responding to 9/11: are think tanks thinking outside...

RESPONDING TO 9/11: ARE THINK TANKS THINKING

OUTSIDE THE BOX ?

July 31, 2003

James McGann, PhD Foreign Policy Research Institute

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program 1528 Walnut Street

Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19102

www.fpri.org

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 About the Author 2 Acknowledgments 4 Disclosure Statement 4 Introduction 5 Case Studies 12 Brookings Institution 12 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 17 Cato Institute 23

Center for Strategic & International Studies 27 Council on Foreign Relations 33

Heritage Foundation 39 Hudson Institute 42

RAND Corporation 44 Duplication and Gaps in Think Tanks Research 50 Conclusions 52 Appendices A. Terrorism Commissions Summary 58 B. Terrorism Commissions Report 60 C. Bibliography 64 Participant Synopsis Reports * *Unedited reports submitted by the participating institutions are attached as a separate addendum.

ii

Foreign Policy Research Institute A Catalyst for Ideas and Action Since 1955

FPRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to bringing scholarly insights and analysis to bear on US foreign policy. Since 1955, the Institute has provided timely analysis and concrete solutions to issues in the national and international interest. The Institute anticipates emerging issues and problems so it can provide ideas and policy options that inform and shape public debate. As one of the oldest and most respected foreign policy think tanks in the United States, FPRI is viewed as an indispensable resource by members of Congress, the executive branch, the media, the business community, and government officials at the local, national, and international level. While FPRI's principal audience is in the United States, it's programs and publications reach over 20,000 world leaders in 85 countries. Think Tank and Civil Societies Program FPRI’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) examines the role policy institutes play in governments and in civil societies around the world. Often referred to as the “think tanks' think tank," TTCSP examines the evolving role and character of public policy research organizations. The Program is directed by James G. McGann, Ph.D. ([email protected]), a Senior Fellow at FPRI and President of McGann Associates, a program and management consulting firm specializing in the challenges facing think tanks, international organizations, and philanthropic institutions. He is the author of The Competition for Dollars, Scholars and Influence in the Public Policy Research Industry (1991). In 1999, McGann completed an in-depth survey of all known public policy research organizations worldwide in order to develop an empirical base for research on the trends affecting think tanks, civil societies, and public policies. The results are available in The International Survey of Think Tanks, which summarizes the findings of Dr. McGann's research on 817 think tanks in 95 countries. This study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA) in Japan. Dr. McGann and R. Kent Weaver (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution) edited an international comparative study of public policy research organizations entitled, Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalyst for Ideas and Action (Transaction, 2000). TTCSP’s current research agenda is provided below. Visit our website, www.fpri.org, for additional information about our publications and programs. Current Research Agenda

Comparative Politics and Public Policy Series Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy in Europe Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy in North & South America Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy in Asia Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy in Africa & Middle East Think About the Future of Think Tanks Think Tanks and the Political Transformation of Germany Think Tanks in Britain and US The Rise of the Euro Tank Why Iraq Needs a Think Tank Think Tanks and Transnationalization of US Foreign Policy Think Tanks and Transnational Security Threats

iii

Executive Summary

Thinking Outside the Box: Think Tanks’ Response to 9/11 In this study, Dr. James McGann evaluates terrorism-related research efforts conducted by eight leading U.S. public policy research institutions while exploring some of the more fundamental and troubling trends impacting on these institutions that ”help government think.” By examining the overall response of think tanks prior to and after 9/11, the study attempts to explain how external pressures have affected the research agendas of think tanks and more specifically their response terrorism, counter terrorism, and homeland security. The working hypothesis is that changes in the funding and policy environments in which think tanks operate and shifts in the strategy and structure of think tanks in response to these changes has served to seriously impair their role as agents of ideas and innovation. The report studies eight leading think tanks in the United States in order to examine these trends and their impact more closely(Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Cato Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and RAND Corporation).

The case studies demonstrate that while there has been a spike in the number of terrorism-related research, analysis, and public engagement activities at each of these institutions since 9/11, there appears to be a lack financial resources and critical thinking to support and sustain a truly effective response to the events of 9/11. The study recommends that a critical reexamination of independent public policy research institutes and their role as policy advisers needs to be undertaken to identify effective strategies and structures for encouraging innovative, interdisciplinary public policy research. It concludes that a new architecture for how think tanks are funded is urgently required. Finally, it suggests that specific interventions must be launched to help develop the critical mass of researchers and analysts that will be needed to confront the domestic and international challenges that lie ahead. In conclusion, the study recommends that if we want our think tanks to be able to effectively challenge the conventional wisdom in Washington, we must be prepared to strengthen these institutions so that innovation, diversity, and collaboration can flourish once again.

1

About the Author James G. McGann, Ph.D. Senior Fellow and Director Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program Dr. James McGann is president and founding partner of McGann Associates, a program and management consulting firm specializing in the challenges facing think tanks, policy makers, international organizations and philanthropic institutions. Established in 1989, McGann Associates counts many leading U.S. and overseas policy institutions, foundations, and international organizations as its clients. Dr. McGann has served as the senior vice president for the Executive Council on Foreign Diplomats, a private organization that assists the U.S. Department of State by providing international and economic affairs programs for foreign diplomats, senior government officials, and corporate executives. In that capacity, he developed programs focusing on aid, trade and development issues involving diplomats from Russia, Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and Latin America who are posted in the U.S. In addition he helped develop and administer the U.S. Foreign Policy Briefing Program for foreign ambassadors posted in Washington and New York. From 1983–89, Dr. McGann served as public policy program officer for The Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the largest private charitable foundations in America. In this capacity, he directed a $10-million grants program and launched a series of multimillion-dollar domestic policy and international affairs initiatives involving many of the leading think tanks and university research centers in the United States. These initiatives included the Pew Diplomatic Training Program and the Economics and National Security Program. Dr. McGann has been assistant director of the Institute of Politics, John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard University. He currently is an adjunct professor of Political Science at Villanova University, where he teaches international politics and domestic and foreign policy courses. Dr. McGann earned his master’s degree and doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania. His doctoral thesis examined the nature and evolution of public policy research organizations in the United States by comparing and contrasting the mission, structure and operating principles of some of the leading think tanks (Brookings Institution, Rand Corporation, American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Urban Institute, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Institute for Policy Studies, Institute for International Economics and Cato Institute) to determine how these factors influence their role in the policy making process. Dr. McGann also holds a master’s degree from Temple University, where he specialized in the administration of non-profit organizations. He has published numerous articles and books on a range of issues, including a book on think tanks entitled The Competition for Dollars, Scholars and Influence (University Press of America, 1995) which examines the strategy and structure of public policy research organizations and their role in the policy making process in the U.S. He has edited with Kent B.Weaver of the Brookings Institution, an international comparative study of public policy research organizations entitled Think Tanks and Civil Societies: Catalyst for Ideas and Action (Transaction, 2000). Dr. McGann is also the author of The International Survey of Think Tanks (Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2000), which summarizes the findings of his research on 817 think tanks in 95 countries. This study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA) in Japan. Dr. McGann is currently researching and writing a book entitled Ideas and Influence: Think Tanks, Politics and Public Policy (Edward Elgar, 2003). Dr. McGann has served as a senior advisor to the Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs and the Society for International Development. In addition, he is a consultant and advisor to the World Bank, United Nations, United States Agency for International Development, Soros Foundation and foreign governments on the role of nongovernmental, public policy and public engagement organizations in civil society. He served as a consultant to several USAID-supported organizations working in Russia and the Ukraine. This work

2

included a long-term assignment for one of the largest USAID supported organizations operating in the region. Dr. McGann developed a strategic plan and a plan for an endowment for several nongovernmental organizations in the Middle East for USAID. He is a former associate of the Una Chapman Cox Foundation, a member of the Philadelphia Committee on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of both the International Visitors Council and Forum International. He also serves as a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in England. He is a dual citizen of the U.S. and EC.

3

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank the eight institutions that participated in the study for being so generous with their time and information. Clearly without their cooperation this project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my very dedicated and able research interns, Marc R. Fenichel, Sonul Mehta, Hilary Rosen and Chelsea Petersen, for their assistance in collecting, researching and analyzing the data. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and the University of Pennsylvania who made numerous constructive interventions during the course of the study.

Disclosure Statement I was asked on several occasions who was funding this study. The answer was and remains quite simple. There was no public or private support of any kind (grants, contracts, gifts, etc.) provided for this project. Furthermore, none of the institutions participating in the study are current or former clients of McGann Associates.

©2003, Foreign Policy Research Institute

All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this monograph may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Foreign Policy Research Institute. All requests, questions and comments should be sent to: James G. McCann, Ph.D. Senior Fellow and Director Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program Foreign Policy Research Institute 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19102

4

Introduction

We cannot meet our day-to-day problems unless we think more intensely, more profoundly, and more wisely about fundamentals than we have in the past.

On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda launched an efficient and effective strike on the United States using unconventional asymmetrical means to achieve their terrorist objectives. This day had and will continue to have a profound impact on how Americans view themselves and the world. Accordingly, it is critical to examine why the US was so unprepared for an attack on its soil by an enemy from abroad and, more importantly, its long-term impact on our domestic and international security. We must carefully consider the broad, long-term implications of 9/11 and construct a coherent set of policies and programs that effectively respond to the challenges we face in the post-9/11 world. In the past, public policy research organizations, or “think tanks,” have played a critical role in the policymaking process and have served as catalysts for ideas, innovation, and action. This study takes a critical look at some of the leading think tanks in the United States to determine what, if any, contribution they are making to how we think about terrorism and its related issues. Prior to launching the study, a thorough review of the websites and published materials of the top twenty public policy research institutions in the United States was conducted to determine the nature and scope of their work on the subject of terrorism and homeland security.

2001 Budgets of Top 20 Think Tanks (in $ million) Organization Actual Expenses

Rand Corporation $ 169.0 Urban Institute 64.5

Heritage Foundation 335 Hoover Institute on War, Revolution, & Peace 30.9

Brookings Institution 30.2 Council on Foreign Relations 25.7

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 20.8 Center for Strategic and International Studies 16.9

American Enterprise Institute 16.3 Cato Institute 14.0

Russell Sage Foundation 14.0 Resources for the Future 12.0

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 7.7 Manhattan Institute 7.1

Hudson Institute 7.1 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 6.3

Institute for International Economics 5.7 Committee for Economic Development 4.4

National Center for Policy Analysis 5.2 Progressive Policy Institute 2.5

Source: IRS 990s for 2001.

