What Do You Think about 'Think Tanks' Like PNAC?

[Exarch]

or other similar neo-conservative (or simply convervative) think tanks that promote the idea of american supremacy and hegemony in the world (often at the expense of other nations)?

here's an eg

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next

source: http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

i dont see why captain jin should bleed just so people can call this century the 'american century'.

Think tanks like PNAC/heritage foundation/rand corp; valid contributors to american policy? or jsut plain chickenhawks/armchair generals?

[Gelgoog]

if its a privately funded organization then free speech applies so who cares?

[Exarch]

if its a privately funded organization then free speech applies so who cares?

except this isnt free speech when they actively influence elected officials into following their doctrine.

[Gelgoog]

except this isnt free speech when they actively influence elected officials into following their doctrine.

and this is different from the thousands of lobby groups how?

[Da Skinna]

and this is different from the thousands of lobby groups how?

Because it is.

These groups are partisan like no other lobby groups. They aim to change policies that best affect THEM under the guise and pretense of the American people.

We also see politicians using them as sources for their own paths of corruption.

The point is that these groups are catering to a very small portion of the American people, something like a racket.

[Exarch]

Because it is.

These groups are partisan like no other lobby groups. They aim to change policies that best affect THEM under the guise and pretense of the American people.

We also see politicians using them as sources for their own paths of corruption.

The point is that these groups are catering to a very small portion of the American people, something like a racket.

excellent point, well put and +rep if i could

there are close links between certain such 'brain tanks' and the military-industrial complex.
cheney, a member of PANAC used to lead halliburton for eg

[Sven788]

To be honest those goals don't look that bad.
Only the defense spending is already so high....

[Exarch]

To be honest those goals don't look that bad.
Only the defense spending is already so high....

they may sound noble but they're anything but.
too many of these think tanks are highly militaristic such as the rand corp. and involve policies pertaiing to war upon x country. little wonder the united states has had a war every 2 decades or so.
as george carlin said, we americans are 'addicted to war'

Critics such as Ralph Nader have suggested that, because of the private nature of the funding of some think tanks, their results are biased to a varying degree. Some argue that members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results which ensure the continued flow of funds from private donors.
Some critics[who?] go further to assert think tanks are little more than propaganda tools for promoting the ideological arguments of whatever group established them. They charge that most think tanks, which are usually headquartered in state or national seats of government, exist merely for large-scale lobbying to form opinion in favor of special private interests. They give examples such as organizations calling themselves think tanks having hosted lunches for politicians to present research that critics claim is merely in the political interest of major global interests such as Microsoft, but that the connections to these interests are never disclosed. They charge, as another example, that the RAND Corporation issues research reports on national missile defense that accelerate investment into the very military products being produced by the military manufacturers who control RAND. Critics[who?] assert that the status of most think-tanks as non-profit and tax exempt makes them an even more efficient tool to put special interest money to work. The Discovery Institute has generated a great deal of controversy by injecting the controversial concept of intelligent design into public debate.[4][5][6]
In some cases, corporate interests have found it useful to create "think tanks" that are thinly disguised vehicles for corporate propaganda. For example, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was formed in the mid 1990s to dispute research finding a link between second-hand smoke and cancer.[7] According to an internal memo from Philip Morris, "the credibility of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) alone. It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time." [8]

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank#Criticism

[Pickle_mole]

is money that is legally and morally attained, that is spent on ads and the like a form of free speech? i believe so.

[Da Skinna]

According to an internal memo from Philip Morris, "the credibility of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) alone. It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all the EPA's enemies against it at one time." [8]

That's scary right there. The organization of enemies of the public good.

[Viking Prince]

or other similar neo-conservative (or simply convervative) think tanks that promote the idea of american supremacy and hegemony in the world (often at the expense of other nations)?

here's an eg


source: http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

i dont see why captain jin should bleed just so people can call this century the 'american century'.

Think tanks like PNAC/heritage foundation/rand corp; valid contributors to american policy? or jsut plain chickenhawks/armchair generals?

