Right Web

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

Foreign Policy Research Institute

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) is a foreign policy think tank based in Philadelphia. Founded at the University of Pennsylvania by Austrian-American diplomat Robert Strausz-Hupéin in 1955, FPRI originally aimed to “enlighten political leaders about the nature of the protracted [Cold War] conflict, the historical and geographical realities that shaped it, and how to win it.”[1] Today, FPRI’s mission is to bring “the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests,” especially with respect to China and the Islamic world.[2]

FPRI's president is Alan Luxenberg, a longtime affiliate of the institute. Its board of trustees, as of 2013, drew heavily from Philadelphia's business and philanthropic communities, though a few well-known hawks—including Devon Gaffney Cross and former Mitt Romney advisers Dov Zakheim and John Lehman—were also members.[3] Controversial historian of Islam Bernard Lewis serves on the group's board of advisers alongside other conservative academics and think tank figures, including Michael Doran of the Brookings Institute and the Hoover Institution’s Kori Schake, who served as a senior adviser to the McCain/Palin campaign during the 2008 presidential election.[4]

FPRI has a slate of research programs that are devoted to studying U.S. national security, terrorism, “America and the West,” Asia, the Middle East, democratic transitions, and the relationship between think tanks and policymaking. FPRI’s approximately 85 scholars publish articles and books through a variety of outlets, including two of the institute’s own publications: the quarterly journal Orbis, and the online newsletter E-Notes. In addition to its publishing work, FPRI runs a program to “teach the teachers” through its Wachman Center and History Institute.[5]

Although FPRI’s scholars skew to the right, their work often leans more towards realism than neoconservatism, eschewing the Manichaeism of many more strident foreign policy hawks. Thus, for instance, in its 2012 annual report, FPRI warns that “It would be an error to predict the behavior of Islamist insurgents and terrorists on the basis of Islamic theology or even Islamist ideology alone,” just as it “it would be an error to predict Chinese behavior from communist ideology or even from abstract notions of the Chinese national interest alone.”[6]

On the Middle East, then-FPRI president Harvey Sicherman predicted in 2002 that the war on terrorism would “soon make the Bush pragmatists new visionaries.”[7] The following year, however, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig—then an FPRI trustee—criticized the administration's neoconservatives for deluding themselves“that [military] strength, allied to American ideals, can overwhelm any foe.”[8] In 2012, senior fellow James Kurth concluded that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were both “failure[s] of reinvented conservatism—and particularly of neoconservatism.”[9] Another fellow, Walter McDougall, warned that “American exceptionalism” was “more trouble and probably even more danger than it’s worth.”[10]

Nevertheless, a number of prominent hawks have found a home at FPRI over the years, and FPRI publications often feature works by hardliners, including Sohrab Ahmari, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Donald Kagan, Frederick Kagan, Keith Payne, Richard Perle, Henry Sokolski, Arthur Waldron, George Weigel, and James Woolsey.[11] Daniel Pipes, a former FPRI scholar who founded the neoconservative Middle East Forum, proclaimed at a 1991 address to the Heritage Foundation that FPRI has “always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy; we have shared an abiding suspicion of the Soviet Union and other Communist states; and we have always maintained a strong interest in the promotion of democracy, free enterprise, and the rule of law. Perhaps most controversially, the professional staff is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge.”[12]

FPRI’s willingness to house traditional realists alongside hardline hawks occasionally leads to disagreements. In a 2012 column, for example, FPRI advisory board member Frank Hoffman suggested that the U.S. military budget should remain above $500 billion annually, praising then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his plans to hike the budget and suggesting that such an increase might reasonably come from a reduction in social spending.[13] In contrast, FPRI terrorism specialist Lawrence Husick warned in 2011 that “It appears that we must choose between continuing to fund our military without question—funding programs that no officer wants, but that many in Congress zealously protect—or funding a viable healthcare system.” Quipping that “Osama bin Laden could not have done a better job than our investment bankers in bringing the West to its financial knees,” Husick concluded that “the United States is faced with the true costs of terrorism and security—not just the erosion of basic freedoms, but the erosion of our way of life, which was, after all, one of the prime targets of bin Laden and al Qaeda.”[14]