5

After carefully reviewing the programs and materials of these 20 institutions, eight institutions were selected for in-depth analysis:

Brookings Institution Council on Foreign Relations

Center for Strategic and International Studies Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Cato Institute Heritage Foundation

Hudson Rand Corporation These institutions were chosen because they have established programs in national security and international affairs, reputations for doing high-quality research and analysis, and a critical mass of research projects on terrorism and homeland security. In addition, a conscious effort was made to a create universe of institutions that included a broad spectrum of political viewpoints, organizational structures and approaches to public policy research and analysis. The study does not include for-profit consulting firms, government sponsored or affiliated research centers, or university-affiliated think tanks.

The eight institutions were asked to provide a detailed inventory of the activities associated with their response to the events of 9/1, as well as a list of the activities pre-9/11 that focused on terrorism and homeland security. A profile of each institution was developed that includes the institution’s history and purpose and a representative activity summary of pre- and post- 9/11 research, analysis, and outreach activities. A comparative analysis of the activities of each institution was conducted to determine the nature and scope of these think tanks’ response to 9/11. An assessment of some of the internal and external factors facing think tanks was then considered to determine what if any impact they have had on the think tanks’ response to 9/11.

The central question raised by this study is whether the role of think tanks as sources of ideas and innovation has been seriously impaired by changes that have taken place in the funding and policy environment. Our research and the research of others in this field has revealed that some think tanks have allowed their research agendas to be limited by the parameters set by academic disciplines, ideologues, partisan politics, and financial supporters. Have these factors clouded the vision of think tanks so much that they are failing to provide the critical ideas and analysis that policy makers and the American public need if we are to meet today’s domestic and international challenges? More importantly, are our best and brightest challenging conventional wisdom and the status quo or are they thinking the predictable while our foes think the unthinkable?

6

Think Tanks as Catalysts for Ideas and Innovation

There will be no end to the trouble of state, or indeed of humanity itself, till the philosophers become kings in the world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers.

The term “think tank” was first introduced in the United States during the Second World War to describe the secure environment in which military and civilian experts developed invasion plans and other combat strategies. By the 1970s, the term was expanded to include a wide range of institutions that performed research and analysis on foreign policy and defense strategy, as well as on current political, economic, and social issues. At the broadest level, think tanks may be defined as institutions that perform policy research, analysis, and public engagement activities. These organizations exist to bridge the gap between the knowledge of scholars and the power of policymakers and other political leaders. Think tanks are often described as “universities without students” in which a critical mass of intellectuals and specialists are brought together to conduct interdisciplinary research and analysis. Given the available financial resources and the quality and breadth of the scholars’ knowledge, think tanks provide a critical role in the policymaking process. This study focuses on three types of ideal think tanks that populate the policymaking community. Each differs in its style of operation, patterns of recruitment, and aspirations to academic standards of objectivity. Most think tanks may be understood as a variation on one or more of the three basic types: academic think tanks, contract researchers, and advocacy-oriented think tanks. The first two types, academic and contract research think tanks, have many similarities: both recruit staff with strong academic credentials from prestigious universities; both place an emphasis on the rigorous use of social science research methods; and, both put a premium on objective, independent, and credible research. They differ, however, in their sources of funding, agenda, and scholarly output. Academic oriented think tanks, such as the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, are funded by a combination of private foundations, corporations, and individuals. They function according to the collegial consensual model of management, in which the agenda is set internally through a bottom-up process and staff researchers play a vital role. Research outputs of academic think tanks most often take the form of book-length studies and journal articles. Researchers such as those at the RAND Corporation, a contract research institution, are hired as program and policy consultants and may consequently experience some tension between scholarly objectivity and the policy preferences of their agenda-setting clients. Outputs generally take the form of reports to those clients rather than publicly circulated books and articles. Advocacy think tanks operate independently of the government but are linked to specific ideological interest and/or agendas. Their objective is to win the war of ideas, which may or may not coincide with the identification of the best policies. Financial resources are disproportionately drawn from sources linked to their ideological interests. In general terms these organizations can be best described as “think and do tanks” because they have an agenda

7

and they want to have that agenda realized. Their staffs typically are drawn more heavily from government, political parties, and interest groups rather than from university faculties and are therefore less “credentialed” than their academic oriented counterparts. Policy enterprises such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute fuse the organizational structure and characteristics of newspapers and Madison Ave marketing firms. In addition, a corporate management style and a “just-in-time” distribution system is designed to get their ideas and proposals to the right people at the right time. A heavy emphasis is placed on marketing their studies, which have a journalistic quality and often focus on current legislation and immediate policy concerns. Most think tanks do not fit neatly into one category, and the distinctions among them are increasingly blurred. For instance, most think tanks would now characterize themselves as being “think and do tanks” to one degree or another. Therefore, it is best to envision think tanks as a continuum of structures and functions rather than any set of rigid categories. Historically, the growth of think tanks is tied to a series of major political, social, and economic events that shattered conventional wisdom and forced policymakers to seek creative solutions to new and complex problems. In the early part of the century, the challenges of managing an industrial economy coupled with an increase of commitments abroad created a demand to bring science and reason to government. A handful of policymakers and philanthropists believed that institutions were needed whose primary focus was not teaching, but research and analysis. Leaders of the earliest wave of think tanks believed that modern science could be used to solve social, economic, and political problems. They brought expert, nonpartisan, and disinterested advice to government policymakers. Following World War II, there was another proliferation of think tanks in response to the increase in domestic and international pressures challenging American policymakers. The Truman administration recognized the vital contribution of defense scientists during the war and endorsed the continuation of funding for private and university-based research centers. Like the earlier philanthropists, policymakers recognized the benefits of independent research institutes that had the ability to engage in long-term strategic research without the time constraints and day-to-day responsibilities of government officials. The federal government sought and relied on nonpartisan analysis of defense policy from RAND and the Hudson Institute, who had assembled a critical mass of the best defense scientists in the country. The social turmoil of the 1960s and its associated political pressures provided the incentive for the creation of the Urban Institute and other think tanks that served as the architects for the social and environmental institutions and programs (Environmental Protection Agency, War on Poverty, Urban Revitalization) that came into being during this period. Subsequently, in the mid 1970s and 1980s, there was a rapid expansion of advocacy-oriented think tanks that were organized to advance a particular philosophy and to market their ideas to various target audiences. Founders and leaders of advocacy think tanks recognized the importance of engagement in the political arena and were determined to aggressively and effectively influence policymakers, the public, and the media. In this regard, they became the main proponents of deregulation, devolution of government programs to the states and increased defense spending.

8

Clearly, certain classes of think tanks came into existence at critical moments in American history. Some were created to advance new policies or programs; others were created to challenge the conventional wisdom during of after a major event. Similarly, 9/11 signifies another momentous point in American history. Although the creation of a whole new generation of policy institutions is not needed, it is essential that think tanks raise above the narrow interest and short term orientation of many members of Congress so that they can see the larger picture. In addition, the think tank community will have to overcome the programmatic and financial constraints imposed by certain donors and the limitations of their own mission and organizational structure in order to think more broadly and boldly about the challenges that lie ahead. Leading institutions must strive to conduct independent, innovative, and interdisciplinary research if they are to fulfill their valuable and necessary role in the policy process after 9/11. It is important to remember that think tanks emerged, in part, to ameliorate the shortcomings and inadequacies of the government policymaking process. Think tanks are relatively small, have no vested bureaucratic interests, and their scholars thrive on informality, relatively free from the pressure of immediate deadlines and other day-to-day responsibilities. They earned their reputation in American society as an active part of the policy process because it is believed that they are immune to many of the problems plaguing planning and adaptation in government. First, think tanks strive to be future oriented. Economic, social, and technological changes continue to accelerate. Therefore, certain planning is required so that a government can meet not only today’s challenges, but anticipate tomorrow’s as well. However, governments do not adapt to change or plan particularly well. Bureaucratic culture thrives on predictability and a stable environment. Policymakers have trouble thinking past immediate concerns, which are generally more interesting and rewarding; consequently, elaborate future planning seems costly and overly theoretical. Think tanks, on the other hand, have always put a premium on planning and forecasting. RAND (an acronym for Research ANd Development) was a prototype in this regard. For example, through the RAND Corporation’s federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), scholars are able to engage in problems that require the sustained analytical attention of many disciplines over extended periods of time. RAND operates three FFRDCs1 in the field of national security, and they have undertaken numerous and wide-ranging projects to aid future planning and operations in government agencies. Bureaucracies also do not question their own goals or basic organization—except, perhaps, in institutional emergencies. One example is the breakdown of interagency communication and the failure of the FBI and CIA to share intelligence information in the time leading up to 9/11. Although various intelligence agencies had identified specific al-Qaeda operatives as possible terrorists, the bits and pieces of information were not pieced together or effectively communicated to the appropriate departments or managers for action.

1 Project Air Force, the oldest FFRDC, is sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Air Force. The National Defense Research Institute is sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the defense agencies, the Unified Commands, and the Joint Staff. The Arroyo Center is sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army.

9

Think tanks, when they are doing what they are designed to do, can think outside the box. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations organized a task force chaired by Maurice R. Greenberg and Richard N. Haas and published a report in 1997 titled, “Making Intelligence Smarter.” The report acknowledged intelligence as a vital tool of U.S. national security and called for internal reorganization of the current methods of collection, production, and dissemination of intelligence information. Additionally, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security by President Bush is the largest reorganization of the federal government in over fifty years. The concept for the new department emanated from unsuccessful previous attempts to coordinate antiterrorism efforts and a reprioritization of U.S. policies after 9/11. Several scholars at leading think tanks, particularly at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and at the Heritage Foundation, argue that Congress must further institutionalize an environment of continuous assessment and evolution through a reorganization of the Congressional Committee System. They contend that there are currently too many committees and subcommittees with oversight responsibility for various aspects of homeland security. Therefore, organizational reform of Congressional management is a necessary continuation of the President’s vision for a successful and efficient Department of Homeland Security. The government is also composed of strong agencies each with its own interests, clients, and policy preferences. Bureaucracies sometimes collaborate, and sometimes the collaboration is institutionalized to some degree. It is obviously impossible to develop an overall U.S. policy on the campaign against terrorism in Afghanistan, for example, without input from the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the White House NSC staff, the relevant Congressional committees, the CIA, the NSA, and so forth. Think tanks utilize their convening power to bring together agency officials for briefings or conferences in which reports are widely disseminated on particular policy issues. Carnegie Endowment moved quickly to convene networks of individuals and institutions to address a range of problems and issues raised by the war on terrorism (WOT). Another example of this is the forward-looking program called Red Team B that was organized by the Hudson Institute and gathered experts from the public and private sectors and a cross section of disciplines to contemplate what comes next in the WOT. Think tanks also serve as “holding tanks” for policymakers who are out of office or out of power and talent pools for the executive and legislative branches of the government. As former members of various government agencies, they aid the cross-fertilization process among competing organizations. Moreover, policy problems are interconnected, interdisciplinary, and often characterized by a degree of uncertainty. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, explains, “Bureaucratic evaluations tend to be safe and limited. And when there’s something extraordinary going on, the bureaucrats miss it...What bureaucrat would have understood in the 1930’s what Hitler was doing? It was outlandish. It was inconceivable. What bureaucrat could understand what Ayatollah Khomeini was up to?” Finally, policymakers are besieged by more information than they can possibly use. Information flows from constituents, international agencies, civil society organizations, bureaucrats, interest groups, the media, and so forth. Some of this information is unsystematic,

