Peace activist Bruce Gagnon has a history of carefully accumulating his facts before making claims. So when he shares an account of partisan organizations getting together to wrap up a package of “progressive” support for the escalation of war in Afghanistan, I grant him some credibility.
Gagnon found his way onto a conference call yesterday organized by the Truman National Security Project, the Progressive Policy Institute, the New Strategic Security Initiative, the National Security Network, the Third Way National Security Program and the Center for American Progress. The theme: “reasons for progressives to take heart from much of the President’s new strategy.”
When the call began, the administrators muted the voices of all participants but the representatives of these organizations, who then delivered up talking points for all the listeners to pass on. These talking points uniformly stressed the importance of progressive Americans supporting Barack Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan. My favorite came from the director of the “New Strategic Security Initiative”:
Progressives need to abandon the old talking points from Iraq and Vietnam… these policies need support… The American military is probably the most progressive agency we have today.
You can read more utterances like these at Gagnon’s post. When all callers were finally unmuted and allowed to participate, the organizations were flooded with progressives demanding to know who was in charge, what they were trying to do, and why anyone would think they’d pass on pro-war messages like that. Flummoxed as the enterprise went off message, the administrators quickly shut the conference call down.
Who are these people trying to organize a conference call to spread pro-war talking points among “progressives?” Let’s follow up on Bruce Gagnon’s enterprising work and find out where these organizations are and what they do.
How far do you have to zoom out on the map below to see the location of all five organizations listed above (I’m not counting the “New Strategic Security Initiative,” for reasons I’ll explain below)?
View Afghanistan Escalation Astroturfers in a larger map
As you can see, it turns out that each of the organizations participating in that conference call is a Beltway DC operation headquartered no more than a mile from the White House. More are quite a bit closer to the Oval Office than that. They have more than a neighborhood in common, as you’ll see below…
The Truman National Security Project
trumanproject.org
1420 K Street NW Suite 250, Washington, DC 20005
202-216-9723
Self-description: “progressive national security… very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s”
Mission statement:
The Truman National Security Project is a national security leadership institute, the nation’s only organization that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of progressives across America to lead on national security. Our mission is to provide the skills, knowledge, and network to create an influential force of leaders across the country who advance strong progressive national security policy.
Position: Support Barack Obama in troop deployment for counter-insurgency in Afghanistan (recommended reading: the RAND Corporation, a military think tank)
Advisors: Madeleine K. Albright
former Secretary of State, Clinton Administration
Leslie H. Gelb
President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations
William Marshall
President, Progressive Policy Institute
Founder, Democratic Leadership Council
William J. Perry
Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board
Former Secretary of Defense, Clinton Administration
Director, Preventive Defense Project
Former Board of Directors, Anteon International Corporation (military contractor)
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
John D. Podesta
President and CEO, Center for American Progress
White House Chief of Staff, Clinton Administration
Co-Chair, Barack Obama Presidential Transition
Wendy R. Sherman
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board
Board of Advisors, Center for a New American Security
The Progressive Policy Institute
ppionline.org
1301 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
202-525-3926
Mission statement:
Organization: The Progressive Policy Institute is a research and education institute that is a project of the Third Way Foundation Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Mission: PPI’s mission is to define and promote a new progressive politics for America in the 21st century. Through its research, policies, and perspectives, the Institute is fashioning a new governing philosophy and an agenda for public innovation geared to the Information Age.
Position: Support Barack Obama in troop deployment for counter-insurgency in Afghanistan
Staff: William Marshall, President
Founder, Democratic Leadership Council
Jim Arkedis, Director of National Security Project
Former Counterterrorism Analyst, U.S. Navy
“Published extensively within the confines of the intelligence community.”
Subsidiary of: Third Way Foundation, an arm of the DLC, both run by Al From.
National Security Network
nsnetwork.org
1225 I Street NW, Suite 307
Washington, DC 20005
202-289-5999
Motto: “Building a Strong Progressive National Security”
Mission statement:
Waging a smarter, stronger, and more comprehensive fight against terrorists and hostile states. We will keep deadly weapons out of our enemies’ hands; destroy terrorist networks; cut off terrorist recruitment through effective outreach to the Islamic world; and put into action an effective homeland security strategy that protects all Americans.
Position: Support Barack Obama’s troop deployment to Afghanistan
Founder: Rand Beers
Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate
Advisors: Leslie H. Gelb
President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations
Stanley S. Arkin
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Chairman, The Arkin Group (Private Intelligence Corporation)
Counsel for H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco
Sandy Berger
National Security Adviser, Clinton Administration
Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism Adviser on National Security Council, Clinton and Bush Administrations
Retired General Wesley Clark
Dr. Gail Furman
Child Psychologist and Democratic Party campaign funder
Charles A. Kupchan
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Member, National Security Council, Clinton administration
Lester Pollack
Founder and Chairman, Centre Partners Management Private Equity Firm
Theodore C. Sorensen
Member, Council on Foreign Relations
Special Counsel and Speechwriter to John F. Kennedy
Advisory Board, Partnership for a Secure America
Frank G. Wisner
Vice Chairman, AIG
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Advisory Board, Partnership for a Secure America
New Strategic Security Initiative
Although this dutiful regurgitation of the conference call’s talking points declares the “New Strategic Security Initiative” to be a “leading progressive organization,” the only mentions of it online are to put a title before the name of its apparent head, one Lorelei Kelly, and to describe it as part of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The website for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation nowhere mentions Lorelei Kelly or a “New Strategic Security Initiative.” Perhaps this effort is simply very, very “New.”
