Right Web

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

US right weaves tangled but effective web

WASHINGTON - While most of the world is still trying to come to terms with the neo-imperial ambitions of the post-September 11 Bush administration,...

WASHINGTON – While most of the world is still trying to come to terms with the neo-imperial ambitions of the post-September 11 Bush administration, US political analysts, particularly those on the libertarian right and the left, have been trying to map out the various forces behind the administration’s hawks the better to understand and counteract them.

Most analysts have identified three main components to the coalition behind President George W Bush’s aggressive foreign policy: right-wing militarists, of whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the exemplar; neoconservatives, led by former Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle, whose world view is similar to that of Israel’s Likud Party; and Christian Right forces whose leaders are influential with Bush’s political guru, Karl Rove.

While these forces are often depicted in the abstract, they constitute a network of flesh-and-blood people who have worked together closely and openly–both in and out of government–for more than 30 years in some cases.

Over that period, they built up what analyst Tom Barry of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) has called an “infrastructure of the [right wing] counter-establishment,” of key individuals, institutions, think-tanks and publications that has emerged as the dominant power in the Republican Party–and not only with respect to foreign policy.

Two of the structure’s most remarkable characteristics are how few people it includes and how adept they have been in creating new institutions and front groups that act as a vast echo chamber for one another and for the media, particularly in media-obsessed Washington.

In this, the neoconservatives, who lack any grassroots constituency, have been especially effective.

In fact, the network consists of a very small elite, much smaller for example than the post-World War II internationalist “establishment” that includes such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the foreign service and the Wall Street lawyers, financiers and business executives who have long dominated US foreign policy.

To understand its dimensions and the way it works, Barry and the IRC (for which this author has written articles for compensation) compare it to a spider’s web–hence the name of their latest Internet website, Right Web, probably the most comprehensive and integrated effort yet to link the various connections and relationships that have given the “Right” its power and influence.

The site, which is still being developed, covers some 175 individuals and dozens of organizations that have constituted the network over the past quarter-century. Even a brief meander through the site demonstrates both just how small and incestuous this network has been and how ambitious are its goals, both in foreign and domestic policy.

Chances are, for example, that you have never heard of the Foundation for Community, Faith-Centered Enterprise, an innocent-sounding initiative that suggests church-based community organizing or perhaps a philanthropic group that awards grants to church-related business initiatives. In fact, the foundation and its sister group, Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, were founded in mid-2001 by Michael Joyce, a right-wing kingpin who helped turn the Bradley Foundation into the rainmaker of an ever-growing network of institutes, publications and think-tanks.

Joyce told the Washington Post in June 2001 that he launched the two groups at the behest of Rove, who was looking for ways to bolster public support for Bush’s efforts to fund religious organizations that provide social services.

If you look more closely at the group’s profile on the website, you’ll get a better idea of how this two-year-old organization fits into the larger network of the US right. Its associates include William Kristol, the editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and another neo-conservative, former education secretary William Bennett, for whom Kristol once worked.

Midge Decter, another prominent neo-conservative who co-headed (with Rumsfeld) the Committee for the Free World during the administration of president Ronald Reagan, currently serves on the foundation’s board of visitors, while Jeffrey Bell, former president of another neoconservative think-tank, the Manhattan Institute, serves as the group’s Washington lobbyist.

You will find further that all of these individuals have supported the work of PNAC, which played a key role in pushing Bush to war in Iraq, and whose founding statement in 1997 was signed by Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and more than half a dozen other top Bush foreign-policy figures, all identified as key hawks.

If you click on a different group, say Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT), you might expect to find a different cast of characters. But this group is headed by Bennett, and among its associates and advisers are L Paul Bremer, currently the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq; Center for Security Policy (CSP) director Frank Gaffney; real-estate baron Lawrence Kadish; and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey.

If you click on each of these names, you will find that they all have supported PNAC, and when you read Gaffney’s profile you will see that he, like Perle, once worked for Washington state senator Henry Jackson and, indeed, for Perle himself, when the “Dark Prince” toiled at the Pentagon under Reagan.

If you then click on CSP’s name, you will soon discover that it is one of the country’s most hardline foreign-policy groups, and has consistently opposed arms-control treaties; favored the retention and expansion of Washington’s nuclear arsenal; warned of a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal; and served as a major backer of Likud’s policies in the Middle East.

You will also find an astonishing overlap between its board of advisers, PNAC associates and top Bush national-security officials–and that it is funded heavily by big defense contractors.

If, on the other hand, you opt for Woolsey, a frequent guest on Murdoch-owned Fox News, you will find that the former CIA chief is currently a member with Perle of the DPB, works for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, has supported PNAC, acts as CSP’s honorary co-chair and served on the Rumsfeld Commission on the ballistic-missile threat.

Woolsey also worked with the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), whose bland name disguises a band of nuclear-weapons zealots that has long advocated developing new nukes, smaller nukes, bunker-busting nukes and Star Wars.

As depicted by the site, Woolsey also served on the Advisory Board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group set up 13 months ago in much the same way that Americans for Community, Faith-Centered Enterprise was–to support Bush’s drive to war. Besides Woolsey, directors included several other DPB members, including Perle, Eliot Cohen, General Wayne Downing and former House speaker Newt Gingrich, as well as Kristol and about a dozen people also associated with PNAC.

If you click on Perle, whose principal perch is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), along with Gingrich and former United Nations ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, you are likely to find yourself occupied for some time. Ditto for Kristol, whose offices are located just five floors below AEI, close to 17th and L streets in Washington.

Despite the centrality of both Perle and Kristol, however, the genius of the right’s network, as noted by Barry, is its improvisational “architecture.”

“Rather than operating from a single blueprint, they constantly renovate and commission additions in the form of new institutes, front groups, media outlets and political projects,” he says. “It’s a post-modern structure with no central office or main lobby, no fixed foundation, no elevator that takes you to different levels.”

Compared with its vitality and breadth, according to Barry, its ideological foes on the left, or even in the middle, “resemble aging cobwebs.”

Jim Lobe contributes to the Right Web project of the International Relations Center (www.irc-online.org) and is a regular writer for Inter Press Service.

Citations

Jim Lobe, "US right weaves tangled but effective web," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, January 13, 2004).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share