Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

In Bed with the Generals; Profiles on Fred Kagan, Institute for Study of War, Blackwater, and more

Print Friendly

FEATURED ARTICLE

“The Surge of Ideas”

By Michael Flynn

In recent years, there has been a growing tendency for think tanks and military brass to jointly pursue policy objectives, some of which are opposed by the public or the White House—take, for example, the campaigns to build support for the troop “surges” in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This trend, say critics, raises important questions about the appropriate role of the military in promoting particular policies and whether there is enough transparency and accountability in the work of policy groups. Should military brass be more circumspect in how they influence public debates? At what point do “non-partisan” wonks cease being non-partisan? And, just as importantly, will there be a new joint campaign aimed at pressuring the Obama administration to delay troop withdrawal from Afghanistan? Read full article.

 

FEATURED PROFILES

 

Institute for the Study of War
Although it calls itself a “non-partisan” think tank, ISW has repeatedly demonstrated its partisan preferences for longer and bigger wars.

Michael O’Hanlon
O’Hanlon, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has a knack for getting invited on military-sponsored tours of war zones and then promoting the views of the generals in op-eds for major newspapers.

Frederick Kagan
In a recently published book, Kagan, a neoconservative writer at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that the United States must remain committed to fighting “Long Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blackwater (Xe)
The controversial U.S. security contractor, Xe Services—formerly Blackwater—was recently put up for sale by it’s founder, Erik Prince.

Norman Augustine
A former Lockheed Martin CEO and board member at the Center for a New American Security, Augustine recently led a defense acquisitions task force organized by Business Executives for National Security, a group that aims to help government do national security “faster,” “better,” and “cheaper.”

 

ALSO NEW ON RIGHT WEB

 

Bad News from Afghanistan
Senior military officials are conceding privately that their much-touted counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is not working out as planned despite the “surge” of some 20,000 additional U.S. troops over the past six months.  

Neo-Conservatives Lead Charge against Turkey 
A familiar clutch of neo-conservative hawks is going on the offensive against who they see as the Gaza flotilla’s chief defender, Turkey.

AFGHANISTAN: Shades of Iraq in 2006? 
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, confronts the specter of a collapse of U.S. political support for the war in Afghanistan in coming months comparable to the one that occurred in the Iraq War in late 2006.

Draft U.N. Treaty Targets Security Firms in War Zones 
A UN working group is leading efforts to draft a new global treaty aimed at reining in human rights abuses committed by private security firms employed in war zones.

The Trillion-Dollar Question 
The Obama administration wants to cut several outdated defense items not so that it can balance the budget or expand healthcare, but in order to boost the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Doubts Grow Over Israel’s Value as U.S. Ally 
Doubts about Israel’s value to the United States have recently been expressed by a diverse group of people, including the head of Israel’s foreign-intelligence agency, the Mossad, and leading centrist analysts in Washington.

“Israel Lobby” Mobilizes, Threatens 
The U.S. “Israel Lobby” has pulled out all the stops in its efforts to defend Israel’s attack on the Palestine aid flotilla.

 

LETTERS

Right Web encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightweb.ips@gmail.com or call at 202-234-9382. We reserve the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share