Third Way National Security Program
thirdway.org
1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 501
Washington, DC 20036
202-775-3768
Self-description: “We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas.”
Talking Points for Use in Media Markets:
With the announcement of President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan, some are questioning this renewed military commitment to that region. We believe that the President is right—we simply must provide enough American forces and other resources to constrict and crush al Qaeda and provide a measure of stability in Afghanistan to allow development to take root. Set forth below are some talking points for those leaders who support the President’s initiative:
• Restoring stability in Afghanistan is vital to America’s national security, and President Obama’s plan is the right approach to achieve this important objective.
• President Obama plan for Afghanistan is a dual track strategy that combines a renewed and military effort to provide some basic security to the Afghani people with a robust diplomatic and development push to restore confidence and stability.
• For the first time, the United States will have a clearly defined mission in Afghanistan with real benchmarks to measure achievement.
• President Obama’s announced deployment of 17,000 US troops will allow the international mission to finally reach the troops-to-population ratio in southern Afghanistan recommended by the Army Counterinsurgency
Manual.
• Deploying 4,000 troops to train the Afghan National Army will allow Afghanis to take a more active role in their security and help foster the legitimacy of the federal government.
• Under the President’s plan, there will be no more blank checks for the Afghan government. They must fight corruption, take on the drug trade and share power appropriately with regional governments.
• Pakistan will receive substantial foreign aid to provide economic opportunities for their citizens, but in exchange it must cut all government ties with the Taliban.
• The President is right to realize this is a regional challenge and to bring all of the neighboring powers to the table. Addressing regional problems, such as the dispute over Kashmir, will free these countries to work for a more stable Afghanistan rather than pursue their narrow interests in the country.
Position: Support Barack Obama’s troop deployment for counter-insurgency in Afghanistan
Honorary Senate Chairs (with our 111th Congress Progressive Action Score in parentheses):
Evan Bayh (27/100)
Tom Carper (33/100)
Mark Pryor (27/100)
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (27/100)
Claire McCaskill (20/100)
Mark Udall (40/100)
Honorary House Chairs (with our 111th Congress Progressive Action Score in parentheses):
Melissa Bean (31/100)
Joseph Crowley (42/100)
Artur Davis (19/100)
Gabrielle Giffords (38/100)
Jane Harman (54/100)
Ron Kind (27/100)
Center for American Progress
americanprogress.org
1420 K Street NW Suite 250, Washington, DC 20005
202-216-9723
Motto: “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just and Free America”
Mission statement:
Our policy experts cover a wide range of issue areas, and often work across disciplines to tackle complex, interrelated issues such as national security, energy, and climate change. This year, we are pushing to keep four leading issues at the center of the national debate:
1. Restoring America’s global leadership to make America more secure and build a better world.
2. Seizing the energy opportunity to create a clean, innovation-led economy that supports a sustainable environment.
3. Creating progressive growth that’s robust and widely shared, and restoring economic opportunity for all.
4. Delivering universal health care so that quality, affordable health services are available to all Americans.
Position: Support Barack Obama’s troop deployment to Afghanistan
President and CEO: John D. Podesta
White House Chief of Staff, Clinton Administration
Co-Chair, Barack Obama Presidential Transition
Advisor, Truman National Security Project
Executive Vice President: Sarah Rosen Wartell
Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Clinton Administration
Summary
Bruce Gagnon nailed it on the head: if the people and organizations behind this conference call may use the word “progressive,” but they represent one or more of three bases: public relations operators, Democratic officials from the Clinton and Obama administrations, and organizational actors in the military and foreign affairs establishment. All of the above organizations reside within the DC beltway, and all of them are working together to push out the new party line: that progressive Americans should line up behind President Barack Obama and support his escalation of war in Afghanistan.
Their effort is an attempt by powerful players in Washington, DC to manufacture the appearance of progressive grassroots support for the war in Afghanistan. They call it “Astroturf” these days, but way back when it had another name: propaganda. Enough.
My favorite affiliation on this list is the Hoover Institution. Look ‘em up. If it’s “progressive,” then I’m the Baroness Maude Thickwicket.
As an independent i think for myself and am open to any and all considerations, talking points, and party lines. i’m with Michael Moore (in his open letter to Obama http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/open-letter-president-obama-michael-moore) on this one. i think he’s already too far down the wrong road to HOPE that he’ll somehow turn it around before his term is up.
i now firmly believe that our government is totally corrupted by influential financial/corporate/Wall Street/military industrial/right-wing “Christian” lobbiests and that it no longer works the way it was designed – we no longer live in a democracy. All the machinations of Congress are to make legal the policies of these groups and we the sheeple are completely shut-out of the process now. Money talks and bullshit walks, as they say. NO ONE (or an ineffective minor few) represents our interests in Washington and the electoral process is pure side-show, giving the illusion that we are somehow “involved”. It’s a sham. The only way we’re going to get it back is by taking back our government. Failure to do this will only result in ever more hardship and pain. Voting isn’t working. We’ll have to find another way.
What’s the other way?
Obama campaigned on prioritizing Afghanistan so maybe this is what ppl voted for.
They voted for astroturf propaganda machines?
Whatever your ideas about the war in Afghanistan, the process that’s going on here is a problem.
If the military is the most progressive agency we have, then that’s a very negative statement on our society. Of course, it’s a load of bull.
This astroturf pro-war Democratic effort only amplifies my resolve to present honest anti-war voices.
These D.C. Democratic insiders seem to think that the progressive grassroots will go along with anything they say. They seem to think that we’re drooling idiots.