Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

National Strategy Information Center


[![Alternative text]!]

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The National Strategy Information Center (NSIC), founded in 1962, claims to be the first think tank to have advocated on national security strategy, low-intensity conflict, intelligence agency operations, and political warfare.[1] Over the past four decades, NSIC has worked with U.S. intelligence agencies to assess political and psychological warfare efforts and to collaborate with conservative labor union operations in Europe and Latin America. 

Among NSIC's founding directors are several trail-blazing neoconservative and right-wing figures, including  Richard Pipes, Joseph Coors, William Casey, Frank Shakespeare, Prescott Bush, Jr., and Frank Barnett.[2]

Along with NSIC contributors Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt, Barnett has been a leading advocate of Leo Strauss-inspired foreign policy notions entailing political warfare, psychological operations, and low-intensity conflict in the 1980s. A member of the Committee on the Present Danger, Barnett co-edited a 1989 National Defense University report on political warfare with fellow Straussian acolyte Carnes Lord entitled Political Warfare and Psychological Operations: Rethinking the U.S. Approach. The report advocates the dissemination of U.S. “propaganda” and the curtailment of foreign ideas and values.[3] Lord also served as a national security aide in the office of Vice President Dan Quayle, where he worked alongside William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard and the Project for the New American Century.

NSIC president Roy Godson served as a consultant to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) during the Ronald Reagan administration, when Schmitt was PFIAB's executive director. At the same time, Godson served as one of the main intermediaries between the private Nicaraguan contra support network and the National Security Council.[4] During the Cold War, he was closely connected with neoconservative organizations such as the Coalition for the Democratic Majority and the League for Industrial Democracy. Godson also served as the longtime director of the International Labor program at Georgetown University, where NSIC's Consortium for the Study of Intelligence is housed.[5] Godson’s father and brother, Joseph and Dean, served as key advocates of neoconservative ideas and organizations in the United Kingdom during the Cold War.[6]

NSIC has endeavored to keep up with changing strategic and tactical priorities since the the onset of the “war on terror.” In 2010, Roy Godson and Richard Shultz of the Fletcher School coedited the NSIC volume Adapting America’s Security Paradigm and Security Agenda. Contributing authors to the volume include former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Afghansitan, and the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, former deputy NATO commander Rupert Smith, and Marin Strmekci, vice president of the right-wing Smith Richardson Foundation.

Hyping the notion that the world is on the verge of chaos—with more than half the states on the globe purportedly failed or near failure—and that shadowy forces are engaged in an existential battle “against the West,” Godson and Shultz argue that a “paradigm shift” is needed to confront array of security challenges confronting the United States.[7] The volume claims “the highest priorities” are:

a.Reoriented and restructured military units whose primary mission is to prevail in these nontraditional irregular conflicts that the U.S. most likely will face.

b.Intelligence dominance through collection, analysis, and exploitation derived from local knowledge and operations in conflict zones.

c.Civilian and military stability units, trained, dedicated, and resourced to assist  indigenous leaders by bringing security, development, and rule of law principles to local areas.

d.Strategic communication principles becoming a major component of top down driven policy, implemented by career specialists educated for this purpose.

e.Political capabilities performed by small corps of trained professionals—military and civilian—with authorities, skills, and resources to forge coalitions among foreign state and nonstate actors.

Funding

In addition to the support it has received directly or indirectly from the U.S. government, NSIC has received funding from several right-wing foundations, including the Carthage Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[8]


Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close

    Contact Information

    National Strategy Information Center
    1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 500
    Washington, DC 20036-3117
    Phone: 202-429-0129
    Email: info@strategycenter.org
    Website: http://www.strategycenter.org/

     

    Founded

    1962

     

    About (as of 2010)

    ”The National Strategy Information Center (NSIC) identifies, researches, pilots, and promotes innovative strategies to enhance security and the quality of life in democratic societies. Founded as a nonpartisan, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, NSIC has been at the forefront of education about challenges to democratic institutions for nearly 50 years.”

     

    Selected Principals (as of 2010)

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Sources

[1]National Strategy Information Center, “About Us”, http://www.strategycenter.org/about/nsic.

[2]National Strategy Information Center, “Consortium for the Study of Intelligence: Founding Members, 1979,” http://www.strategycenter.org/about/csi.

[3]Carnes Lord and Frank Barnett, Political Warfare and Psychological Operations: Rethinking the U.S. Approach (National Defense University and National Strategy Information Center, 1989).

[4]Pat O’Brien, “House Probes Link Between Contras and Youth Commission,” March 23, 1987, United Press International.

[5]Georgetown University, “Roy S Godson”, http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/godsonr/.

[6]David Miller, “Reactionary Censorship in the UK: The Case of SpinProfiles,” Right Web, August 18, 2010, http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/reactionary_censorship_in_the_uk_the_case_of_spinprofiles.

[7]Roy Godson and Richard Shulz, “Adapting America’s Security Paradigm and Security Agenda,” National Strategy Information Center, http://www.strategycenter.org/files/adapting_the_paradigm.pdf.

[8]Media Matters Action Network, “Conservative Transparency: National Strategy Information, Inc.,” Media Matters, http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/National_Strategy_Information_Center_Inc_/funders.

Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org