10

unreliable, difficult to understand, or tainted by various interests. Policymakers need information that is understandable, reliable, accessible, condensed, and decision-oriented. There are many potential sources for this information. Think tanks widely disseminate information and are sometimes more readily able to tell government officials the meaning of the information. For example, the Heritage Foundation published the Issues 2002 Candidate Briefing Book. Each chapter on one of the twenty-four issues provides the candidate with a quick identification of key issues and policy problems facing Congress and the Executive Branch, facts to support the presentation of issues, a comprehensive analysis of issues and facts, and a list of contact information for scholars who specialize in each particular issue. CD-Rom capabilities allow candidates to do a quick engine search on particular information for policy papers, speeches, media interviews, and debates. The Issues book provides strong, yet concise summaries on a variety of policy issues; and, it simultaneously informs and influences policymakers and potential political leaders. Unbiased, future-oriented, and unconventional research and proper dissemination of this research determines the success of think tanks in fulfilling their mission as sources of innovations and ideas. The subsequent chart briefly previews the universe of think tanks included in this study. The case studies that follow provide a more in-depth analysis on the quality of think tanks research and responses to 9/11.

Overview of Participating Institutions

Institution Staff Size Total 2001 Budget

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

126 resident, 54 adjunct $16,896,056

Brookings Institute (BI)

98 resident, 173 adjunct, 48 visiting

$30,227,800

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)


$25,720,500

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP)

140 $20,799,684

RAND Institute (RAND) 640 resident, 460 adjunct $169,046,925

Cato Institute 37 resident, 31 adjunct $14,045,306

Heritage Foundation (HF)


$33,481,921

Hudson Institute (HI)


$7,110,011

Figures based on 990s submitted to the IRS

11

Case Studies Brookings Institution Established in 1916, The Brookings Institution is an independent, nonpartisan organization devoted to research, analysis, education, and publication focused on public policy issues in the areas of economics, foreign policy, and governance. The goal of Brookings activities is to improve the performance of American institutions and the quality of public policy by using social science to analyze emerging issues and to offer practical approaches while serving as a bridge between scholarship and policymaking. In the immediate wake of 9/11, Brookings created three main programs to function as the infrastructure for its newly found concentration on the terrorist threat. The first program, America’s Response to Terrorism, was started in August 2001 under the name Brookings Project on Terrorism. The project has produced several analysis papers, namely “The New National Security Strategy and Preemption,” by Michael O’Hanlon, Susan Rice, and James Steinberg, which examines the implications of the Bush administration’s preemptive strategy for the WOT. The second program established in fall 2001 was the Brookings Project on Homeland Security. The program’s mission is to study the problems of homeland security, assess progress to date, and propose a broad framework for understanding the challenge of homeland security as well as specific steps the country should take. Since President Bush’s announcement to establish a Department of Homeland Security, the project has focused its efforts on critiquing the set proposal. Accordingly, on July 15, 2002, the project released a report entitled Assessing the Department of Homeland Security. More recently, Brookings Press released a new book-length, collaborative study by seven of its fellows, Protecting the American Homeland. In fall 2001 the institute also established the Brookings Project on US Policy Towards the Islamic World, with the purpose of considering how the American government can be effective in its global war on terror while promoting good relations with the Islamic world. It has sponsored a Visiting Fellows Program to bring scholars from the Islamic world to Washington, D.C. It will hold a series of regional conferences, release papers and monographs.

Among the topics to be explored by the project are the present political dynamics across the Islamic world, the impact of development and modernity, the underpinnings of radical movements and networks of extremists, as well as focused and comparative country and radical group studies. One paper issued so far, “Time for the Hard Choices,” by P. W. Singer, examines the hard decisions America will have to make in balancing issues such as America’s role in the Mideast peace process, diplomacy with Islamic nations, Islamic anti-American sentiment worldwide, the broad WOT and the challenges the US will have to meet in between.

In addition, since 9/11 Brookings fellows have made numerous television and radio appearances and have testified before Congress on issues ranging from the dynamics of a possible war with Iraq to proposals for a new agency of homeland security to other, more general topics of terrorism and the US response.

12

Finally, the Brookings Institution has also established extensive web resources through

which the public can access detailed information about terrorism, www.brookings.edu/terrorism. The website makes accessible to the public chronological lists of past terrorist attacks, maps of areas relevant to global terrorism such as the Middle East and Central Asia, official speeches made on terrorism, homeland security budget information, and links to government web sites related to terrorism.

13

Brookings Institution: Summary of 9/11-related Activities

Books/Journals, Publications

1)Reducing Collateral Damage to Indo-Pakistani Relations from the War on Terrorism (policy brief) 2) Should the War on Terrorism Target Iraq? Implementing a Bush Doctrine on Deterrence (policy briefing) 3) Globalization in the Aftermath: Target, Casualty, Callous Bystander? (Analysis Paper) 4) The Business of Congress After September 11: A Look Back and at What’s Ahead for 2002 (policy dialogue) 5) Government’s Greatest Priorities of the Next Half Century (reform watch brief) 6) Government’s Greatest Achievements: From Civil Rights to Homeland Security (book by Paul C Light) 7) United We Serve (Special Edition of the Brookings Review, focused on Service, Civic Engagement, and Citizenship) 8) Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (book by Paul R. Pillar) 9) Protecting the American Homeland by O'Hanlon, Michael E., Peter R. Orszag, Ivo H. Daalder, I.M. Destler, David Gunter, Robert E. Litan, and James B. Steinberg

Op-eds / Articles

Many op-eds in the major newspapers across the country on the following topics: the WOT as it relates to US foreign policy, multilateralism, trade, the international economy, peacekeeping and nation-building, and WMD; the Afghanistan war model; potential war with Iraq; homeland security; America since 9/11.

Reports/ White Papers

Several reports issued addressing areas of homeland defense; evaluation of the Bush administration’s strategy in the WOT at home and abroad; America since 9/11; commentary on WOT looking forward and backward.

Task Forces Brookings Project on Terrorism: focuses on the short- and log-term challenges posed by international terrorism and addressing terrorism as it relates to the Middle East, India and Pakistan, Central and East Asia, Iraq, Europe, US foreign policy, defense/homeland security, refugees, globalization and trade, budget and tax policy, and economic forecasting.

Brookings Project on Homeland Security: study of the problem of homeland security, assess progress to date, and propose a broad framework for understanding the challenge of homeland security as well as specific steps the country should take. Authored “Protecting the American Homeland”

Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward the Islamic World: aimed to respond to the challenges the U.S. will face in the coming years, both in continuing war on global terrorism and in promoting positive relations with the Islamic world. Regional conference on Oct.19-21 in Dohar, Qatar.

Events and Conferences

- Many conferences, roundtables, and forums conducted to facilitate a greater exchange of ideas and expertise on the subject of terrorism between policymakers and experts.

- Forums held to examine: the changes in America one year after 9/11; government/press problems; the use of new media technology and the economics of providing adequate war coverage; controlling foreign money that supports terrorism; evaluating the ramifications of and the current situation in Afghanistan and the broader anti-terrorism campaign; analyzing current strategies of homeland security and making further recommendations; how international laws of war relate to the WOT and in Afghanistan; the role of foreign-assistance in long-term strategies for countering terrorism.

Web/Computer Resources

Extensive website at www.brookings.edu/terrorism. Includes information about current and past projects, press releases, events, testimonies, reports, and publications.

Congressional Testimony

Briefings on how and when to create a cabinet-level agency to address homeland security; general testimony from the Brookings Project on Terrorism and the Brookings Project on Homeland Security. Testimonies include issues of homeland security; the military WOT; the extension of campaign into Iraq; financial counterterrorism; foreign aid; promoting the image of the U.S. in the Islamic World; the danger of WMD.

Media Appearances

Numerous television and radio commentary on homeland security strategy and broader issues of terrorism

14

Brookings Institution: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

America’s Response to Terrorism

Created by Brookings in August 2001 to focus on the short- and long-term challenges posed by international terrorism and addressing terrorism as it relates to the Middle East, India and Pakistan, Central and East Asia, Iraq, Europe, American Foreign Policy, defense/homeland security, refugees, globalization and trade, budget and tax policy, and economic forecasting. On Nov. 13, 2001, the project changed to its current name and adjusted its studies accordingly, holding briefings and roundtables, and releasing numerous relative articles and books sponsored by its new focus on the subject. Brookings fellow James Lindsay is the projects director.

Brookings Project on Homeland Security

Created by Brookings to study the problem of homeland security, assess progress to date, and propose a broad framework for understanding the challenge of homeland security as well as specific steps the country should take. Since President Bush’s announcement to establish a Department of Homeland Security, the project has focused its efforts on critiquing the set proposal. On July 15, 2002 the project released a report entitled Assessing the Department of Homeland Security.

Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World

The project was created in response to 9/11 with the aim of responding to the challenges the U.S. will face in the coming years, both in continuing war on global terrorism and in promoting positive relations with the Islamic world. It has sponsored a Visiting Fellows Program to bring scholars from the Islamic world to Washington, D.C. It will hold a series of regional conferences and release analysis publications periodically. The project coordinator is P. W. Singer

Visiting Fellows Program

Started in response to 9/11 in accordance with the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World in order to bring scholars from the Islamic region to Brookings to support research in U.S. relations with and policy towards the Islamic world.

Brookings Institution – Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Terrorism (General) WMD Books/ Publications

1. Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy

1. Defending America

Op-Eds/ Articles

1. “Does Terrorism Work?” 2. “West Shouldn't Back Russia's

Crackdown on Islamic Terror” “This Time a Message; Next Time Get

Him”

1. “A New Agenda for Nuclear Weapons” 2. “Strategic Failure: U.S., Russia Are

Losing Momentum to Reduce Nuclear Risk”

Issue Papers 1. “Terrorism: What are the Threats and How Do We Respond?”

