Think Tank Town

[SWJED]

For the Council's 'Think Tank Junkies' from the Washington Post - Think Tank Town.

Washingtonpost.com edits and publishes columns submitted by 12 prominent think tanks on a rotating basis every other weekday. Each think tank is free to choose its authors and the topics it believes are most important and timely. Here are the participating organizations:

• American Enterprise Institute
• Brookings Institution
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Cato Institute
• Center for American Progress
• Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Heritage Foundation
• Hudson Institute
• Manhattan Institute
• New America Foundation
• RAND Corporation

[Tom Odom]

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

[marct]

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

Maybe Bill and Dave should contact them and offer our "services" - for a suitable remuneration .

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

A couple of other features:

• people here have much less "awe" of academic credentials and are more than happy to tell us ivory tower types that we are nuts ;
• people here tend to prefer experiential knowledge to academic knowledge - the pragmatic over the theoretical - so any theoretical plan or position gets vetted by pragmatists, not the other way around.

Marc

[Tom Odom]

people here have much less "awe" of academic credentials and are more than happy to tell us ivory tower types that we are nuts ;

Now, Marc, we all love you and admire your wisdom too much to use the word "nuts"

people here tend to prefer experiential knowledge to academic knowledge - the pragmatic over the theoretical - so any theoretical plan or position gets vetted by pragmatists, not the other way around.

That is a very good way of putting it!

Tom

[goesh]

I'm no expert on much of anything but I am smart enough to see exceedingly sharp pencils in a bin when I enter the bin - Tom's comment, "If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student." is spot on.

[Jimbo]

Quite often Think-Tank is more Tank than think. The joke about the CPA in Iraq was that it was the Heritage Foundation's summer camp program for college age youths.

[Tom Odom]

Jim

You made me laugh with that one!

Tom

[SWJED]

Quite often Think-Tank is more Tank than think. The joke about the CPA in Iraq was that it was the Heritage Foundation's summer camp program for college age youths.

Just finished Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran - even if only a portion is spot-on it was worse than I thought at the CPA.

[120mm]

My SGM spent a week in CPA HQ during the latter days of OIF I. Upon his return, he was moody, and when asked about his obviously bad attitude, he told me, "Sir, the way they lived there just pissed me off. But I think if YOU spent a week there, you would've killed some people."

I didn't ask him any more about it.

[jcustis]

Just finished Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran - even if only a portion is spot-on it was worse than I thought at the CPA.

Interesting coincidence that I just did the same during some recent TAD. It's on my list of books that I will recommend to the 1/3 that "get it", and yet still wonder how we got to where we are today in Iraq. It filled in quite a few of the gaps about Meghan O'Sullivan. A crying shame in many respects that "shoot-from the hip" was the accepted COA for operations.

[PhilR]

While we may be getting off of the thread. I found it enlightening to read Bremer's book immediately followed by Chandrasekan's (which is the order they were written and published also).
This brings up a point that may be worth a new thread. There are alot of recommended readings out there. Does anyone know/have guidance for a reading strategy--recommending certain books in a certain order IOT see countering idea, proposals, perspectives, etc.?
I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.
On the question of think tanks, I spent a whole tour at HQ Marine Corps with a primary task of tracking think tanks and reporting to the leadership. You are all correct that think tanks have no special insight that many others don't have. What they do have is access and the fact that they are part of the "revolving door" for government appointments. Want to know where the mid-level political appointees are for the next administration? Look to the think tanks. They are "honing" their positions and contacts.
With regards to entities such as SWJ/SWC, I see the established think tanks using these resources as primary sources to draw from (stealing with footnotes) for their reports.

[Tom Odom]

I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.

That makes two of us, on both counts, as I do agree with what Peters was saying on that occasion (and not much else).

This conflict has been quite interesting in the number and quality of books that it has produced--and the speed. Cobra II, Fiasco, State of Denial, Assassins' Gate, just to name the few I have purchased and read. I don't see the pace slowing at all as more eye-level works hit the shelves.

And of course, there is the "flavor of the day" with George Tenet's "They Were Mean to Me in DC" tell all. I would say a $4 million signing bonus should go nicely with his medal of freedom.

Tom

[Mark O'Neill]

While we may be getting off of the thread. I found it enlightening to read Bremer's book immediately followed by Chandrasekan's (which is the order they were written and published also).
This brings up a point that may be worth a new thread. There are alot of recommended readings out there. Does anyone know/have guidance for a reading strategy--recommending certain books in a certain order IOT see countering idea, proposals, perspectives, etc.?
I'm not a big Ralph Peter's guy, but I remember he made a statement that someone who reads one book is much more dangerous than someone who reads none. I never take a single book, good as it may be (and well-written does not equate to accurate or correct) as the "facts." They always need to be countered with other texts.
On the question of think tanks, I spent a whole tour at HQ Marine Corps with a primary task of tracking think tanks and reporting to the leadership. You are all correct that think tanks have no special insight that many others don't have. What they do have is access and the fact that they are part of the "revolving door" for government appointments. Want to know where the mid-level political appointees are for the next administration? Look to the think tanks. They are "honing" their positions and contacts.
With regards to entities such as SWJ/SWC, I see the established think tanks using these resources as primary sources to draw from (stealing with footnotes) for their reports.

