of by the radical religious conservative who now governs the state, and whose name I've already forgotten.)

Sean Paul Kelly at the Agonist writes:
(http://agonist.org)

If you aren't reading Mondoweiss you are doing yourself a disservice. It is probably the single best anti-dote to the MSM's pro-Israeli propaganda out there. http://mondoweiss.net

At Mondoweiss, Phillip Weiss writes:

"...please watch the video of a Palestinian woman who lives in central Hebron and whose door has been welded shut by rightwing Zionists with the support of the Israeli gov't. It is shocking to watch her hunkering down ladders to leave her house, it is happening right here and now without a peep from the U.S. gov't, and yes she reminds me of my grandmother, or images of Jews in central Europe."

Terry McAuliffe was a Saban/corporate/zionist carpetbagger just like Clinton was in NY. McAuliffe was likely to win -- my eye.

The real progressive in the race didn't have a chance because the party machine had the knives out before the race even started. The party is run/controlled by moderate 'republicans' which is why we in the 'Democratic Party' keep losing.

The Democratic Party's values and platform are being destroyed ~ candidate by candidate ~ Our choice (chosen by the party): turns out to be the lesser of two evils. A DINO that lies through his/her teeth to get in, and once in turns on those values/platforms/planks in a second. The Democratic Party doesn't even try to fight for little people anymore -- the messaging and marketing of the so-called neo-Democratic Party is now in the hands of people like Mark Penn -- and when those traditional values try to rise from the ashes the so called power brokers in the party gleefully stamp them out.

--DSCC: Unions, Netroots are “Special Interests in Washington”
http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/06/10/dscc-unions-are-special-interests-in-washington/

Susan mentioned above in passing that the Kagans hung around with General Jack Keane.

Keane sits on the board of directors of MetLife, General Dynamics and AlliedBarton. John M. Keane, age 66, is the co-founder and Senior Managing Director of Keane Advisors, LLC, a private equity investment and consulting firm, President of GSI, LLC, an independent consulting firm, Senior Advisor to Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts and Co., a private equity firm specializing in management buyouts, and an Advisor to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of URS Corporation, a global engineering design firm.

URS Corporation -- that rings a bell. (San Francisco, August 11, 2008) -- URS Corporation (NYSE: URS) today announced that the Company is one of eleven firms that has been selected for an award of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract by the Department of Defense's (DoD) Contract Field Team (CFT) program to provide depot and organizational level inspection, maintenance, modification and repair at operational government locations worldwide. The firms would manage a scope of work with a maximum value of approximately $10.2 billion over seven years. Ten . billion . dollars.

General Keane served in the U.S. Army for 37 years. He was Vice Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer of the Army from 1999 until his retirement in October 2003. He is a Director of General Dynamics Corporation, the fifth largest defense contractor in the world, with $30b annually in DOD business. He also is a military contributor and analyst with ABC News and is a member of the United States Department of Defense Policy Board.

Keane is a close friend and mentor to Gen. Petraeus, and was a member of "Team Kagan" in preparing the intellectual ground work that led to the "surge" in Iraq. Keane is a board member of Kim Kagan's Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a "non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organisation [that] advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education."

In early May, General David Petraeus, now Commander in Afghansistan, was awarded the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI's) Irving Kristol Award, which is given to individuals who have "made exceptional intellectual or practical contributions to improved government policy, social welfare or political understanding".

During his acceptance speech, titled "The Surge of Ideas", Petraeus lauded a number of neo-conservative scholars associated with AEI, in particular "Team Kagan", for their work in preparing the intellectual groundwork that led to the troop "surge" in Iraq.

Three months earlier, in January, Petraeus offered a very similar speech about the "surge of ideas" during a talk organized by Kim Kagan's Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a "non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization [that] advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis and innovative education."

Michael Flynn, in atimes: Petraeus knew that the [George W] Bush administration's credibility was low, that it was going to have trouble selling the surge," said Finel in an interview, so he hand-picked a number of civilians who he knew were behind this policy and helped turn them into media "experts". This effort sidelined critics of the surge, says Finel, who were viewed as "outsiders, people without access, and thus not to be believed".

"Just as importantly, say writers like Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen, the successful effort to promote the Iraq surge appears to have had an impact on Petraeus, who realized the persuasive power of getting "influence makers" to present situations on the ground "from the command's perspective"."///

***
So we see how the generals use the think tanks to push their war agendas and people like General Keane transition between both worlds (military and think-tank) and make a bundle off the profits of the ensuing wars.