“Root Out, but Don't Bomb Out, Terrorism”

Policy Briefs 1. “Beyond Missile Defense: Countering Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction”

Project/ Programs

1. Project on Terrorism and American Foreign Policy (later changed to America’s Response to Terrorism)

15

Clearly, the Brookings Institution demonstrates a great deal of interest and focus on terrorism-related research. Prior to 9/11, Brookings was involved in several projects regarding terrorist threats, including two books on terrorism and WMD, as well as numerous editorials on Islamic terror and nuclear weapons. Since then, it has produced nine major publications, many editorials, several reports, forums, and an extensive website, but also has five major task forces. Its efforts to provide analyses are unquestionable, but its research agenda appears to be fairly conventional and overly bound by academic structure. In addition, staff changes provide some additional constraints that may have diminished Brookings output and impact during this critical period.

On the other hand, Brookings endowment provided it with a degree of flexibility that has

enabled it to move the necessary resources and personnel so that it could mount a program of research in fairly short period of time. Finally, one would have expected a greater degree of collaboration and synergies to have developed between Brookings and Carnegie given physical proximity to one another. There appears to be a fair amount of overlap in their programs but no clear indication that collaboration is taking place between these two institutions.

16

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Established in 1910 by Andrew Carnegie, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a nonpartisan research institute dedicated to the education of the public about peace, the promotion of cooperation among nations, and the encouragement of active international engagement by the United States. The scholars and analyst at Carnegie address issues that extend over many geographic regions and focus on relations among governments, businesses, international organizations, and civil society. Prior to 9/11 much of Carnegie concentrated on the economic, political, and technological changes that drive globalization and the transformation of world politics. Immediately following 9/11, Carnegie conducted many “rapid response” activities focused on areas of staff expertise. Opinion editorials began to appear immediately—Bob Kagan’s op-ed, “We Must Fight This War,” was printed in the 9/11 late edition of the Washington Post. By the end of September, a dozen articles and opinion columns by Carnegie associates were in print. Topics included WMD, American isolationism, the potential U.S. military response, lessons to be drawn from the Cold War, and necessary alliances. Additionally, Carnegie held several events in the month of September 2001, most notably, “Osama bin Laden’s Neighborhood,” which was held the Monday following the attacks and was televised live on C-SPAN. A CD-Rom was created that included the transcripts, audio, and summaries of the events and was hand-delivered to offices on Capitol Hill. Several policy briefs have been published to aid the understanding of the post-9/11 policy challenges. The Policy Brief Series is distributed in hard copy to a list of more than 18,000 as well as posted on their public website. A special edition brief, “September 11, One Year Later: A World of Change” was written by Carnegie President Jessica Matthews (several others contributed research to the paper). The brief examines the immediate effects of 9/11 on the economy, the environment, globalization, and U.S. relations with Russia, China, Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. It also considers how future events and key policy choices will influence the ultimate significance of 9/11.

Carnegie has produced an extensive website following the events of 9/11. Reports, papers, articles, and new, up-to-date material by Carnegie scholars are featured on the site, as well as maps, links, and readings lists. Carnegie’s website has been cited as a strong web resource in the Washington Times and recommended by The National Journal for its coverage of arms control and terrorism.

Carnegie scholars have made several presentations on Capitol Hill regarding a variety of

issues including human rights in the war on terror and the plight of Central Asia. Special discussions initiated by Carnegie have brought scholars, members of Congress, and outside experts together to discuss terror-related topics like nuclear weapons. Senior Associate Anatol Lieven has continued to provide a “special perspective” on the WOT. Lieven served as a correspondent in the late 1980s for the London Times in Pakistan and Afghanistan. After 9/11, he immediately began to produce articles and papers for the media and policymakers; shortly thereafter, he left for several weeks in Pakistan where he talked with key players in the current conflict. Building on these experiences, Lieven has written on a range of issues, including the

17

roots of terrorism, lessons from the Cold War, the Pakistani dimension of the Afghan War, and rebuilding Afghanistan.

Since September, Carnegie expanded existing programs as well as created new programs to conduct an ongoing programmatic response. Research priorities were shifted to monitor and to assess political developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, two critical regions in the War on Terrorism. Significant studies on nuclear security have been conducted by Rose Gottemoeller, a senior Carnegie associate and a former deputy undersecretary for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the U.S. Department of Energy. Also, as the policy dialogue shifted from the war in Afghanistan to a possible invasion of Iraq, a working group was formed to search for alternative solutions and to identify a middle ground between the status quo and full-scale invasion. Finally, the Democracy and Rule of Law Project was expanded to address positive political change in the Arab world and the potential contributions of the United States to such a revolution.

18

Carnegie Endowment: Summary of 9/11-related Activities


“Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction” was written by Carnegie scholars from the Non-Proliferation project. The book provides an in-depth assessment on the dangers nations face from WMD, and the successes and failures of international non-proliferation efforts.

Op-eds / Articles

Op-eds and journal articles have consistently appeared in publications such as the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, the Financial Times, the Weekly Standard, the Prospect, and the Los Angeles Times. Topics that were addressed include: American isolationism, WMD, U.S. China relations, and U.S.-Russia relations.


Six major policy briefs on rebuilding Afghanistan, the prevention of new Afghanistans, the United States and Iran, nuclear security, the protection of borders and civil liberties, and lessons from the Cold War. A special edition policy brief, called “September 11, One Year Later: A World of Change,” was written by Carnegie President Jessica Matthews.

Task Forces Over thirty events have been hosted by Carnegie’s Nonproliferation Project, the Russian-Eurasian program, the Africa Policy Initiative, and associates with expertise in U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, diplomacy in the information age, and terrorism. Participants included Congressional members and staff, current and former members of government, university professors, scholars from other research institutions, members of the media, and experts from the private sector.


Ten web commentaries, on issues including nuclear proliferation, terrorism and the WTO, and the role of India and Russia. A series of comments from the field by Anatol Lieven, which were reprinted in several publications domestically and abroad. A CD-Rom was distributed on Capitol Hill in early October that included transcripts and summaries of four events and additional resources for policymakers.



Briefings to Capitol Hill staff and committees and to the executive branch on topics relating to the WOT in Central Asia.

Media Appearances

Regular media appearances on television and radio shows by U.S. and Russian scholars including: The News Hour with Jim Lehrer; The Point with Greta van Susteren; 60 Minutes; BBC’s World Service TV; Radio New Zealand; Greek National Television; and, NPR.

19

Carnegie Endowment: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

Visiting Scholar Program

Carnegie immediately identified visiting scholars who could shed light on key issues related to the WOT. The MacArthur Foundation provided partial funding for this program. Visiting scholars at Carnegie have been from Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Egypt and have participated in public meetings and policy briefings.

Focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Carnegie scholars are analyzing U.S. foreign policy in each country and focusing on the prospects for a successful pursuit of both short-term security goals and longer-term goals of reconstruction. One of the participants, Anatol Lieven, has traveled to the region and produced first-hand analysis that has been widely distributed.

Enhancing Nuclear Security

Rose Gottemoeller, senior associate and former deputy undersecretary for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the U.S. Department of Energy, initiated a study to determine whether the last decade of nuclear security cooperation with the former Soviet Union provides lessons that can be applied in other regions. A working paper released in August 2002 highlights these lessons and explores cooperative work that might be done to enhance nuclear security (particular attention is paid to India and Pakistan).

Political Change in the Middle East

The Democracy and Rule of Law Project has been expanded to include a major new set of research and meeting activities on how positive political change is likely to occur in the Arab world and how the United States can contribute to such change.

Iraq Working Group

Carnegie President Jessica Matthews formed a working group to address a critical question: What is the best approach for ensuring that Iraq complies with its international commitments to eliminate WMD? Participants in the working group include policy analysts, former weapons inspectors, and current and retired members of the military. They met to search for alternative solutions and to find a middle ground between the status quo and invasion. Their report was issued in the fall 2002.

20

Carnegie Endowment – Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Terrorism WMD Iran and Iraq` Central Asia Technology and Terrorism

Books/ Publications

Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of WMD

Op-Eds/ Articles “Saddam Wins, Again” “Bombing Iraq Isn’t Enough” “Way to Oust Saddam” “Saddam’s Impending Victory”

Issue Papers “Revisiting the 12 Myths of Central Asia” “Central Asia’s Security Challenges”

Policy Briefs “Deterring the CBW Threat”

“Iraq’s Breakout Potential”

Events/ Conferences

1. “Catastrophic Terrorism: An Indications and Warning Methodology to Assess and Forecast Terrorist Threats” 2. “U.S. Preparation to Cope with the Threat of Domestic Terrorism”

“Biological Weapons in the 21st Century” “Deterring Chemical and Biological Weapons” “Command and Control in Emerging Nuclear Weapon States”

“Saddam’s Bombmaker”

“Radical Islamist Mobilization in Central Asia”

“Information Warfare and Cyber Terrorism”


“U.S. Efforts to Halt WMD and Missile Programs in Iran”

21

Carnegie’s traditional focus on international affairs and, more specifically, on matters relating to WMD and terrorism, gave them a clear advantage over many other institutions. Furthermore, its significant endowment and a critical mass of scholars have enabled it to move swiftly and impressively to address the concerns of the public and of policymakers. With its “rapid response” initiatives, Carnegie has demonstrated its efficiency in evaluating the immediate impacts of 9/11 and in enhancing the public’s awareness via the “Policy Brief Series,” their public website, and their numerous media appearances. Although their focus on WMD and their research on the Middle East was extensive both pre- and post-9/11, the question of whether they are “thinking the unthinkable” still remains. Its priorities of Islamic relations, WMD, and general terrorism overlap the research areas of other think tanks.

22

Cato Institute

The Cato Institute, founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, is a non-profit public policy research foundation, accepting no government funds or endowments. It is named in honor of the Cato Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that, in the eyes of many, helped to lay the foundation of the American Revolution. The Cato Institute’s goal is to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government. Before 9/11, Cato was involved in several pieces of work concerning terrorism. As early as 1998, the institute released its Cato Handbook for Congress, which featured a discussion of how to protect the nation from terrorism while preserving American civil liberties. In addition, Cato sponsored two study papers focused on terrorism, entitled “Wrong Emphasis?” and “Does U.S. Intervention Abroad Breed Terrorism? A Historical Record,” released in 1998. Lastly, in November of 2000, Cato hosted “How Should the U.S. Respond to Terrorism?”, a policy forum to discuss U.S. policy in response to events such as the bombing of the USS Cole. After 9/11, Cato’s work on terrorism was expanded considerably. The institute produced studies and subsequent analysis papers written on Pakistan’s and Saudi Arabia’s role in the WOT, entitled “Pakistan in America's War against Terrorism: Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client?” and “Befriending Saudi Princes: A High Price for a Dubious Alliance,” respectively. Other publications on 9/11 related subjects focused on the dynamics of nation-building, the possibility of military conscription, intelligence reform, and WMD. Cato took part in Capitol Hill briefing in June, 2002, called “Future Enemies in the Expanding War on Terrorism: Iraq and Who Else?” Cato was also involved in two other Hill briefings hosted on bioterrorism and on possible expansion of the WOT, and hosted a policy forum on how to balance civil liberties with a fight against terrorism after 9/11. Cato’s work with Congress also included testimony on the issue of military tribunals for terrorists. Finally, the institute has formed a number of task forces dedicated to 9/11 related issues: The Military Response, The Diplomatic Response, Justice for Terrorists, Civil Liberties, Bioterror and Other Future Threats, Economic Impact, Political Impact, and America’s Values Under Attack.

