Think Tanks in the United States Essay Example for Free

infer Tanks in the United States EssayA think tank (also known as a form _or_ system of governance center) is a non-profit research institution that conducts studies on public policy (Columbia University Libraries, n. pag.). digression from public policy analysis, a think tank also engages in developing solutions for national or commercial problems (Rohrer, n. pag.). Although there are some think tanks that are strictly nonpartisan (their research on public policy issues are not chance uponed by political outcomes), think tanks are generally regarded as organizations that provide intellectual support to political parties and or politicians. Hence, a think tank is considered as an important part of the American political scene (Columbia University Libraries, n. pag.).However, think tanks affect American foreign policy and economic growth abroad by coming up with ethnocentric and xenophobic perspectives. In some cases, American think tanks create unsustainable, violent and ev en genocidal policies, majority of which the US government imposes on Third World countries. Worse, the civilian nature of these organizations allows them to escape accountability for their detrimental ideas (Hayes, 3). In the article A Litany of Horrors Americas University of Imperialism (2008), Chalmers Johnson wrote that the RAND Corporation, unity of the oldest existing think tanks in the US, was the premier think tank for the US role as hegemon of the Western world (Johnson, n. pag.). To support his argument, Johnson detailed the history of RANDs active participation in US armed services intervention since it was founded after World War II.During the Cold War, RAND perpetuated the weaponry race between the US and the Soviet Union by urging the latter to create huge demands for weapons such as atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic projectiles and long-range bombers. In the mid-sixties and the 1970s, RANDs anti-Marxist rhetoric heavily influenced the US to get involved in the Vietnam War and to establish puppet governments in Third World countries that included the Philippines, Thailand, chili and Taiwan (Johnson, n. pag.). RAND was also heavily involved in the Iraq War in 2002. During 9/11, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci was the co-chair of the RAND Center for Middle eastern general Policy Advisory Board and was also a member of the RAND Board of Trustees. However, he was excessively the chairman of the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor with real connections to the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Laden clan. Other key players in the Iraq War that held important positions in the RAND Corporation were Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld (Here in Reality, n. pag.). Aside from the RAND Corporation, other American think tanks that were also occupied with the promotion of American foreign policy and economic development abroad were the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) and the Project for a New Ame rican Century (PNAC).Akin to RAND, the administration of the NIPP and the PNAC are both composed of unilateralist ideologues, most of which are former executives, consultants or major shareholders of the countrys biggest defense contractors. Some of the individuals who were connected to these think tanks went on to become government officials. Hence, it should no longer come as a surprise if US military intervention has increased in the previous decades (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.). The NIPP has strong ties with the nuclear weapons industry. Most of the members of its advisory board were formerly connected with the arms and nuclear divisions of major defense contractors. Kathleen Bailey, for instance, worked as an analyst for the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory for six years. Robert Barker, meanwhile, worked for the weapons laboratory of Lawrence Livermore for 30 years. Charles Kupperman was Lockheed Martins vice president for its national missile defense programs (Ci arrocca Hartung, n. pag.). The leadership of the PNAC is made up of William Kristol (editor of the Weekly Standard), Robert Kagan (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributing editor at the Weekly Standard and columnist for the Washington Post) and Bruce Jackson (a longtime Lockheed Martin executive). Founded in 1997, PNACs principles were based on the Reagan administrations success (in ending the Cold War) and called for the revival of a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.). It must be noted that the founding document of PNAC was signed by major players in the Bush national security team, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Furthermore, PNACs deputy director Thomas Donnelly was hired by Lockheed Martin in 2003 (Ciarrocca Hartung, n. pag.). presumptuousness the background of RAND, PNAC and NIPP, it is very clear that there is a conflict between the object ives of think tanks and American foreign policy (which focused mainly on promoting American values abroad). Most of the think tanks that are affiliated with the US government are also connected with companies that benefit financially from fight. It is therefore just a egress of common logic to assume that think tanks like RAND, PNAC and NIPP will advise the US government to wage war on other countries (no matter how flimsy the justification is) simply because the defense contractors that they are connected with will earn immensely from doing so. Furthermore, there are some US politicians who are likewise affiliated with organizations that profit from war. Former President George Bush, Sr., for instance, is a former Senior Advisor in the Carlyle Group. Former Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury crowd together Baker, meanwhile, was former Carlyle Senior Counselor. Carlyle Managing Director Richard Darman also happens to be the White House Budget Advisor (Here in Reality, n . pag.). It is very obvious that their affiliation to Carlyle makes them view war as an avenue for profit, and not as an atrocity that claims countless innocent lives. While think tanks are excellent sources of information and ideas, conflict of interest arises when these institutions affect government policy. Think tanks doing business and making money while advising the US government at the same time should be considered as a solemn cause of concern. Indeed, what will think tanks do when private business clash with public policy? What will be their stand when the very same government official that they supported is criticized for applying the ideas that they have formulated?Works CitedCiarrocca, Michelle and Hartung, William. The Military-Industrial-Think Tank Complex Corporate Think Tanks and the Doctrine of Aggressive Militarism. January-FebruaryThe Business of War. 9 June 2008 http//www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03jan-feb/jan-feb03corp2.html.Hayes, Peter. The Role of Thi nk Tanks in Defining Security Issues and Agendas. NautilusInstitute. 21 October 2004. 8 June 2008 www.nautilus.org/collaborative/essay/2004/1021_Hayes.pdf. Johnson, Chalmers. A Litany of Horrors Americas University of Imperialism. 29 AprilTomDispatch.com. 8 June 2008 http//www.tomdispatch.com/post/174925/chalmers_johnson_teaching_imperialism_101. image the Carlyle Group. n.d. Here in Reality. 09 June 2008http//www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html.Rohrer, Finlo. Just What Is A Think Tank? 15 January 2008. BBC News. 08 June 2008 http// countersign.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7189094.stm.The People We Pay to Think. n.d. Here in Reality. 09 June 2008 http//www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html.Think Tanks Policy Centers. n.d. Columbia University Libraries Lehman SocialSciences Library. 08 June 2008 http//www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/ttanks.html.