Home | About | Donate

How ‘Think Tanks’ Generate Endless War


#1

How ‘Think Tanks’ Generate Endless War

Todd E. Pierce

The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called “think tanks” play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks “identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy.”


#2

Manufacturing Consent, Military Edition: Think Tanks


#4

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Dwight D. Eisenhower

I saw that publishing all over the world was ink tank deeply constrained by self-censorship, economics and political censorship, while the military-industrial complex was growing at a tremendous rate, and the amount of information that it was collecting about all of us vastly exceeded the public imagination. Julian Assange

Think Tank Watch
http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2015/11/new-book-outlines-neocon-think-tanks.html


#5

"Okay class, repeat after me: If you don't know history, then...'"

It seems as if the United States has adopted a game-plan that calls for perpetual wars. The current focus is on the Mid East. However, there are many other areas that are prime candidates for U.S. invasion or intervention. All it takes is the invocation of fear/terror, and mass media’s devout compliance—in incessantly beating the war drums.

I think they took the recent myriad wars straight out of “1984,” by George Orwell. In that book, there was always constant news about some perpetual war, being waged on the periphery or borders of the civilized world. The reports were usually of "near victory", but never any real substantial gains.

On June 28, 2010, an AP article quoted then-CIA director Leon Panetta, "We're seeing elements of progress, but this is going to be tough.” That article read, “Panetta estimated there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida militants operating inside Afghanistan, with the rest hiding along Pakistan's mountainous western border.” When asked about the Taliban, he said, “There is progress—even if it's slower than I think anyone anticipated."

On July 25, 2010, an article read, “More NATO troops will die in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer, but Washington's goal of turning the tide against the [Taliban] insurgency by year's end is within reach, the top U.S. military officer said.”

Back then, I recalled many an article with a title similar to, "Al Qaeda's network has been 'severely degraded' by joint U.S.-Pakistani efforts".

Yeah right… It is just like I constantly read about the al-Qaeda's ”Number-3 man” being killed. He's replaced. Then, the next “Number-3 man” is killed. Of course, he’s replaced. Then… ad nauseam.

This war-on -terror news will "see-saw"—up and down, back and forth—into public consciousness for the next 50 years. The U.S. news media will mostly be reporting the military’s achievement of some sort of progress or near victory—punctuated by occasional setbacks. However, they’ll never accomplish anything definitive. Certainly, there will be no actual victory or “mission accomplished”, as the United States plans to engage in perpetual wars in that region.

Recently the West has embarked on ambitious campaigns of active combat engagement in several other Mid-East countries, from Libya, to Syria and Yemen. All the while—predictably— it is still stuck in the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. Certain military strategists shocked many onlookers, when they suggested that the United States partner with certain elements of al-Qaida in order to achieve geo-political goals of the West.

And since then, for the sake of propaganda branding and stoking seemingly everlasting tension and fear, al-Qaida has almost magically morphed into various incarnations/factions. There are the so-called moderate rebels and then there is ISIS. Those relatively recently re-named forces mysteriously obtain training, logistics, funding, transport and supplies (i.e. from Iraq and Libya); certain of those ragtag forces are imported into different countries to create boogeymen so as to justify interventions on the scale which serve to further the geo-political agenda of the global power-elite. (It is no surprise that many of those recruits "defect" to the "enemy," along with their newly acquired training, weapons and supplies. Nice!)

So, be prepared next week for an article to read, "ISIS' network has 'gained substantial strength' DESPITE joint U.S.-[Insert name of coalition-force du-jour here] efforts".

Hmmm... It begs the question, "Why didn't the coalitions of the West learn their lesson from the former Soviet Union?" For, it also got bogged down in an Afghanistan quagmire. Truth be told, the powers-that-be—in their "infinite wisdom"— always knew that such wars would drag on and on and on... But then again, the military-security-industrial complex does seem to have an insatiable appetite.


#6

I recall reading how the US Air Force commissioned a study with the RAND Corporation at the start of the 1960s, the result was a report that stated that all the problems in Indochina could be solved by aerial warfare. The US went on to follow those recommendations between 1964 and 1973, unleashing amazing quantities of bombs on Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam ("The Indochinese bombings amounted to 7,662,000 tons of explosives, compared to 2,150,000 tons in the world [war II] conflict" Wikipedia).
We lost the Vietnam War, but the Air Force had a field day with unlimited funding, influence, promotions, and so forth. Likewise, the bomb makers had the pleasure of selling the equivalent of 7.6 million tons of explosives in bombs to the Air Force. So a win-win situation for all involved, if you ignore the inconveniences for the native population and the US troops on the ground.
I do not recall where I read about this study, perhaps in Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets" (Ellsberg moved from the RAND Corporation to the Pentagon in 1964).


#7

"Think" tanks think "tanks" and tank thinks.

A concise summary of the article.


#8

Think! Tanks!,