23

Cato Institute: Summary of 9/11-related Activities Books/Journals, Publications

--

Op-eds / Articles

CATO’s research after 9/11 has produced Op-eds and articles on the following subjects:, war strategy, special operations, missile defense, peacekeeping and nation-building in Afghanistan, the defense budget, military tribunals, Middle East diplomacy, America’s alliances with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the dynamics of nation-building after Afghanistan, US relations with Germany and China, civil liberties issues, bioterrorism, domestic terrorism, internet security, and the broad economic impact of 9/11.


Studies and subsequent analysis papers written on Pakistan’s and Saudi Arabia’s role in the WOT, the dynamics of nation-building, the possibility of military conscription, intelligence reform, and WMD

Task Forces CATO divided its post-9/11 research on terrorism into 8 divisions: The Military Response, The Diplomatic Response, Justice for Terrorism, Civil Liberties, Bioterror and Other Future Threats, Economic Impact, Political Impact, America’s Values Under Attack. The programs have sponsored numerous studies, papers, and op-Eds in their related fields of focus.


Capitol Hill Briefing: "Future Enemies in the Expanding War on Terrorism: Iraq and Who Else?" Two other Hill briefings hosted on bioterrorism and on possible expansion of the WOT. Hosted a policy forum on how to balance civil liberties with a fight against terrorism



Testimony given on the subject of military tribunals for terrorists

Media Appearances

Two television appearances regarding the capture of Osama bin Laden and the bin Laden videotapes. Others on coalition-building, the anthrax scare, and the TIPS program

24

Cato Institute: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

The Military Response

Numerous studies, papers, and op-Eds written concerning such issues as intelligence reform, war strategy, special operations, the possibility of military conscription, missile defense, peacekeeping and nation-building in Afghanistan, and the defense budget. The program has also resulted in briefings for members of Congress and forums on the military response to 9/11.

The Diplomatic Response

Papers and op-eds have been written considering Middle East diplomacy, America’s alliances with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the dynamics of nation-building after Afghanistan, US/Germany relations after 9/11, US/China relations after 9/11, and the potential consequences of an attack on Iraq.

Justice for Terrorists

Op-eds have been contributed regarding the Jose Padilla case, the search for terrorists within foreign nations, military tribunals, the USA Patriot Act, and Saddam Hussein. The program has spurned testimony before Congress and a policy forum held on the issue of military tribunals.

Civil Liberties Studies, articles, and op-Eds written on the balance between civil liberties and homeland security: the monitoring of biometric technologies, domestic surveillance, weapon control, internet security, the role of the IRS, immigration issues, and racial profiling. The program also released a “CATO Handbook for Congress” and is holding several policy forums.

Bioterror and Other Future Threats

Studies, articles, and op-Eds sponsored by the project include the following topics: mass vaccination for Americans, response to smallpox bioterrorism, and securing the postal system from bioterrorism. Three forums were held during the summer of 2002 concerning bioterrorism.

Economic and Political Impact

The institute produced op-eds considering the impact of increased defense spending, tax and trade policy, government terrorism insurance, the Money Laundering Act, the airline industry, and gas prices, as well as diplomatic issues such as alliances formed amid the WOT.

America’s Values Under Attack

This project sponsored two papers and a number of op-eds concerning the preservation of American values amid the WOT and the economic downturn that have followed 9/11.

Cato Institute – Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Terrorism (General) Study Papers “Wrong Emphasis?”Briefing Papers “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record” Policy Forum “How Should the U.S. Respond to Terrorism?”Releases The Cato Handbook for Congress – Portions of 1998 release discuss terrorism

and civil liberties

25

If Cato adds something that other institutions lack, it is their program “Justice for Terrorists.” Its work on this topic has spawned congressional testimony for its value in addressing issues like military tribunals, war criminals, the USA Patriot Act, and other elements of the legal side to the America’s fight against terror. Overall, however, Cato does not seem to have demonstrated much flexibility in their work after 9/11. The generality of their programs reflects the brand of conventional thinking that is hampering today’s thought on terrorism among most public policy research organizations. Specifically, its research agenda is quite limited and devoid of new and innovative research objectives.

26

Center for Strategic and International Studies For several decades, CSIS has been devoted to providing international leaders with

strategic insights and policy solutions to current and emerging world issues. Scholars and support staff focus predominantly on three subject areas: new challenges to national and international security; the world’s major geographical regions; and, programs on technology and public policy, international trade and finance, and energy to aid in the development of new methods of governance for the global age. CSIS has been working on the terrorism issue for several decades.

Scholars at CSIS conducted several activities in response to 9/11. Immediately following

the attacks, CSIS established a Task Force on Terrorism comprised of experts on terrorism, national and international security, regional studies, and religion. Members included active duty and retired military officers, intelligence analysts, renowned economists, and former policymakers. Under the direction of Kurt Campbell and Michèle Flournoy, the task force developed a comprehensive strategy for how to meet the challenges posed by international terrorism. Their analysis, “To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism, was published in book form and distributed on Capitol Hill in November 2001. The book provides a framework for understanding the War on Terrorism, identifies critical elements of a U.S. strategy, and examines the implications of the terrorism campaign for domestic and foreign policy. Task force members emphasize concrete steps that must be taken and key choices that must be made by the administration, Congress, and the private sector in order to win the WOT.

A second task force was also formed, jointly with the Baker Institute at Rice University,

on the geopolitical responses to terrorism. The task force was created to formulate forward-looking thinking about the possible geopolitical effects of U.S. responses to the terrorist attacks on the United States and an assessment of whether and how the geopolitical calculus has changed as a result. CSIS also recently published a white paper, “Meeting the Challenges of Establishing a New Department of Homeland Security, in which scholars support the establishment of the department. The paper presents recommendations for the creation of the new department, and emphasizes that its establishment must be viewed as only one part of the answer to the management challenges of homeland security. CSIS scholars have participated in briefings to Capitol Hill staff and Congressional committees on the topics of homeland security, government reform to promote the fight against terrorism, the Iraqi threat, future threats from WMD, critical infrastructure protection, and bioterrorism.

27

CSIS: Summary of 9/11-related Activities


“To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism” details findings of the CSIS Task Force on Terrorism. It is an 18-point strategy for the formulation and execution of a enduring campaign against terrorism. The book explores the following areas: the changing face of terrorism, military capabilities, intelligence and law enforcement, building and sustaining coalitions, homeland security, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, failed states, economics, and globalization.

Op-eds / Articles

--


Several reports issued addressing areas of homeland defense, such as: chemical, radiological, and biological weapons; Iraq’s capabilities; strategies for counterterrorism and asymmetric warfare; the FY2003 defense budget; and, Saudi security. CSIS recently released a white paper entitled, “Meeting the Challenges of Establishing a New Department of Homeland Security.” The Commission on Science and Security, a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, is in the process of developing a white paper that considers the impact of tighter security measures on scientific advancement.

Task Forces Several roundtables and task forces were created to study issues such as the challenges of global terrorism; critical infrastructure protection; geopolitical responses to terrorism; the Smart Border Declaration; and, threats facing the United States in the “over the horizon” timeframe


Many conferences held to convene policymakers and experts on a number of topics, including: the protection of critical infrastructure; the anthrax attacks; the revitalization after 9/11 of relations between the West and the Islamic World; threat and security in cyberspace; homeland security initiatives; and, counter-terrorism strategies. A Crisis Planning Workshop was held for federal and local officials and emergency personnel. A “dirty bomb” scenario was presented and followed by discussion of preparedness, impacts on key infrastructure, and effects on the economy. Findings were presented to members of the NYPD counterterrorism division.



Briefings to Capitol Hill staff and committees on homeland security, government reform to combat terrorism, the Iraqi threat, current and future threats from WMD, critical infrastructure protection, and bioterrorism.

Media Appearances

28

CSIS: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

Critical Infrastructure Protection Series

CSIS created a series of roundtables to address the critical infrastructure issues facing the United States post-9/11. First, CSIS is creating an opportunity to learn from those who gained firsthand experience on 9/11 in maintaining and restoring critical infrastructure from a variety of sectors. Second, CSIS is creating opportunities for business and political leaders to exchange views on the potential for cooperation against future threats. Leaders from the private sector, members of Congress, Congressional staff members, and policymakers from relevant government agencies have participated in the discussions. It will issue a monograph outlining the best practices for infrastructure protection, identify potential obstacles to implementation, and provide recommendations to overcome those obstacles.

International Cooperation On Biosecurity

CSIS seeks to build cooperation between the United States, Europe, and Mexico, and two key activities are in development. First, CSIS plans to create a catastrophic bioterrorism event to raise critical awareness, building alliances, and begin to develop coordinate response efforts across borders. Second, CSIS plans to convene an international conference of technical experts and policy makers to identify key issues of concern regarding cross-border and international biodefense cooperation that require international collaboration.

Mapping Responses to Bioterrorism

CSIS is planning a study to examine policy issues and options associated with responding to biological attacks. They intend to develop a “playbook” of decision-making protocols, as well as to clarify a number of legal and jurisdictional issues in bioresponse.

National Strategy for R&D and Production of Anti-Biothreat Pharmaceuticals

CSIS is engaging senior leaders from the public and private sector to map a mission plan to create diagnostic, vaccine, and therapeutic responses to biowarfare threats to civilian populations. A white paper outlining the proposed strategy will be vetted with senior administration officials and members of Congress. Completion of the initial U.S. focused effort was targeted for fall 2002; a second stage will extend deliberations to an international setting.

Privacy Issues in Homeland Security

CSIS is examining the implications for privacy of homeland security initiatives and seeking examples of privacy protection in other contexts to look for new models that the government might adapt. Experts in security, privacy, and technology are contributing to this study; a report will be released next year.

Simulation on Critical Energy Infrastructure

CSIS is sponsoring a simulation involving former senior policymakers, working-level experts, and members of the private sector that will focus on the vulnerability of U.S. critical energy infrastructure. The exercise is designed to reveal shortcomings and to highlight areas in which relevant communities can formulate strategies before such an attack occurs. A playbook for decision-makers, key first responders, and national security agencies will be created.

