Highlights from the PRA Right Web Program

Embedding the Analysts: Modern-Day Propaganda?
Commentary by Bill Berkowitz | May 8, 2008
An investigative exposé by the New York Times has revealed part of the Pentagon’s “information dominance” apparatus, through which it manipulated perceptions about the conflict in Iraq. Throughout the Iraq War, the Bush administration gave private briefings to selected military retirees, who then made public appearances as independent military experts. The brains behind this program belong to former Pentagon public affairs officer Victoria Clarke, who now works for one of the same TV networks that had been hoodwinked by her program.

Time for a Diplomatic Surge
Analysis By Carah Ong | April 29, 2008
The Bush administration seems to have placed the symbolic mantle of Enemy No. 1 on Iran’s shoulders, displacing al Qaeda from that position. But although the administration and various pundits paint a good guys-bad guys narrative to sell conflict to the American people, reality is far more muddled. Rather than demonizing Iran, the United States should focus on a diplomatic surge that includes direct, comprehensive, and unconditional talks not only on Iraq, but also on the range of outstanding issues between the two countries. What the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge is that when it comes to Iraq, U.S. and Iranian interests converge.

Bush’s Two-Man Song and Dance
Commentary by Ali Gharib | April 15, 2008
Last week David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker were trotted out before Congress and television talk shows to give a progress report on "the surge." They defended the high troop levels as necessary if things go well—and if they don't. What Petraeus and Crocker—as well as any of the like-minded war supporters in and out of the administration—failed to do was clearly define U.S. goals in Iraq, which makes sense because Washington has consistently failed to accomplish any of its goals since the war began. Clearly, solutions to fixing the mess in Iraq are not to be found in the hands of those who made it.

The Pitfalls of Forecasting Foreign Policy
By Leon Hadar | March 13, 2008
With change imminent in the Oval Office, it is fashionable to predict how the future occupant will handle foreign policy. Yet the popular method for doing this, examining campaign statements, is problematic and unreliable, as history makes clear. According to the Cato Institute's Leon Hadar, a far better barometer is one that assesses basic foreign policy dispositions by asking which camp candidates fall into—Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, or Wilsonian. But even then, surprises likely await.

An Early Look Ahead
John Isaacs | February 28, 2008
Three major contenders remain in the race for the White House. What can we expect from McCain, Clinton, and Obama on national security issues? John Isaacs gives a rundown of the candidates’ stances on everything from the Iraq War to the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

Iran and Israel, after the NIE
Bill Berkowitz | February 15, 2008
A familiar clutch of hardliners in Israel and the United States are campaigning to diminish the impact of last year’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which concluded that Tehran had halted its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Pundits and officials who were eager to see the Bush administration take military action against Iran now suggest that the NIE will force Israel to pursue that option alone.

Whither the Realists in 2008?
Jim Lobe | February 7, 2008
The failure of hardline, neoconservative-driven policies in Iraq and elsewhere led to the ascent of realists in the Defense and State departments—but can the realists withstand hawkish attacks and hold on to the progress they’ve made until Bush leaves office in 2009?