Right Web

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

Lexington Institute

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The Lexington Institute is a conservative policy institute seeking to “inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration, and federal policy concerning science and technology.”[1]

Lexington advocates limited government and strong libertarian principles, as laid out in its mission statement: “The Institute … actively opposes the unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into the commerce and culture of the nation, and strives to find nongovernmental, market-based solutions to public-policy challenges. We believe a dynamic private sector is the greatest engine for social progress and economic prosperity.”[2]

But unlike other libertarian-leaning outfits like the CATO Institute, the Lexington Institute takes a generally favorable view of military spending. Because of its general advocacy in favor of Pentagon spending (if not always specific programs), and because it receives substantial support from military contracting companies, Harper’s magazine has called the institute “the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency.” The magazine quoted Loren Thompson, the Institute’s chief operating officer, as saying, “I'm not going to work on a project unless somebody, somewhere, is willing to pay. This is a business.”[3] A June 2008 report from the Mobile Press-Register noted that “almost all funding for … the Lexington Institute comes from the same defense contractors who frequently have a stake in the programs that [Thompson] writes about.”[4]

Thompson has written in opposition to defense cuts by sequestration, or the automatic cuts to both military and domestic programs triggered by Congress’ inability to reach an agreement on the balance of cuts to each in 2011. In a June 2012 entry on the Institute’s “Early Warning” blog, Thompson cited an industry report claiming that substantial job losses would occur in a handful of presidential swing states if sequestration were to go through. “[O]bscure issues like sequestration of the military budget could be decisive in a tight November race,” he wrote. “That argues for doing something now to avert sequestration, rather than waiting for action by a lame-duck session of Congress after the election.”[5]

In other recent publications, the institute has proposed ways to maintain an aggressive defense posture even if sequestration cuts go through. “Achieving market-level labor costs, engaging public-private competition, moderating red tape, using appropriate contracting approaches and sensible contract lengths can meet both currently planned costs cuts and sequestration-level cuts without impacting procurement, sustainment, readiness, manning, or strategy,” said an April 2012 Lexington report. Echoing several advisers to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, the report added, “First priority in defense must be keeping ships, aircraft, and tanks ready to support a long-term strategic posture and foreign policy driven by the global threat rather than by budget limitations.”[6]

Staff

Merrick Carey and Don Soifer founded the Lexington Institute in 1998 to concentrate on eight topics: defense, homeland security, alliance relations, education, Cuba, immigration, international economics, and postal reform.[7] The institute has eight core staff members. James Andrew Courter serves as Chairman, with Merrick Carey as CEO, Loren B. Thompson as Chief Operating Officer, Don Soifer as Executive Vice President, Philip Peters and Daniel Gouré as Vice Presidents, and Constance Baroudos and Monica Kern as Program Directors.[8]

Trained as a lawyer, Courter is a former Republican congressman from New Jersey and the CEO and vice chairman of the IDT Corporation. In the House, Courter was a member of the House Services and Iran-Contra committees. He co-edited a 1986 document entitled “Defending Democracy,” which his bio says is “a collection of speeches and essays on matters of national security.”

Merrick Carey served as press secretary for Courter and Jack Kemp, and as an intelligence officer for the Naval Reserve, which included involvement in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.[9]

Loren Thompson, a former military strategy professor at Georgetown University, is a frequent media commentator on national security and weapons issues, and the head of the Source Associates consulting firm. At Lexington he “oversees security studies, the institute’s largest project.”

Daniel Gouré has primary responsibility over the Institute’s national security program. A past member of the Pentagon transition team for the George W. Bush administration, he has had corporate affiliations with Science Applications International Corporation, SRS Technologies, R&D Associates, and System Planning Corporation. Gouré was previously deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security Program.[10]

Of Lexington’s eight members, Thompson and Gouré write most extensively on defense issues. Gouré complements his written treatises on weapons systems with his work as a senior analyst for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company that the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has accused of war profiteering.[11]

Both Thompson and Gouré have also argued for dissolving NATO and relying solely on U.S. preemption, primarily because of “different values” between Americans and Europeans.[12]