Smart Border North Task Force

A task force of administration officials, congressional staff, business representatives, and technical experts has been created to monitor implementation of the Smart Border Declaration on border upgrades signed by the U.S. and Canada in December of 2001. They will also consider future technological and procedural upgrades to the security and economic policy interface between these countries.

Transnational Threats Initiative

Through this initiative, CSIS will focus on the convergence of transnational crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorism, as well as the role of globalization that is empowering new actors that are bypassing state boundaries. Four projects of focus are: a conference to discuss infrastructure vulnerability; an examination of the recruitment of violent extremists from U.S. prisons and mosques; recommendations on the establishment of a counter-terrorist intelligence and law enforcement sharing capacity within NATO; and, a study of threats facing the Untied States in the “over the horizon”/ 10 year time frame.

Roundtable on Law And U.S. Foreign Policy

Led by a lawyer, Rhodes scholar, and former NSC Middle East Expert, this roundtable focuses on domestic and international legal implications related to the War on Terrorism such as the balance between security and civil rights protection, the role of the United Nations in the fight against terrorism, the International Criminal Court, refugee protection, human rights commitments, and military tribunals for terrorists.

29

Roundtable on The Middle East And Islam

This group addresses U.S. relationships with Islamic states and the role it plays in the creation or elimination of terrorist threats. Participants primarily focus on U.S.-Israeli relations, the peace process in the Middle East, diplomatic pressures on U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, and U.S. diplomacy in the Islamic world.

Roundtable on Global Economics

Led by a former top Treasury and IMF official, this group studies the domestic and global economic repercussions of 9/11. Several issues are addressed, including: monetary and fiscal policies; reactions of the IMF and World Bank to U.S. foreign policies in the War on Terrorism; effects on globalization; the global flow of money to terrorist organizations and the potential role for sanctions; and, the balance between economic burdens and security interests.

CFR/Milbank Memorial Fund Roundtable on Health and U.S. Foreign Policy

Led by a top health professional, participants debate measures to protect against of lessen the effects of a bioterrorist attack on the U.S. Many questions are asked regarding the potential for such an attack, measures that may be taken to improve preparedness, the types of biological agents available to terrorists, civil defense issues, and education of the public on issues of bioterrorism.

Roundtable on Refugees and Displaced Persons

Led by the former president of the International Red Cross and an expert of international refugee law and policy, this roundtable studies refugees and displaced persons as key issues in both the causes and effects on terrorism. Additionally, participants identify humanitarian consequences of military action, the impact of tightening borders on the refugee problem, the role of immigration policy in eliminating terrorism, and the influence of the anti-terrorism campaign on international refugee protection.

Roundtable on NATO and Terrorism

Led by a former State Department official who was the point person on NATO expansion, this group focuses on the U.S. and its allies may benefit from potential NATO capabilities in the War Against Terrorism, the role for NATO in Afghanistan, NATO-Russian relations, the consequences of 9/11 for NATO expansion, and the changing roles of the EU and ESDP post-9/11.

George F. Kennan Roundtable on Russia and Eurasia

Led by a former Ambassador-at-Large who handled relations with Russia and the former Soviet Union, this roundtable evaluates the potential role of Russia and other former Soviet states in the fight against terrorism, the relations between the U.S. and these states, and how the United States might ensure cooperation from its Russian and Eurasian allies.

30

CSIS Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Projects Testimony Events Policy Reports Homeland Defense

“Defending America: Redefining the Concept of Homeland Defense” Combating CBRN Terrorism Cyber Threats and Information Security Defense of U.S. Homeland Terrorist Organizations and States and WMD Asymmetric and Terrorist Attacks with CBRN Weapons U.S. Strategy for Counter terrorism National Missile Defense Critical Infrastructure Protection Biotechnology and Terrorism Current and Future Terrorist Threats Missile Threats: North Korea, Iran, Iraq

Terrorism (General)

“Combating Terrorism: In Search of A National Strategy” “The Threat Posed from the Convergence of Organized Crime, Drug Trafficking, and Terrorism” “WMD, Terrorism, and U.S. Preparedness”

Bioterrorism “The Threat of Bio-terrorism”

“Dark Winter”

Technology and Terrorism

“The Changing Face of Terrorism and Technology” “Cyber Attack: The National Protection Plan and its Privacy Implications”

Iran and Iraq

“Iraq and America’s Foreign Policy Crisis in the Middle East” “U.S. Policy Towards Iraq”

Islam “The Future of Islam-West Relations”

31

Like Carnegie, the CSIS was more naturally prepared to take on the topic of terrorism than some of the other institutions in the study with more generalized programs. As a national security-oriented institution, CSIS was indeed among the leading institutions in pre-9/11 research on terrorism. This provided the organization with a good head start, which seems to have translated into a well-structured approach. Its 18-point strategy on how to combat terror and defend the American homeland covers a wide range of issues experts should be thinking about. The Center’s research on critical infrastructure protection demonstrates some original thought about a somewhat neglected issue. Meanwhile, its creation of a “dirty bomb” scenario lends a new approach to an important topic. As a whole, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has a great amount of potential within its resources to foster progress in terrorism-related research, but, like its counterparts, would be more productive with a more novel mindset. Offsetting these positive features is CSIS’ tendency to mirror the bureaucracy’s over-reliance on large committees and commissions that generally do not add value to research and analysis but do add unnecessary cost and drag on process and outputs. This poses the question: would CSIS be more effective if it had a significant endowment that would enable it to streamline its programs and operations?

32

Council on Foreign Relations The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 as a nonpartisan membership

organization, research center, and publisher. It is dedicated to increasing America’s understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy. Through constructive discussions, both in private and in public, and the publication of Foreign Affairs, the leading journal on international issues, CFR aims to enhance the quality of study and debate on global issues, develop new generations of thinkers and leaders, and help meet international challenges by generating concrete and practical ideas.

Following 9/11, the CFR added a fourth goal to its mission statement: Outreach.

Through a reconfiguration of all CFR areas under discussion and by seeking out the top foreign policy content available to post on their website, they would like to reach beyond the traditional foreign policy community to the interested public.

They added a Terrorism Resource Center to the public website, which includes a list of

policy experts, a weekly update on the WOT, related articles and op-eds, meeting transcripts and videos, roundtable descriptions and summaries, papers, task force reports, relevant Foreign Affairs articles and book reviews, books, policy initiatives, and related website links. CFR scholars who participate in terrorism-related events and publications boast the following expertise: terrorism, homeland security, national and international security, diplomacy, international political economy, U.S. defense policy, political and military intelligence, military strategy, critical infrastructure protection, U.S. – European relations, legislative-executive branch relations, international law, Central Asia, the Middle East, Islam, ethnic conflict, refugee policy issues, and women in Afghanistan.

Two major works were immediately launched by the Council in response to 9/11. They

introduced the only online encyclopedia of terrorism and America’s response to aid public understanding. There are more than 120 categories on the site with fact sheets in question and answer format. The major categories include: Afghanistan; What is Terrorism?; Terrorist Groups; State Sponsors of Terrorism; Havens for Terrorism (Weak States); Coalition States; Weapons of Mass Destruction; Homeland Security; Causes of 9/11; Responses to 9/11; and, Policy After 9/11.

Also, “How Did This Happen” a book on terrorism and the new war was released in

November 2001 by Foreign Affairs. The book examines the motives and actions of the terrorists, the status of the U.S. military, the context of the Middle East, bioterrorism, airport security, and diplomatic pressures. It contains essays by Wesley Clark, William Perry, Stephen Flynn, Fareed Zakaria, and many others.

The Council also created several Independent Task Forces to bring together some of the

best minds in the country to consider future problems and consequences related to the War on Terrorism. The Independent Task Force on Terrorism is chaired by Carla Hills and Richard Holbrooke and is comprised of fifty members. Papers released by the task force are passed onto the Executive Branch and to Congress. They include: “The Next Phase in the U.S.-led War on Terrorism: Iraq”; “Red-Teaming the Data Gap”; “Aid and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of

33

Afghanistan”; “Strengthening the U.S.-Egyptian Relationship”; “Strengthening the U.S.-Saudi Relationship”; and “Ongoing-Health and Public Policy post-9/11.”

The Task Force for Public Diplomacy released a critical assessment of the Bush

Administrations efforts to upgrade U.S. public diplomacy along with recommendations to improve the image of the United States abroad. The Independent Task Force on Terrorist Financing is in the beginning stages and is being chaired by Maurice Greenberg. Two leading experts on the subject, William Wechsler and Lee Wolosky will direct the examination of how to cut off funding for terrorists worldwide. Both directors had responsibility for international money laundering in the Clinton administration.

Finally, Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs of the Commission on National

Security, are leading the Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives and will release a report in October 2002. The task force aims to close the gap between intelligence estimates and rhetoric, and also to improve capacities to prepare and respond to attacks, if they should occur.

Extensive polling has also been done in cooperation with the Pew Research Center. The

first poll, “Public Opinion and Fighting Terrorism” uses research data that was collected before and after 9/11. A second poll was also done using data from joint Pew-CFR research, “How Americans and Europeans View the War on Terrorism.”

Finally, the Council on Foreign Relations has organized a large series of roundtables that

are currently tackling issued related to the War on Terrorism. The Council seeks to get the best and most expert minds together to discuss each subject, aid further understanding, and to help solve policy problems. Many of their existing roundtables were reorganized and reprioritized last fall; others were created on an ad hoc basis. However, ten roundtables were specifically created in response to 9/11. After each meeting, the roundtable chair prepares a summary including facts, issues of uncertainty, and recommendations for governments, international organizations, leaders of industry, and other relevant actors. Synopses are available on the website and are also distributed by hard copy.

34

CFR: Summary of 9/11-related Activities


In November 2001, Foreign Affairs released a book on terrorism and the new war, How Did This Happen? The book provides readers with an account of the issues that led to 9/11 in a series of narratives on different aspects of the situation. A second book was published in fall 2002, Kenneth Pollack, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Two Foreign Affairs special issues: fall 2001, “9/11 and After” and fall 2002, “9/11: One Year Later.”

Op-eds / Articles

Articles by CFR scholars began to appear immediately after the September attacks, and have continued weekly in the past year. All topics related to terrorism and homeland security are addressed, including: bioterrorism, anti-Americanism, safe borders, Islam, the protection of civil liberties, military tribunals, and U.S.-allied relationships. They have appeared in popular domestic and international publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times.


In addition to task force and roundtable reports, CFR published on major policy initiative: “Reshaping America’s Defense: Four Alternatives” by Lawrence Korb. It lays out practical approaches to dealing with new threats to U.S. national security.