Their PTSD rate is quite low, I imagine.

. . ."painfully flamboyant" about using his money to try and influence the DC establishment through think tanks and other vehicles to secure Israel-first, Israel-defending policies out of Washington.

And the phrase dual loyalty is an anti-semitic slur that must nevr be repeated because . . .

Don writes: So we see how the generals use the think tanks to push their war agendas...

I think the generals' uses are not limited to pushing non winnable wars. Call me cynical (and I am), but each time I see Admiral Thad Allen, U.S. Coast Guard, National Incident Commander on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on my tv "reporting" on the BP oil disaster, I look at him and think, "Who's your daddy?"

If his "reports" could be corroborated by independent sources, I would feel that I was getting accurate information.

As it is, I believe virtually nothing that he says.

Wow... when does the madness end -- how did these neocons get so much power.

--Scott Horton Interviews Jeff Huber
Scott Horton, July 10, 2010

Jeff Huber, Antiwar.com regular and author of Bathtub Admirals, discusses the diminishing likelihood of war with Iran or success in Afghanistan, the crazy Kagan-O’Hanlon plan to invade Pakistan and seize their nukes and why it would be completely unnecessary anyway.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/07/10/jeff-huber-6/

Hmmm... a question for those who are 'think-tank' experts -- so what's the significance, influence, even connection between say the 'Brookings Institute' and the 'Center for a New American Security'?

Noting many members of the CNAS actually turned up in Obama's administration? How many from the Brookings Institute?

-- Obama Dips Into Think Tank for Talent
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688537606232319.html

h/t Justin Raimondo
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/12/the-new-neocons/

Sand: how did these neocons get so much power

The neocons aren't much different from neolibs. Whatever one calls them, they serve an essential roll in the overall scheme by providing a doctrinal basis for American political/military imperialism, complete with the impressive imprimatur of academia.

Recently, as illustrated above, they have been encouraged to go beyond the background and step out into the limelight where, by writing articles and publishing papers, they actually help in the marketing of the desired political/military maneuvers that the generals have proposed, while sidelining critics who don't have access to the big players and therefore can't be believed.

There are other players, too, including the bought-and-paid-for congress-critters who brag about the military dollars they bring in to their districts, the beltway bandits of retired congressmen and generals who lobby them and profit big time from their former relationships, the corporations who rake in large profits, and the civilian Americans who live and work in the communities and plants sustained by the military largess and vote for the continuation of the corrupt system.

DB: I understand what you're saying.

I guess I'm just hoping that a little sanity can break through. We only have one planet.

The Brookings Institution and the New America Foundation actually have some things in common. For example, Liaquat Ahamed serves on the Board of Trustees of both think tanks and Bernie Schwartz (formerly of Loral Space Sciences) donated $ 1 million to both organizations. Other funders that they have in common include: Microsoft, the Smith Richardson Foundation, Walmart, McKinsey & Company, and Citigroup.

Brookings has never been as progressive as some people give it credit for; over the years a major supporter has been the reactionary John M. Olin Foundation and its staff has never been particularly far to the left. Unless I'm mistaken, Richard Haass ran the foreign policy shop at Brookings before Martin Indyk did.

Nevertheless, Brookings is the "think tank" of the Democratic Party; its relationship to the Democrats is what the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation is to the Republicans.

Kagan's appointment may or may not inspire Haim Saban to make another gift but this is clearly a precursor to an increasingly hawkish foreign policy on the part of the Democrats. With neoconservative thinkers assuming an increasingly important role at Brookings and with the "fellow travelers" who surround them, the foreign policy advice that Democrats rely on will be becoming increasingly hawkish. Diane Feinstein and her multi-millionaire husband, Richard Blum, are also very large Brookings donors and of course she's the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

With Kagan at Brookings, Eliot Abrams at CFR and Paul Wolfowitz at the American Enterprise Institute, Irving Kristol, must be looking down with a big grin on his face.

As long as we're on the subject, Steve decided to comment on Haim Saban's painful flamboyance about "using his money to try and influence the DC establishment through think tanks and other vehicles..."

Maybe Steve would like to tell us whether he thinks George Soros is "painfully flamboyant." Soros hasn't exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to using his money and fame to try and influence the D.C. establishment. Of course Soros' "Open Society Institute" has been one of the most important donors to the New America Foundation.