First, I agree that all governments should take greater care before pulling the sword from the scabbard. And military action, when performed, should never be euphemistically termed an 'American Century'.

That said, the time from 1900 to today is clearly an American Century, but not due to military action. The increase in human wealth, reduction in disease rates, improvements in agriculture, etc. are certainly a reflection on the progress made within the USA over the century. This does not exclude other nations from their accomplishments, but the USA has dominated the economic and technological events.

Now on to the PNAC/heritage foundation/rand corp; valid contributors to american policy? or jsut plain chickenhawks/armchair generals?

They are valid contributors to the debate on American policy. We elect our politicians to make the hard decisions that simply cannot be made in a purely democratic fashion in a giant nationwide town hall meeting that never would end. The think-tanks contribute to the debate, but do not make the decisions.

btw --I dislike the politically tinged phrases such as chickenhawk and armchair general. What you choose to use is, of course, your decision. The phrases always seem to imply that one cannot lead a civilian government or advocate military action unless one has already served in the military. The entire premise of our government is that the civilians make the decisions and the military follows lawful civilian orders. Both of these political phrases turn this concept of civilian control on its head. The irony is that many using the phrase have never even served in the military.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Am I the only one that finds the phrase 'Think Tank' hilarious??

[Beanbee]

What do I think? I want to be employed by one so I can spout my own opinnion all day and have the press report it as somehow important.

[Odovacar]

Am I the only one that finds the phrase 'Think Tank' hilarious??

its hilarious. And decades old. A rather deraogatory name for intellectuals.
However these "intellectuals" doesnt deserve better.
USA cant carry on such an ambitios policy like this.

[Sphere]

The friction here is that these organizations operate outside of the lobbying rules that govern the rest of Washington. Lobbyist have to register with the government and submit bi-annual reports on what they are doing. Likewise politicians have to disclose were they are getting all their campaign money.

However, these think-tanks are non-profits that do not claim to lobby. They are asssumed to be private organizations that get together and have discussions on certain topics. What has happened though is that many take large donations from corporations, (donations not limited by law), and use that money to set up camp in Washington. They commision studies and reports that may support their donors financial interests (e.g Halliburton and PNAC).

Also, politicians are not completely detached from these organizations. President Bush just recently was interviewed at a AEI gathering(fairly tame group). But other lower key politicians frequent panel type discussions.

This creates a questionable proximity between politicians and industry lobbyists that cannot be entirely ignored. These groups certainly cannot give political contributions, but they can effectively signal corporate interests and bring together politicians and lobbyists.

[cottontail]

What do these guys who think we should increase the defense budget think we are fighting? The martians?



If anything, we should cut some of the defense budget. Why the heck do we need a military that takes up almost half of the world's military budget? That is why I believe that these think tanks ( love the phrase though) are either ignorant or insane.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

What do these guys who think we should increase the defense budget think we are fighting? The martians?



If anything, we should cut some of the defense budget. Why the heck do we need a military that takes up almost half of the world's military budget? That is why I believe that these think tanks ( love the phrase though) are either ignorant or insane.

bloody hell, what are you guys buying with that?

[Sphere]

That graph is slightly misleading, the $711 Billion figure includes the special appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. The strict budget number is less than 500 Billion IIRC. Still that puts us about double what Europe spends on the military per year, even though our populations are roughly equal.

edit: Looked into it further, the US is going to break 500 Billion in FY 2009. The extra 200 billion cited in the graph is 170 Billion to Iraq/Afghanistan and 30 million to Veterans Affairs and about 8 billion tossed in from the Department of Energy budget for nuclear weapons research.

[Da Skinna]

Imagine spending that money on proper education for the world's poor, agriculture, and food...

[Ardruire Iacób]

Imagine spending that money on proper education for the world's poor, agriculture, and food...

But it is; education in American superiority, destruction of infrastructure by American weapons, and food for all the hungry American troops.