Task Forces Four major task forces were launched on terrorism, public diplomacy, terrorist financing, and on homeland security imperatives. Additionally, many existing roundtables were refocused and others were created to address issues related to terrorism and homeland security such as: military strategy and options; law and U.S. foreign policy; Islam; Afghanistan; and, public opinion and fighting terrorism.


In the past year, CFR held about 300 meetings in New York City and in Washington, DC. Approximately 100 of those meetings were on the record. Participants included: Pervez Musharraf, Dick Cheney, Kofi Annan, Colin Powell, and many others. The Council’s national members also convened for a two-day conference on terrorism. There is also programming on the subject available across the country, and a conference call series has been launched for national members.


The Council created the nation’s only online encyclopedia of terrorism and America’s response. cnn.com, washingtonpost.com, abcnews.com, aol.com, economist.com, the State Department website, and many others all contain links to this encyclopedia. In conjunction with the Markle Foundation, CFR launched “This Week in the War on Terrorism,” a weekly update that is available on their online Terrorism Resource Center. Website visitors may also register to receive the weekly update by email. Also, the website traffic on cfr.org has more than doubled in the past year. CFR has been nominated for a Webby Award, one of the online industry’s highest accolades.


Briefings to Capitol Hill staff and Congressional committees on intelligence to prevent terrorism, the protection of civil liberties, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, homeland security reorganization, Iraq, WMD, and the proposed FY2003 defense budget.

Media Appearances

35

CFR: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

Henry A. Kissinger Roundtable on Terrorism

Led by a former NSC official and CIA Middle East expert, this group seeks to identify through knowledge and research a multifaceted strategy to combat terrorism. Many issues are examined including: reorganization of the intelligence community; confrontation with Iraq; the sources and motivations of terrorist threats to the U.S.; organizational, diplomatic, and military preparedness; relations between the U.S. and allies; and, specific policies toward each country on the terrorist list.

Roundtable on Homeland Security

Led by a former assistant secretary of defense, this roundtable examines how to successfully confront the new security threats to the United States by asking questions regarding the Office of Homeland Security, coordination between the FBI, CIA and other relevant agencies, the role of the National Security Council and the DoD in the new war, and related budget issues.

Roundtable on National Security: Military Strategy/Options

Led by a former three-star Marine Corps general, participants evaluate various military options and identify possible strategies for the armed forces in the WOT. The roundtable deals with issues such as the operations in Afghanistan, the potential of the military and intelligence community to prevent terrorist attacks, the Pentagon budget on future defense policy, and defense spending and reform.

Roundtable on Law And U.S. Foreign Policy

Led by a lawyer, Rhodes scholar, and former NSC Middle East Expert, this roundtable focuses on domestic and international legal implications related to the War on Terrorism such as the balance between security and civil rights protection, the role of the UN in the fight against terrorism, the International Criminal Court, refugee protection, human rights commitments, and military tribunals for terrorists.

Roundtable on The Middle East And Islam

This group addresses U.S. relationships with Islamic states and the role it plays in the creation or elimination of terrorist threats. Participants primarily focus on U.S.-Israeli relations, the peace process in the Middle East, diplomatic pressures on U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, and U.S. diplomacy in the Islamic world.

Roundtable on Global Economics

Led by a former top Treasury and IMF official, this group studies the domestic and global economic repercussions of 9/11. Several issues are addressed, including: monetary and fiscal policies; reactions of the IMF and World Bank to U.S. foreign policies in the War on Terrorism; effects on globalization; the global flow of money to terrorist organizations and the potential role for sanctions; and, the balance between economic burdens and security interests.

CFR/Milbank Memorial Fund Roundtable on Health and U.S. Foreign Policy

Led by a top health professional, participants debate measures to protect against of lessen the effects of a bioterrorist attack on the U.S. Many questions are asked regarding the potential for such an attack, measures that may be taken to improve preparedness, the types of biological agents available to terrorists, civil defense issues, and education of the public on issues of bioterrorism.

Roundtable on Refugees and Displaced Persons

Led by the former president of the International Red Cross and an expert of international refugee law and policy, this roundtable studies refugees and displaced persons as key issues in both the causes and effects on terrorism. Additionally, participants identify humanitarian consequences of military action, the impact of tightening borders on the refugee problem, the role of immigration policy in eliminating terrorism, and the influence of the anti-terrorism campaign on international refugee protection.

Roundtable on NATO and Terrorism

Led by a former State Department official who was the point person on NATO expansion, this group focuses on the U.S. and its allies may benefit from potential NATO capabilities in the WOT, the role for NATO in Afghanistan, NATO-Russian relations, the consequences of 9/11 for NATO expansion, and the changing roles of the EU and ESDP post-9/11.

George F. Kennan Roundtable on Russia and Eurasia

Led by a former Ambassador-at-Large who handled relations with Russia and the former Soviet Union, this roundtable evaluates the potential role of Russia and other former Soviet states in the fight against terrorism, the relations between the U.S. and these states, and how the United States might ensure cooperation from its Russian and Eurasian allies.

36

CFR—Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Project/Panel Meeting Roundtable Study Group

Conference

Terrorism (general)

“The Growing International Terror and Crime Threat: Law Enforcement and Intelligence Responses” “From Rogue Regimes to Freelance Terrorists” “Defining the Terror in Terrorism”

“Unconventional Threats”

“High Impact Terrorism” “New Forms of Terrorism”

WMD “Domestic Terrorism and WMD—Dangers, Vulnerabilities, and Prevention” “Chemical and Biological Weapons—How Vulnerable Are We?” “Terrorism’s Real Threat: CBRN Weapons” “Terrorism with WMD”

Iran and Iraq Panel: “Iran—A Country the U.S. Can No Longer Ignore?”

“Iraq’s WMD” “The Greatest Threat—Iraq, WMD, and the Crisis of Global Security” “Old Problems, New Openings in U.S.-Iranian Relations” “The U.S., the UN, and Iraq—What Are the Options?”

“Dealing with Rogue States–The Case of Iraq”

“Is Regime Change Necessary for Our Strategy Toward Iraq?

Middle East (general)

“U.S. and the Middle East”

“U.S. Security Policy in the Persian Gulf”

The Muslim world (general)

Project: “Muslim Politics”

“How Much Should the United States Worry About Radical Islamism?”

“U.S. Foreign Policy and the Muslim World”

Afghanistan/ Central Asia

“What’s Next for Afghanistan and Central Asia?” “Afghanistan—Are the Wars Over?” “Security From the Gulf to Central Asia” “Gender and U.S. Foreign Policy—the Case of Afghanistan” “Afghanistan’s Taliban” “Afghanistan’s Challenge to the United States” “The Taliban—What is the Threat? Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia”

U.S. Intelligence

“Intelligence Challenges for the New Administration” “Future Intelligence Challenges”

37

Without a doubt, the CFR has been a leader among think tanks in terms of adjusting its

efforts to a post-9/11 world. It has created a number of new programs to initiate focused discussion among experts. Its various roundtable programs reflect a strong commitment to redirect the Council’s resources to terrorism-related issues. Few other institutions have produced a comparable number of relevant publications, and the terrorism “dictionary” featured on CFR’s website is a unique and useful asset for public use. It appears as though the Council has put its best people and plenty of its attention towards this new challenge; the question is whether they are conducting research that will stretch the institution and ultimately policy makers beyond what is comfortable and predictable.

38

Heritage Foundation Founded in 1973, the Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think

tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage prides itself on applying its conservative principles to today’s important policy issues.

Before 9/11, the Heritage Foundation produced a number of background papers on issues

related to terrorism against America, including “Microbes and Mass Casualties: Defending America Against Bioterrorism,” and “An American Strategy Against Terrorism.” Moreover, the foundation hosted a lecture by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer in July 2000, “New Terrorist Threats and How to Counter Them.”

Heritage’s Homeland Defense Project is the foundation’s primary effort as an ongoing

programmatic response to 9/11. The project sponsors a task force, known officially as the Heritage Foundation’s Homeland Security Task Force, which was formed days after 9/11 to confront the issues of America’s vulnerabilities at home. The project produced a book-length report entitled Defending the American Homeland, which concentrates largely on the need to better protect American infrastructure from terrorist threats. In the first year since 9/11, the task force has also worked to develop a host of background papers, lectures, and roundtables on issues pertaining to homeland security issues. Heritage scholars met with members of Congress to discuss terrorism related issues to briefed several members of Congress and their staff during deliberation of the Department of Homeland Security bill.

More recently, in December 2002, The Heritage Foundation’s Michael Scardaville

released a background paper entitled, “Public Health and National Security Planning: The Case for Voluntary Smallpox Vaccination.” The paper enumerates several key reasons why a national program to vaccinate the public and the military for smallpox would be worthwhile; it also contends that smallpox vaccination is no longer just a public health issue, but a national security issue as well. Another notable backgrounder, written in October, 2002 by Peter Brookes, is “Promise and Progress: Homeland Security One Year Post-9/11.”

39

Heritage Foundation: Summary of 9-11 Related Activities


The Homeland Security Task Force published a book length study, Defending the American Homeland. Two other books related to issues of terrorism were published: Strategic Synchronization: The Relationship Between Strategic Offense and Defense and Ballistic Defense Missile Systems: Building International Cooperation in Acquisitions and Operations.

Op-eds / Articles


Heritage scholars have made available 27 back-grounders since the September attacks. Issues covered range from Congress and homeland security to breaking down intelligence barriers to the UN and terrorism. Also, twelve executive memoranda have been published to aid policymakers in the decision making process on issues such as the Taliban, regime change in Iraq, intelligence fusion, and military coalitions in the War on Terrorism.

Task Forces Shortly after the attacks, the Homeland Defense Task Force was created to offer a feasible plan for effective homeland defense policies.


Since 9/11, Heritage has hosted more than ten lectures addressing national security, understanding Islam, homeland security, terrorism and the UN, and Afghanistan.


Heritage has published extensive web memoranda beginning immediately after the attacks. Topics addressed include: facts about terrorism; Afghanistan; the Taliban; airport security; public and private partnerships in the War on Terrorism; energy security; potential nuclear scenarios; the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and, U.S. Policy in Central Asia.


Media Appearances

Heritage Foundation: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

Homeland Defense Project

The Heritage Foundation Homeland Security Task Force was formed days after the September 11 attacks to confront the issues of America’s vulnerabilities at home. The project produced a book-length report entitled Defending the American Homeland, which concentrates largely on the need to better protect American infrastructure from terrorist threats. The task force has also sponsored background papers, lectures, and roundtables on issues pertaining to homeland security issues.