So Steve, why don't you tell us what exactly it is about Saban's style that is more objectionable than the style of his fellow billionaire, George Soros?

WigWag, that was a good catch.

Why was it good, or even relevant?

Your point Wigwag? Because you also have STEVE RATTNER who as well as being in the same Israel camp as Haim Saban has also "...been one of the most important donors to the New America Foundation..."?

www.newamerica.net/about/funding

--Hillary Bundlers to Pelosi: Back Off
http://www.observer.com/2008/hillary-bundlers-pelosi-back

"...The fund-raisers note, IN A PASSIVELY MENACING WAY, that they are “strong supporters” of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, before urging Pelosi to “clarify [her] position on superdelegates and reflect … a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.”

The letter is signed by Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricoff, JB PRIZKER, Amy Rao, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, HAIM SABAN, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley Shuman, Jay and Tracy Snyder and MAUREEN WHITE AND STEVE RATTNER..."

Also, Rattner was a 'LIEBERCRAT' -- a $$$ backer of Liebercrat over the Democratic grassroots candidate Ned Lamont.

--Liebercrats
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4803

Wonder if Matt Stoller is still with Grayson?

Although I don't know if Rattner is still giving $$$ to the 'New America Foundation' -- as I think he's in a spot of bother at the moment.

--SEC Is Said to Seek to Bar Wall St. Financier
Wednesday, 2 Jun 2010
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37467464/SEC_Is_Said_to_Seek_to_Bar_Wall_St_Financier

WigWag: Let's let Saban and Soros, in their own words, tell us what they use their money and power to influence:

Here's Saban:
“I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

Here's Soros:

America must face up to the dangers of derivatives
George Soros | Financial Times | April 22, 2010

The US Security and Exchange Commission’s civil suit against Goldman Sachs will be vigorously contested by the defendant. It is interesting to speculate which side will win; but we will not know the result for months. Irrespective of the eventual outcome, however, the case has far-reaching

Reforming a broken mortgage system
George Soros | www.politico.com | March 25, 2010

Treasury Secretary Geithner testified Tuesday on a long-term plan to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) now in limbo. But we don’t have to wait for years to reform the mortgage system -- there’s a better approach that could be introduced right

The euro will face bigger tests than Greece
George Soros | Financial Times | February 22, 2010

Otmar Issing, one of the fathers of the euro, correctly states the principle on which the single currency was founded. As he wrote in the FT last week, the euro was meant to be a monetary union but not a political one. Participating states established a common central bank but refused to surrender

Do not ignore the need for financial reform
George Soros | Financial Times | October 25, 2009

The philosophy that has helped me both in making money as a hedge fund manager and in spending it as a policy oriented philanthropist is not about money but about the complicated relationship between thinking and reality. The crash of 2008 has convinced me that it provides a valuable insight into

The three steps to financial reform
George Soros | Financial Times | June 16, 2009

The Obama administration is expected today to propose a reorganisation of the way we regulate financial markets. I am not an advocate of too much regulation. Having gone too far in deregulating - which contributed to the current crisis - we must resist the temptation to go too far in the opposite direction. While markets are imperfect, regulators are even more so. Not only are they human, they are also bureaucratic and subject to political influences, therefore regulations should be kept to a minimum.

One Way to Stop Bear Raids
George Soros | The Wall Street Journal | March 23, 2009

In all the uproar over AIG, the most important lesson has been ignored. AIG failed because it sold large amounts of credit default swaps (CDS) without properly offsetting or covering their positions

Peripheral care should be the central concern
George Soros | The Financial Times | March 22, 2009

The forthcoming Group of 20 meeting is a make-or-break event. Unless it comes up with practical measures to support the less developed countries, which are even more vulnerable than the developed ones, markets are going to suffer another sinking spell just as they did last month when Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, failed to produce practical measures to recapitalise the US banking system.

The right and wrong way to bail out the banks
George Soros | The Financial Times | January 22, 2009

According to reports in Washington, the Obama administration may be close to devoting as much as $100bn of the second tranche of the troubled asset relief programme funds to creating an "aggregator bank" that would remove toxic securities from the balance sheets of banks.

The worst market crisis in 60 years
George Soros | The Financial Times | December 15, 2008

The current financial crisis was precipitated by a bubble in the US housing market. In some ways it resembles other crises that have occurred since the end of the second world war at intervals ranging from four to 10 years.