In recent years, FPRI scholars have generally been wary about U.S. interventions in the Middle East. Several have endorsed the idea of using a “credible” threat of force to get Iran to the negotiating table,[15] but few—aside from American Foreign Policy Council chairman Ilan Berman, a contributor to FPRI publications[16]—have dismissed the usefulness of negotiations. And while some FPRI writers criticized the Obama administration’s initial reluctance to intervene in Syria’s civil war,[17] few advocated intervention as the fighting escalated. One FPRI board member, Adam Garfinkle, echoing the likes of Daniel Pipes and Dennis Prager, argued that Washington should “stand aside for a little longer so that some hateful, armed and dangerous people can get killed.”[18]

Some FPRI writers have expressed alarmist views regarding Islam. "The American nation was, and still is, not rallied to action with a clear explanation of who the Islamists really are and why the American culture is better than theirs," wrote senior fellow Edward A. Turzanski in 2011, who also complained about both Barack Obama's and George Bush's reluctance to describe the "war on terror" as a crusade against Islamists. "There is greater hostility in many elite circles," he concluded, "towards those who water-boarded the ring leaders who destroyed the [World Trade Center] towers than to the terrorists themselves."[19]

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has also been targeted by FPRI writers. E-Notes contributor Raymond Stock has called the Brotherhood "an implacably anti-Western, anti-secular, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-female, Muslim-supremacist" organization that is "directly influenced by the Nazis."[20] Stock celebrated the 2013 military coup that brought down Egypt's elected Muslim Brotherhood government, even praising the civil unrest that followed, which saw several hundred supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi killed by security forces. "It would be better to have that civil conflict now then to wait until the Islamists are better armed and prepared," he wrote.[21]

Funding

In its 2011 tax filings, FPRI reported over $3 million in contributions.[22] Major supporters listed in the group's 2012 annual report include Boeing, Piasecki Aircraft, J.F. Lehman & Company, and several legal and financial firms.[23]

Historically, FPRI has also benefited from the largesse of conservative foundations. Between 1985 and 2005, FPRI received nearly $5 million from the Lynde and Harry Bradley, John M. Olin, Earhart, Smith Richardson, and Sarah Scaife Foundations, among others.[24]

 

Share RightWeb

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

Sources


[1] FPRI, 2012 annual report, http://fpri.org/docs/2012_FPRI_Annual_Dinner_Report_Final.pdf.



[2] FPRI, "Mission," http://www.fpri.org/about/mission.



[3] FPRI, "Board of Trustees," http://www.fpri.org/about/trustees.



[4] FPRI, "Board of Advisors," http://www.fpri.org/about/advisors.



[5] FPRI, 2012 annual report, http://fpri.org/docs/2012_FPRI_Annual_Dinner_Report_Final.pdf.



[6] FPRI, 2012 annual report, http://fpri.org/docs/2012_FPRI_Annual_Dinner_Report_Final.pdf.



[7] Harvey Sicherman, "Finding a Foreign Policy," Orbis, Spring 2002, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030438702001059.



[8] Alexander Haig, " The Promise and Peril of Our Times," FPRI "E-Notes," November 25, 2003, http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20031125.americawar.haig.promiseperil.html.



[9] James Kurth, "The Crisis of American Conservatism: Inherent Contradictions and the End of the Road," FPRI "E-Notes," December 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/12/crisis-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-end-road.



[10] Walter McDougall, "American Exceptionalism...Exposed," FPRI "E-Notes," October 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/10/american-exceptionalism-exposed.



[11] FPRI, "Contributors," http://www.fpri.org/contributors.