Big call. I am a serving army officer seconded to a think tank. We certainly do not do what you claim. I have some experience and contact with some of the more credible US / UK think tanks. I would be very interested in any citation where you can substantiate the claim that people are 'stealing' from sites such as this.

Any credible (and I emphasis that point) think tank (CFR, Brookings, CSIS, INSS, ISS, RUSI, SSI, CNA et al) would not. Of course, there are a host of politically funded / inspired / special interest groups who run 'think tanks' that are not worthy of the name. They are perhaps better viewed as 'advocacy' tanks or 'spin' tanks. caveat emptor, as usual...

[PhilR]

I probably was too quick on the draw. My understanding of the question posed by goesh is that venues such as SWJ/SWC have enough horsepower to be a think tank. What I have seen, limited albeit is BLOGS, and other web-based "entities" such as SWJ being used as sources (and properly footnoted) in papers, and reports, etc.
The key is that SWJ provides a forum to get alot of info out, and to engage in discussion, but it is not set up or organized to have council members collectively create reports, or engage with clients (such as the government) etc.

[Rob Thornton]

If CoP / Blog discussions positively influence recommendations that have by virtue of connection and location have clout, then we are doing what we hoped to do. Directly or indirectly - a positive, well thought & informed recommendation is just that. Before, circles were rather limited - with CoPs such as SWJ we have increased the circle and inter linked them - making degrees of analysis available that before hand were not - as opposed to after the fact (we pick up on problems - and anticipate them - just as fast as anybody). We also do so while being free from some of the burden of physically being in a location and dealing with personalities.

I like what Tom said though about the behind the times bit - its not recognition of the site I think as much as recognition of how information and analysis flows today and how it might change/evolve tomorrow. Its much easier to recognize (as in identify) physical groups / organizations then it is communities that exist online. This is one of our problems combatting terrorist organizations - our culture likes to enumerate and quantify - we are empirical in our processes (Marc - I'm leaving you a huge opening here ).

The fact that people have a hard time recognizing things for what they are points to some of our problems in this fight and how the enemy is is often shape shifting in order to make them difficult to target - I'm starting to drift, but it sets up a good discussion I think.

[Jimbo]

What I have seen of the Think-Tank folks, is that they get people who are well schooled. They usually aren't out grabbing off of blogs (at least the good ones). There are "thought" Think-Tanks , and there are policy/political think-tanks (Heritage Foundation, etc.). The difference is who focuses on "power" and who focuses on programs/structures.

[marct]

Hi Rob,

I like what Tom said though about the behind the times bit - its not recognition of the site I think as much as recognition of how information and analysis flows today and how it might change/evolve tomorrow. Its much easier to recognize (as in identify) physical groups / organizations then it is communities that exist online. This is one of our problems combatting terrorist organizations - our culture likes to enumerate and quantify - we are empirical in our processes (Marc - I'm leaving you a huge opening here ).

That you are . Unfortunately, I have to log off in a couple of minutes and do a series of telephone interviews which are going to tie me up until 8 tonight <sigh>. I'll try and take off on it later....

The fact that people have a hard time recognizing things for what they are points to some of our problems in this fight and how the enemy is is often shape shifting in order to make them difficult to target - I'm starting to drift, but it sets up a good discussion I think.

I agree. At the same time, I think it is crucially important to look at the synergy of interaction. If by "empirical" we include "it works", then we have a situation where theories and models are spun out and then threshed by the flails of field experience. This is, to my mind really good science. Anyway, got to rush...

Marc

[davidbfpo]

Found elsewhere and fits here: http://www.cato.org/events/counterterrorism/index.html

Interesting range of issues and speakers - some of whose opinions I respect.

davidfpo

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

Very well put. I appreciate the emphasis here on first person experience, intelligent innovation.

[SNW]

Obviously the Wash Post is sorely behind the times as they do not recognize SWJ as an interactive think tank unlike any of the conventional, line and block chart, organizations they list, each of which operates along political lines sometimes disguised but often not.

If you think I am being silly, maybe so to a certain degree. But overall I am not. There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student.

Tom

I have to agree with you. I work at a Dutch think tank and, though perhaps by design, the product of the labors tends to be rooted in academia, with very little outputs derived from real-world experience.

When speaking to practitioners, many of them in the Hague say that while they respect what academics have to say, its often times quite difficult to put ivory-tower papers into practice.