The Crisis & What To Do About It.
George Soros | The New Paradigm for Financial Markets | November 06, 2008

The salient feature of the current financial crisis is that it was not caused by some external shock like OPEC raising the price of oil or a particular country or financial institution defaulting. The crisis was generated by the financial system itself. This fact-that the defect was inherent in the system -contradicts the prevailing theory, which holds that financial markets tend toward equilibrium and that deviations from the equilibrium either occur in a random manner or are caused by some sudden external event to which markets have difficulty adjusting.

America must lead a rescue of emerging economies
George Soros | The Financial Times | October 28, 2008

The global financial system as it is currently constituted is characterised by a pernicious asymmetry. The financial authorities of the developed countries are in charge and they will do whatever it takes to prevent the system from collapsing.

How to capitalise the banks and save finance
George Soros | The Financial Times | October 12, 2008

Now that Hank Paulson has recognised that the troubled asset relief programme is best used to recapitalise the banking system, it is important to spell out exactly how it should be done.
Denmark Offers a Model Mortgage Market: There is a safe way to securitize home loans.

The New Paradigm for Financial Markets |George Soros October 10, 2008

The American system of mortgage financing is broken and needs a total overhaul. Until there is a realistic prospect of stabilizing housing prices, the value of mortgage-related securities will erode and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's efforts will come to naught.

Recapitalise the banking system
George Soros | The Financial Times | October 02, 2008

The emergency legislation before Congress was ill-conceived - or, more accurately, not conceived at all. As Congress tried to improve what Treasury requested, an amalgam plan has emerged that consists of Treasury's original troubled asset relief programme and a quite different capital infusion programme in which the government invests in and stabilises weakened banks and profits from the economy's eventual improvement.
Paulson cannot be allowed a blank cheque

George Soros | The Financial Times | September 24, 2008

Hank Paulson's $700bn rescue package has run into difficulty on Capitol Hill. Rightly so: it was ill-conceived. Congress would be abdicating its responsibility if it gave the Treasury secretary a blank cheque.

The Perilous Price of Oil
George Soros | | August 27, 2008

All this has occurred at the same time as a world credit crisis that started with the collapse of the US housing bubble. The rising cost of oil, coming on top of the credit crisis, has slowed the world economy and reinforced the prospect of a recession in the US.

A Danish fix for the US mortgage crisis
George Soros | The Financial Times | August 11, 2008

The recent compromise struck between the Treasury and Democrats in Congress on the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors, constitutes the worst of all possible worlds. The Treasury offered a blank cheque to come to the rescue, if necessary, but the managements of both companies were kept in place.

On Israel, America and AIPAC
George Soros | The New York Review of Books | April 12, 2007

The United States and Israel seek to deal only with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hope that new elections would deny Hamas the majority it now has in the Palestinian Legislative Council. This is a hopeless strategy because Hamas has said it would boycott early elections, and even if their outcome would result in Hamas's exclusion from the government, no peace agreement would hold without Hamas's support.

Bush’s Latest Blunder
George Soros | The Financial Times | March 19, 2007

The Bush administration is again committing a blunder in the Middle East by supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognise a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.

A Self-Defeating War
George Soros | The Wall Street Journal | August 15, 2006

The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world.

Fighting Words and False Promises
George Soros | Project Syndicate | April 01, 2006

For almost five years, the "war on terror" has proved to be a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. A misleading figure of speech has been applied literally to unleash a real war on several fronts, including Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, enraging millions around the world.

Talk about overkill.

Yeah -- I was going to ask for a 'Compare and Contrast' from Wigwag -- but I guess that request is redundant now.

Touche, Susan.

And poor Wiggie can't even get back at you by insinuating the size of your penis, 'cause to the best of our knowledge, you ain't got one.

Oh well, perhaps her compatriot Marcus can chime in with some good old TWN semitic debate tactics, and concoct some sort of deviant sexual behaviour to accuse you of.

Or worse, Nadine will crawl in and bury you in bullshit.

"... and concoct some sort of deviant sexual behaviour to accuse you of."

Now that might be kinda fun!

Concoct away!

Congrats Steve on moving beyond the headline scoop and actually giving us an understanding of what this means.

Brookings is a formidable institution, but it reflects the rightward shift of US politics, of what you reported at the Aspen Festival, and of foreign policy in general.

You are doing an admirable job trying to add balance and hold off the neoconservative stomp, but it must be a lot of pressure on you.