Lexington’s Philip Peters defies conservative thinking with his views on Cuba.[13] On this issue, the Lexington Institute has established connections with more left-leaning groups like the Latin America Working Group, the Center for International Policy, and the Washington Office on Latin America.[14] Peters frequently advocates lifting the embargo on Cuba and allowing Americans to freely travel to the country.[15] He has praised the Obama administration’s reforms with respect to U.S. Cuba policy but noted that they are incomplete and limited. “It is clear that the Obama Administration is not seeking a major Cuba initiative, and is far more likely to act through incremental steps than bold strokes,” he wrote in March 2010.[16]

Peters has also been a prominent advocate for a more lenient immigration policy. He criticized the Bush administration for the drop in the number of refugees allowed in the country and argues that the fear that some of these refugees might be future terrorists is unfounded due to the amount of time and bureaucratic hurdles refugees face in order to gain entry.[17]


Funding

The Lexington Institute claims an annual revenue of approximately $2.5 million.[18] Media Transparency reports that between 1998 and 2010, the Lexington Institute received $646,000 from the Smith Richardson Foundation. ExxonMobil donated $10,000 in 2002.[19]

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources


[1] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp



[2] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp



[3] Ken Silverstein, “Mad men: Introducing the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency,” Harper’s, April 2010, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/04/0082895.



[4] Sean Reilly, “Analyst's switch stirs tanker talk,” Mobile Press-Register, June 9, 2008, http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/121300295470260.xml&coll=3.



[5] Loren Thompson, “Report On Defense Sequestration Finds Big Jobs Impact In Swing States,” Lexington Institute “Early Warning” blog, June 26, 2012, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/-report-on-defense-sequestration-finds-big-jobs-impact-in-swing-states--?a=1&c=1171.



[6] Lexington Institute, “Meeting the DoD Sequestration Level Cost Cuts Without Cutting Strategy, Programs or Readiness,” April 2012, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/meeting-the-dod-sequestration-level-cost-cuts-without-cutting-strategy-programs-or-readiness?a=1&c=1129.



[7] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp



[8] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp



[9] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp



[10] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp



[11] Daniel Gouré, “The Military Helicopter Industrial Base,” White Paper, April 1, 2005, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/532.pdf; The Center for Public Integrity, “Windfalls of War,” Science Applications International Corporation, http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=51.



[12] Loren B. Thompson, “Twilight of the Atlantic Alliance?” Issue Brief, June 30, 2003, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/alliance.asp?aid=542; Loren B. Thompson, “NATO’s Decay and the Search for a Few Key Friends,” Remarks to the Heritage Foundation Conference on Global Alliances, June 26, 2003, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/alliance.asp?aid=543



[13] Philip Peters, “The Case Against Cuba Sanctions,” Latin Business Chronicle, August 2002, http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/39/lbc_cuba.html



[14] Latin America Working Group, “Explore the Issue: U.S.-Cuba relations,” http://www.lawg.org/countries/cuba/explore.htm; Washington Office on Latin America, “Economic Shifts in Cuba,” http://www.wola.org/cuba/economic_shifts.htm.



[15] Philip Peters, “Ban undercuts our influence on Cuba,” The Dallas Morning News, May 18, 2003, http://ciponline.org/cubaforum/lexington.htm



[16] Philip Peters, “President Obama and Cuba,” Palabra Neuva, March 2010, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/cuba/cuban-triangle/palabranuevamarch2010.pdf.



[17] The Lexington Institute, “Immigration Articles for 2003 and 2004,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/immigration.asp?yid=2004



[18] Lexington Institute, “2009 Form 990,” GuideStar, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/541/880/2009-541880642-0660115e-9.pdf



[19] Media Matters Action Network, “Conservative Transparency: Lexington Institute,” Media Matters, http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Lexington_Institute/funders?year=-


Share RightWeb

Lexington Institute Résumé


Contact Information

Lexington Institute

1600 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 522-5828





Founded



1998





About (as of 2012)



“It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.”





Selected Principals

  • James Courter: Chairman

  • Merrick Carey: CEO

  • Loren Thompson: COO

  • Dan Soifer: Executive vice president

  • Philip Peters: Vice president

  • Daniel Goure: Vice president

  • Constance Baroudos: Program director

  • Monica Kern: Program director

Related:

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share