Right Web

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

Rumsfeld Space Commission

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, frequently called the Rumsfeld Space Commission or simply the Space Commission, was established in 1999 by an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill. The commission is perhaps most well known for suggesting that unless the United States took threats of space attack seriously, it could not avoid a "Space Pearl Harbor."

Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) was the point-person in Congress for creating the Space Commission. Explaining the motivation for the commission’s creation, Smith told a Center for Security Policy (CSP) forum, only days before the commission released its report: "The annual [Defense Department] budgets repeatedly shortchange space programs. … People without space background are promoted ahead of space officers, and treaties have negotiated away our space advantage" (CSP, January 9, 2001). At the time, Smith was one of more than a dozen congressional representatives who sat on CSP’s advisory board.

Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Space Commission, which released its report on January 11, 2001. Rumsfeld served on the commission until December 28, 2000—the date George W. Bush nominated him as defense secretary. Rumsfeld’s staff director for the commission was Stephen Cambone, who later became the first-ever undersecretary of defense for intelligence in March 2003, and who was also staff director of the Rumsfeld Missile Commision, a congressionally mandated commission that Rumsfeld chaired in 1998. The Space Commission is often referred to as the second Rumsfeld Commission. Like the first commission, the Space Commission echoed the alarmism about national security threats propagated by right-wing groups such as the CSP.

The commission concluded that it is "possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. … Having this capability would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage." The commission argued in Orwellian style that because the United States is without peer among "space-faring" nations, the country is all the more vulnerable to "state and non-state actors hostile to the United States and its interests." In other words, U.S. enemies would seek to destroy the U.S. economy together with its ability to fight high-tech wars by attacking global-positioning satellites and other "space assets," which would effectively result in a "Space Pearl Harbor" (Report of the Rumsfeld Space Commission, Executive Summary, pp. vii-viii).

"We know from history that every medium—air, land, and sea—has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual certainty, the United States must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space" (Report of the Rumsfeld Space Commission, Executive Summary, p. x).

The 13 members of the commission include several space weapons enthusiasts, military hardliners, and military-industrial complex insiders. Indeed, the commission embodied what William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca of World Policy Institute call the "military-industrial-think-tank complex," and of the 13 commissioners, at least eight were consultants or board members for high-tech Pentagon contractors (see "Axis of Influence," World Policy Institute, July 2002). Six commissioners were retired flag officers, including Gen. Ronald Fogleman, who served on the boards of directors of several firms that collectively received more than $900 million in contracts in 2002. When Rumsfeld became Bush’s defense secretary, Fogleman together with fellow Space Commission members Gen. Charles Horner and Adm. David Jeremiah were tapped to serve on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.

Examples of the representation from right-wing think tanks on the commission include three members of the CSP advisory board: Horner, former Republican Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming (who was a Heritage Foundation senior fellow), and the military-industrial insider William Graham. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs was represented by two close associates, Jeremiah and Lt. Gen. Jay Garner. Other right-wing think tanks whose associates were on the commission included the National Institute for Public Policy, and Frontiers of Freedom.

Commenting on the two Rumsfeld commissions, Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, said they were "part of the same tradition as some of Team B" due to their strategy of undermining official threat assessments. Summarizing the Rumsfeld commissions’ results, Hitchens said: "One of the striking things about the reports from both commissions was that threats were no longer being assessed on the basis of what people were currently capable of doing, or capable of doing in the near future, but of what they could potentially be capable of. And there was no thought about intent. You know a threat is defined as being based on capabilities, intent, and ability to implement. The last two have been thrown out the window, and the first one is totally perverted by both these commissions. And I find that to be totally weird. This sort of paranoia thing … is wacky because then everything can be a threat" (Flynn interview, June 12, 2003).

Share RightWeb

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

Sources

Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization , January 11, 2001, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA404328&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.

Center for Security Policy, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/.

Center for Security Policy, "Space Power: What are the Stakes, What Will It Take?" Roundtable Discussion, January 9, 2001, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/
ShowSectionNews.aspx?CategoryID=140&SubCategoryID=150&NewsID=617
.

Center for Security Policy, "Rumsfeld Hits Two Home Runs," http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=140&categoryid=140&subcategoryid=142.

Michelle Ciarrocca and William D. Hartung, "Axis of Influence: Behind the Bush Administration's Missile Defense Revival, " World Policy Institute Special Report, July 2002.

Michael Flynn, IRC Research Associate Michael Flynn, Phone interview with Theresa Hitchens, June 12, 2003.

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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