Robert Kagan, if he's smart, should send you a thank you note for this piece.

A 'Rawstory' 'exclusive' on our ISRAEL-FIRSTER Rep. Jerry Nadler:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Top **ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT**: Afghanistan war could ‘destroy’ Obama’s presidency
By Sahil Kapur [July 12th, '10]
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0712/nadler-afghan-war-destroy-obama-presidency-democratic-congress/

"WASHINGTON – An outspoken anti-war Democrat said ongoing US military efforts in Afghanistan could deeply imperil the presidency of Barack Obama and the fortunes of the Democratic Party.

“I think that this war, if it goes on and if it escalates, has the potential to destroy this presidency and to destroy the Democratic majorities in Congress," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) told Raw Story in an interview.

The New York congressman, who has called the Afghanistan war a "fool's errand," said he has no qualms opposing Obama and Democratic leaders on this sensitive issue ahead of the midterm elections, despite the harsh climate for his party.

"When you’re dealing with war and peace you can’t think of it in those terms," he said. "People are dying. The security of our country, the honor of our country, the lives of our men and women, the lives of foreign men and women – are at stake. And that’s a lot more important, frankly, than partisan advantage."..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

** Except when it comes to Iran. All I see is these Israel-Firsters and fake Anti-War democrats wanting the focus and resources to be redirected to Iran.

Rep. Nadler ratcheting up fear on Iran -- talking about his paranoid "existential threat to ISRAEL":

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REP. NADLER: "We all the know that the prospect of an Iranian State armed with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable to the world.

It poses an existential threat to our ally Israel.

It would pose a threat of terrorism all over the Middle East under a nuclear umbrella so we wouldn't be able to oppose what Iran was doing.

It poses a threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

It poses the threat that we cannot rule out that this regime would give a nuclear weapons to a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda to use we can only guess where.

And finally some people say you know we co-existed with a nuclear Soviet Union for forty years, fifty years -- we deterred them -- deterrence works -- deterrence cannot work -- when you have a government that is religious in nature many of whose elements
are millenarian in that they believe that the final destruction of Israel be it even if it causes a nuclear war would bring on the [fifth] return of the hidden Imam more quickly.

You cannot reason with a suicide bomber, you cannot deter a suicide bomber which in essence is what parts of the Iranian government are. So we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

We also must avoid the Hobson’s choice of having a situation where the advisors come into the President and say Mr President here are your two choices 1) Do nothing and Iran will have nuclear weapons in a couple of weeks 2) Militarily attack Iran.

We don't want the Hobson’s choice we have to avoid a choice of military action or a nuclear Iran.

Bush administration was here for eight years they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a toothpick. They talked tough but stopped nothing and for eight years the centrifuges increase and increases, increased in number and went round and round and came closer and closer to a nuclear Iran.

Now we have administration that comes in with a policy of big sticks and big carrots and says first we will engage the Iranians. We will show them the advantages of avoiding a nuclear status and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against Iran if necessary. Now we've reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the Hobson’s Choice, and this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the Iranians to make them re-consider, or to make it impossible for them to develop nuclear weapons. So we must establish this now and we must pass this resolution because we do not want a Hobson’s choice of military action or a nuclear Iran, the latter of which is intolerable and first of which is something we should not ever want...

I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and I thank the gentlemen from California and the gentle lady from Florida for bringing it to the floor..."

YOUTUBE LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq5Erj1EFk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Jersey Jewish News: Iran expert: Diplomacy without the scare tactics [June '09]
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/060409/njIranExpert.html

MEIR JAVEDANFAR... Raised in Iran during the revolutionary period, Javedanfar and his family left for England, where he obtained advanced degrees in international relations. He later made aliya and founded the Israel-based think tank and consulting firm MEEPAS.

He is the coauthor of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and The State of Iran, the first book by independent analysts on the life of Iran’s president.

[snip]

NJJN: What are Israel’s options in dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran?

MJ: I think Israel would be able to survive and to thrive, although it will be in a more tense atmosphere. The Iranian leadership is not suicidal [nor are] the people who control the nuclear program…. They know, as [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton said, ‘They will be obliterated.’

The scaremongering that says a nuclear Iran should be the end of Israel should stop. It’s damaging to Israel and it boosts the extremists in Iran. It makes them look far stronger than they are.

Thank you, Sand. As a native Floridian of 68 years, sand is special to me, and your posts are as well.

David, er thanks.