US Thinktanks Give Lessons in Foreign Policy
Brian Whitaker reports on the network of research institutes
whose views and TV appearances are supplanting all
other experts on Middle Eastern issues
19 August 2002
The Guardian
A little-known fact about Richard Perle, the leading advocate of
hardline policies at the Pentagon, is that he once wrote a
political thriller. The book, appropriately called Hard Line, is
set in the days of the cold war with the Soviet Union. Its hero is
a male senior official at the Pentagon, working late into the
night and battling almost single-handedly to rescue the US from
liberal wimps at the state department who want to sign away
America's nuclear deterrent in a disarmament deal with the
Russians.
Ten years on Mr Perle finds himself cast in the real-life role of
his fictional hero -- except that the Russians are no longer a
threat, so he has to make do with the Iraqis, the Saudis and
terrorism in general.
In real life too, Mr Perle is not fighting his battle
single-handed. Around him there is a cosy and cleverly-constructed
network of Middle East "experts" who share his neo-conservative
outlook and who pop up as talking heads on US television, in
newspapers, books, testimonies to congressional committees, and at
lunchtime gatherings in Washington.
The network centres on research institutes -- thinktanks that
attempt to influence government policy and are funded by
tax-deductible gifts from unidentified donors.
When he is not too busy at the Pentagon, or too busy running
Hollinger Digital -- part of the group that publishes the Daily
Telegraph in Britain -- or at board meetings of the Jerusalem
Post, Mr Perle is "resident fellow" at one of the thinktanks --
the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Mr Perle's close friend and political ally at AEI is David
Wurmser, head of its Middle East studies department. Mr Perle
helpfully wrote the introduction to Mr Wurmser's book, Tyranny's
Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein. [summary, full
text]
Mr Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, is co-founder, along with Colonel Yigal
Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence -- of the Middle
East Media Research Institute (Memri), which specialises in
translating and distributing articles that show Arabs in a bad
light.
She also holds strong views on leftwing Israeli intellectuals,
whom she regards as a threat to Israel (see "Selective Memri",
Guardian Unlimited, August 12, 2002).
Ms Wurmser currently runs the Middle East section at another
thinktank -- the Hudson Institute, where Mr Perle recently joined
the board of trustees. In addition, Ms Wurmser belongs to an
organisation called the Middle East Forum.
Michael Rubin, a specialist on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, who
recently arrived from yet another thinktank, the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, assists Mr Perle and Mr Wurmser at
AEI. Mr Rubin also belongs to the Middle East Forum.
Another Middle East scholar at AEI is Laurie Mylroie, author of
Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, which expounds a
rather daft theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade
Centre bombing.
When the book was published by the AEI Perle hailed it as
"splendid and wholly convincing".
An earlier book on Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf
which Ms Mylroie co-authored with Judith Miller, a New York Times
journalist, became the New York Times's No 1 bestseller.
Ms Mylroie and Ms Miller both have connections with the Middle
East Forum. Mr Perle, Mr Rubin, Ms Wurmser, Ms Mylroie and Ms
Miller are all clients of Eleana Benador, a Peruvian-born linguist
who acts as a sort of theatrical agent for experts on the Middle
East and terrorism, organising their TV appearances and speaking
engagements.
Of the 28 clients on Ms Benador's books, at least nine are
connected with the AEI, the Washington Institute and the Middle
East Forum.
Although these three privately-funded organisations promote views
from only one end of the political spectrum, the amount of
exposure that they get with their books, articles and TV
appearances is extraordinary.
The Washington Institute, for example, takes the credit for
placing up to 90 articles written by its members -- mainly "op-ed"
pieces -- in newspapers during the last year.
Fourteen of those appeared in the Los Angeles Times, nine in New
Republic, eight in the Wall Street Journal, eight in the Jerusalem
Post, seven in the National Review Online, six in the Daily
Telegraph, six in the Washington Post, four in the New York Times
and four in the Baltimore Sun. Of the total, 50 were written by
Michael Rubin.
Anyone who has tried offering op-ed articles to a major newspaper
will appreciate the scale of this achievement.
The media attention bestowed on these thinktanks is not for want
of other experts in the field. American universities have about
1,400 full-time faculty members specialising in the Middle East.
Of those, an estimated 400-500 are experts on some aspect of
contemporary politics in the region, but their views are rarely
sought or heard, either by the media or government.
"I see a parade of people from these institutes coming through as
talking heads [on cable TV]. I very seldom see a professor from a
university on those shows," says Juan Cole, professor of history
at Michigan University, who is a critic of the private institutes.
"Academics [at universities] are involved in analysing what's
going on but they're not advocates, so they don't have the same
impetus," he said.
"The expertise on the Middle East that exists in the universities
is not being utilised, even for basic information."
Of course, very few academics have agents like Eleana Benador to
promote their work and very few are based in Washington -- which
can make arranging TV appearances, or rubbing shoulders with state
department officials a bit difficult.
Those who work for US thinktanks are often given university-style
titles such as "senior fellow", or "adjunct scholar", but their
research is very different from that of universities -- it is
entirely directed towards shaping government policy.
What nobody outside the thinktanks knows, however, is who pays for
this policy-shaping research.
Under US law, large donations given to non-profit, "non-partisan"
organisations such as thinktanks must be itemised in their annual
"form 990" returns to the tax authorities. But the identity of
donors does not need to be made public.