[12] Daniel Pipes, "From a Distance: Influencing Foreign Policy from Philadelphia," Heritage Foundation address, June 5, 1991, http://www.danielpipes.org/978/from-a-distance-influencing-foreign-policy-from-philadelphia.



[13] Frank Hoffman, "The 2012 Presidential Election Campaign: Toward a Defensible Defense Budget," FPRI "E-Notes," April 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/04/2012-presidential-election-campaign-toward-defensible-defense-budget.



[14] Lawrence Husick, "The Disruptive Cost of Fear - Our Desire to Return to the World of September 10th and What It Has Cost Us," FPRI "E-Notes," September 2011, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2011/09/disruptive-cost-fear-our-desire-return-world-september-10th-and-what-it-has-cost-us.



[15] See, for example, Brandon Friedman, "Iran in Israel’s Strategic Calculus," FPRI "E-Notes," April 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/04/iran-israels-strategic-calculus.



[16] See, for example, Ilan Berman, "Israel’s Reshuffled Strategic Deck," FPRI "E-Notes," August 2013, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/08/israels-reshuffled-strategic-deck.



[17] See Gary Gambil, "How Washington Lost Syria," FPRI "E-Notes," May 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/05/how-washington-lost-syria.



[18] Adam Garfinkle, "Syria: Time for Inaction?" FPRI "E-Notes," March 2013, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/03/syria-time-inaction.



[19] Edward A. Turzanski, "America Ten Years After 9-11," FPRI "E-Notes," September 2011, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2011/09/america-ten-years-after-9-11.



[20] Raymond Stock, "The Donkey, the Camel and the Facebook Scam: How the Muslim Brotherhood Conquered Egypt and Conned the World," FPRI "E-Notes," July 2012, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/07/donkey-camel-and-facebook-scam-how-muslim-brotherhood-conquered-egypt-and-conned.



[21] Raymond Stock, "Complete the Islamists’ Defeat," FPRI "E-Notes," July 2013, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/07/complete-islamists-defeat.



[22] Guidestar.org, FPRI profile, 2011 990, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/231/731/2011-231731998-08ec5dd3-9.pdf.



[23] FPRI, 2012 annual report, http://fpri.org/docs/2012_FPRI_Annual_Dinner_Report_Final.pdf.



[24] MediaTransparency.org, FPRI profile, http://web.archive.org/web/20070615091107/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=118.


Share RightWeb

Foreign Policy Research Institute Résumé


Contact Information



Foreign Policy Research Institute

1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Tel: 1.215.732.3774

Fax: 1.215.732.4401

website: www.fpri.org





Founded



1955





Mission (2013)



"Founded in 1955, FPRI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. We add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics."





Board of Trustees (2013)

  • Robert L. Freedman, Chair

  • Samuel J. Savitz, Vice-Chair

  • John M. Templeton, Jr., Vice-Chair

  • Dov S. Zakheim, Vice-Chair

  • John Hillen, Treasurer

  • Gwen Borowsky

  • Richard P. Brown, Jr.

  • Robert E. Carr

  • Ahmed Charai

  • Winston J. Churchill

  • William L. Conrad

  • Devon Cross

  • Gerard Cuddy

  • Peter Dachowski

  • Robert A. Fox

  • Gary Frank

  • James H. Gately

  • Susan H. Goldberg

  • Charles B. Grace

  • John R. Haines

  • Donald R. Kardon

  • Marina Kats

  • Jeffrey B. Kohler

  • Robert W. Lamina

  • John F. Lehman, Jr.

  • Richard B. Lieb

  • David Lucterhand

  • David G. Marshall

  • Ronald J. Naples

  • Michael Novakovic

  • Edward O'Connor

  • Marshall W. Pagon

  • James M. Papada III

  • John W. Piasecki

  • Alan L. Reed

  • Eileen Rosenau

  • Lionel Savadove

  • Jim Saxton

  • Adele K. Schaeffer

  • Edward L. Snitzer

Related:

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share