The AEI, which deals with many other issues besides the Middle
East, had assets of $35.8m (23.2m) and an income of $24.5m in
2000, according to its most recent tax return.
It received seven donations of $1m or above in cash or shares, the
highest being $3.35m.
The Washington Institute, which deals only with Middle East
policy, had assets of $11.2m and an income of $4.1m in 2000. The
institute says its donors are identifiable because they are also
its trustees, but the list of trustees contains 239 names which
makes it impossible to distinguish large benefactors from small
ones.
The smaller Middle East Forum had an income of less than $1.5m in
2000, with the largest single donation amounting to $355,000.
In terms of their ability to influence policy, thinktanks have
several advantages over universities. To begin with they can hire
staff without committee procedures, which allows them to build up
teams of researchers that share a similar political orientation.
They can also publish books themselves without going through the
academic refereeing processes required by university publishers.
And they usually site themselves in Washington, close to
government and the media.
Apart from influencing policy on the Middle East, the Washington
Institute and the Middle East Forum recently launched a campaign
to discredit university departments that specialise in the region.
After September 11, when various government agencies realised
there was a shortage of Americans who could speak Arabic, there
were moves to beef up the relevant university departments.
But Martin Kramer, of the Washington Institute, Middle East Forum
and former director of the Moshe Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv
university, had other ideas.
He produced a vitriolic book Ivory Towers on Sand, which
criticised Middle East departments of universities in the US.
His book was published by the Washington Institute and warmly
reviewed in the Weekly Standard, whose editor, William Kristol,
was a member of the Middle East Forum along with Mr Kramer.
"Kramer has performed a crucial service by exposing intellectual
rot in a scholarly field of capital importance to national
wellbeing," the review said.
The Washington Institute is considered the most influential of the
Middle East thinktanks, and the one that the state department
takes most seriously. Its director is the former US diplomat,
Dennis Ross.
Besides publishing books and placing newspaper articles, the
institute has a number of other activities that for legal purposes
do not constitute lobbying, since this would change its tax
status.
It holds lunches and seminars, typically about three times a week,
where ideas are exchanged and political networking takes place. It
has also given testimony to congressional committees nine times in
the last five years.
Every four years, it convenes a "bipartisan blue-ribbon
commission" known as the Presidential study group, which presents
a blueprint for Middle East policy to the newly-elected president.
The institute makes no secret of its extensive links with Israel,
which currently include the presence of two scholars from the
Israeli armed forces.
Israel is an ally and the connection is so well known that
officials and politicians take it into account when dealing with
the institute. But it would surely be a different matter if the
ally concerned were a country such as Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi
Arabia.
Apart from occasional lapses, such as the publication of Mr
Kramer's book, the Washington Institute typically represents the
considered, sober voice of American-Israeli conservatism.
The Middle East Forum is its strident voice -- two different
tones, but mostly the same people.
Three prominent figures from the Washington Institute -- Robert
Satloff (director of policy), Patrick Clawson (director of
research) and Mr Rubin (prolific writer, currently at AEI) -- also
belong to the forum.
Daniel Pipes, the bearded $100,000-a-year head of the forum is
listed as an "associate" at the institute, while Mr Kramer, editor
of the forum's journal, is a "visiting fellow".
Mr Pipes became the bete noire of US Muslim organisations after
writing an article for the National Review in 1990 that referred
to "massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange
foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene".
Since he usually complains vigorously when the words are quoted
outside their original context, readers are invited to view the
full article at www.danielpipes.org. He is also noted for his
combative performances on the Fox News channel, where he has an
interesting business relationship. Search for his name on the Fox
News website and, along with transcripts of his TV interviews, an
advert appears saying "Daniel Pipes is available thru Barber &
Associates, America's leading resource for business, international
and technology speakers since 1977".
The Middle East Forum issues two regular publications, the Middle
East Quarterly and the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the
latter published jointly with the United States Committee for a
Free Lebanon.
The Middle East Quarterly describes itself as "a bold, insightful,
and controversial publication".
Among the insights in its latest issue is an article on weapons of
mass destruction that says Syria "has more destructive
capabilities" than Iraq, or Iran.
The Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, which is sent out by email
free of charge -- but can never-the-less afford to pay its
contributors -- specialises in covering the seamy side of Lebanese
and Syrian politics. The ever-active Mr Rubin is on its editorial
board.
The Middle East Forum also targets universities through its campus
speakers Bureau -- that in adopting the line of Mr Kramer's book,
seeks to correct "inaccurate Middle Eastern curricula in American
education", by addressing "biases" and "basic errors" and
providing "better information" than students can get from the many
"irresponsible" professors that it believes lurk in US
universities.
At a time when much of the world is confused by what it sees as an
increasingly bizarre set of policies on the Middle East coming
from Washington, to understand the neat little network outlined
above may make such policies a little more explicable.
Of course these people and organisations are not the only ones
trying to influence US policy on the Middle East. There are others
who try to influence it too -- in different directions.
However, this particular network is operating in a political
climate that is currently especially receptive to its ideas.
It is also well funded by its anonymous benefactors and is well
organised. Ideas sown by one element are watered and nurtured by
the others.
Whatever outsiders may think about this, worldly-wise Americans
see no cause for disquiet. It's just a coterie of like-minded
chums going about their normal business, and an everyday story of
political life in Washington.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PerleIsSrc.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PerleIsSrc.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PerleIsSrc.pdf (print ready)