40

Heritage Foundation pre-9/11 Research and Activities

Central Asia/

Afghanistan Terrorism (general) Iraq

“New Terrorist Threats and How To Counter Them”

“U.S. Foreign Policy in Central Asia”

“Defusing Terrorism at Ground Zero: Why A New U.S. Policy Is Needed for Afghanistan”

“Why the United States Should Help the Iraqi Opposition”

Like the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the Heritage Foundation’s most impressive

contributions is the web-based memoranda it has provided on terrorism for the betterment of public knowledge in the wake of 9/11. Since then, it has produced a fair amount of work, but little that confronts issues of terrorism in original ways. It offers the conventional programs and research that most think tanks have put forth over the past year and a half, sharing in the overlapping of research that currently defines most of the scholarly community at present. Heritage has considerable potential to produce meaningful study on terrorism-related issues, but it must put more of its resources towards this topic and take a more imaginative outlook if it is to be more effective.

41

Hudson Institute The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn, Max Singer, and Oscar

Ruebhausen in Croton-on-Hudson, NY. For much of its history Hudson was known a “deep think tank” for the US Defense Department. After Kahn’s death, in 1984, the institute moved to Indianapolis and reinvented as a local/national research center that focuses on domestic, economic, and social issues. Today, the Institute’s policy recommendations, articles, books, conferences, and contributions to the electronic media, are meant to promote optimism about the future and a willingness to question conventional wisdom. The Institute is committed to research that promotes free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and a determination to preserve America’s national security.

Hudson still dabbles in defense related issues as evidenced by 1999 article entitled

“Defense and Indefensibility: Proliferation makes antimissile defenses an urgent priority,” which, in part, examined the role of terrorism in the debate over an American missile defense system. Clearly Hudson no longer the critical mass of scholars or dollars to sustain the research programs once did on defense and international security issues. Since 9/11, Hudson has directed much of its work to terrorism and related issues. An example of this is “After 9-11-01: Long-Term Implications of the War on Terrorism for U.S. Business and Policy,” a report analyzing the economic and political ramifications of the 9/11 attacks.

On October 31, 2002, the Hudson Institute hosted its 2nd annual “Global Conference on

Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Mitigation and Response,” which brought together experts from all levels of government as well as the private sector to discuss WMD. Also, Hudson has put together three programs in response to the heightened call for research on terrorism-related issues. The first of these programs is Preparing Hospitals, Doctors, and Nurses for a Terrorist Attack, which produced a white paper of the same name written by Dr. Ronald Dwarkin that examines the alternatives for America’s health care response to the terrorist threat.

Additionally, Hudson launched a forward-looking program gathering experts from

diverse fields to contemplate what comes next in the war on terror, named Red Team B. Finally, the institute created After 9-11-01, a scenario-based monograph that offers a detailed assessment of the long-term implications and possible outcomes of the still-nascent war. Relying on three broad scenarios to plot the course of the war, the monograph considers everything from the stock market to biological warfare to transportation infrastructure.

42

Hudson Institute: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11 Preparing Hospitals, Doctors, and Nurses for a Terrorist Attack

A white paper by Dr. Ronald Dwarkin was released by the Institute in response to the change in focus of US health care response since 9/11. The white paper addresses directly the challenges America faces in responding to a chemical, biological, or nuclear (“dirty bomb”) attack, and the adjustments that must be made from the way systems planned to respond in the event of large-scale nuclear exchanges like those anticipated during the Cold War.

Red Team B

Hudson launched a forward-looking program gathering experts from diverse fields to contemplate what comes next in the WOT.

After 9-11-01

After 9-11-01, a scenario-based monograph that offers a detailed assessment of the long-term implications and possible outcomes of the still-nascent war. Relying on three broad scenarios to plot the course of the war, the monograph considers everything from the stock market to biological warfare to transportation infrastructure.

Hudson Institute: Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Terrorism in the Middle East Homeland Defense Article “Terror Is a Bargaining Tool in Israel” Issue Paper “Defense and Indefensibility: Proliferation

makes antimissile defenses an urgent priority”

The Hudson Institute is considerably smaller than the other institutions included in the study, but has put forth a good amount of work for us to consider. Prior to 9/11, in 1999, the Hudson Institute delved into the role of terrorism in the missile defense system with its article, “Defense and Indefensibility: Proliferation makes antimissile defenses an urgent priority.” Since then, it has twice hosted its annual global conference on nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism. With a domestic-oriented focus, the Hudson Institute’s most significant contributions were research outputs that reflected on terrorism’s effects on US health care, the US economy, the prospects of war, and the transportation infrastructure. However, like Heritage, it must strive to push beyond conventional thought and pursue neglected areas of terrorism-related research.

43

RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation was created in 1946 by its original client, the US Army Air Forces, and in the last half century has been a public policy organization contracted by government branches and private entities that has focused heavily, but not exclusively, on military research and development. It has consistently provided input to policymakers and all branches of the armed forces on matters of defense, making it particularly well suited for the study of 9/11-related issues. As such, both before and after 9/11, it has made considerable contributions to research on terrorism, homeland security, and the WOT. Rand has one of the best established and longest running programs examining terrorism in the United States.

Before 9/11, RAND was engaged in several projects and numerous publications that have proven relevant to today’s issues surrounding those attacks and their aftermath. Most notable among its publications was “Inside Terrorism,” a book written by Bruce Hoffman and released in August 1998 that discussed the history of terrorism, how our perceptions of terrorism have changed amid its growing impact, and what future trends in terrorism will look like. RAND also published many monographs, issue papers, and reports – in addition to giving congressional testimony – on terrorism-related issues such as counterterrorism strategy, WMD, precision-guided munitions, and bioterrorism. Since 9/11, RAND has greatly increased and focused its efforts concerning research and analysis of terrorism and related issues. RAND was among the first think tanks to initiate study of the immediate impact of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, creating a “Survey on Effects of September 11th.” Since then, there are five programs RAND has developed or has taken part in with the specific intent of addresses 9/11-related issues: The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure from Attack, Tackling Social Policy Issues in the Middle East, Future Campaign Against Terrorism, and, lastly, Technology and Terrorism. These projects have yielded a collection of publications on issues related to 9/11 and the greater subject of terrorism. One such example is Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism: A Component in the War on al Qaeda, a book by Paul Davis and Brian Michael Jenkins which examines what future military campaigns against terrorism might look like and what lessons the American military will take from “offensive” counterterrorism wars like the one in Afghanistan. Another recent book-length study is Theodore Karasik’s Toxic Warfare?, which analyzes the increased use of toxic weapons and their threat to America and the rest of the world. RAND’s work on 9/11-related issues also includes many monographs, issue papers, Op-Ed’s, and reports on topics ranging from homeland security strategies to military and intelligence reform to bioterrorism and foreign policy. In addition, RAND scholars have given testimony on Capitol Hill regarding homeland security issues such as electronic surveillance, infrastructure and agriculture protection, emergency response to bioterrorism, and the role of the National Guard; testimony included foreign policy issues as well. Scholars have appeared on television and radio to provide information on terrorism and the global response. RAND has also provided Internet resources to aid the general public’s understanding of terrorism. The organization’s

44

website, www.rand.org, features “newslinks” that service information on current events regarding the people and places most relevant to the war on terror and 9/11 related issues.

45

RAND Corporation: Summary of 9/11-related Activities


Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism: A Component in the War on al Qaeda by Paul Davis and Brian Michael Jenkins is one of many publications by RAND on the military campaign against terrorism

Toxic Weapons: How Great is the Danger? by Theodore Karasik is one of a few books RAND has published on bioterrorism and emergency response

9/11: Looking Ahead to Next Steps by Brian Michael Jenkins

The Role of the Office of Homeland Security in the Federal Budget Process: Recommendations for Effective Long-Term Engagement

Op-eds / Articles

Numerous and diverse articles and opinion pieces published in newspapers and scholarly journals on all aspects of the WOT, the response at home, foreign policy, government reform, American-German friction over the war on terror, Iraq, military strategy, cyberterrorism, and other 9/11 related issues


Several reports issued addressing areas of homeland defense, such as: WMD, defense budget, foreign policy, the implications of terrorism for California, intelligence issues, and electronic surveillance in Washington, DC.

Some notable examples are “After 9/11: Stress and Coping Across America” and “Drugs and Insurgents in Colombia: A Regional Conundrum”

RAND recently released an issue paper entitled “Measuring and Evaluating Local Preparedness for a Chemical or a Biological Terrorist Attack”

Task Forces The Gilmore Commission is an advisory panel on WMD supported by RAND

“Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure from Attack” is a study being conducted with the NDRI on how to protect America’s critical infrastructures from attacks

“Technology and Terrorism” is a RAND project in conjunction with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to evaluate how emergency response personnel can be better protected

“Future Campaign Against Terrorism”: A study to examine the strategic implications of the military campaign in Afghanistan

“Tackling Social Policy Issues in the Middle East”



RAND has developed a “Related Newslinks” resource on its website (www.rand.org) which provides information on current events regarding the people and places most relevant to the war on terror and 9/11 related issues.


Briefings to Capitol Hill staff and Committees on homeland security, government reform to combat terrorism, the Iraqi threat, current and future threats from WMD, critical infrastructure protection, and bioterrorism.

Media Appearances

Numerous television and radio appearances to provide commentary on issues related to terrorism and the global response

46

RAND Corporation: Ongoing Programmatic Response to 9/11

Gilmore Commission

RAND is supporting the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as the Gilmore Commission. The commission is a leading government-contracted panel studying homeland security – particularly the reform of emergency response infrastructures, strategies, and techniques – and general means of protecting America from future terrorist attacks through proactive measures.

Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure from Attack

RAND project within the National Defense Research Institute is bringing government and private-sector leaders together to help OHS devise a national strategy and plans to protect America's critical infrastructure--including transportation, energy assets, banking and finance systems, and defense industries--from terrorist attack.

Tackling Social Policy Issues in the Middle East

A major research effort within RAND’s Center for Middle East Public Policy aimed at rehabilitating K-12 education in the Middle East.

Future Campaign Against Terrorism

A project aimed at devising what the future military WOT might look like and what the implications of “offensive” minded counterterrorism campaigns like Afghanistan should have for the US Armed Forces.

Survey on Effects of September 11th

An analysis launched in the days after the attacks to evaluate the effect they had on Americans and their children

Technology and Terrorism

A project assisting the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in understanding better the risks faced by first responders to terrorist attacks

47

RAND: Pre 9/11 Research and Activities

Domestic Terrorism

Terrorism (General)

WMD Technology & Terrorism

Iran and Iraq Religious Terror

Books “Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Law Enforcement”

“Inside Terrorism”

Mono-graphs

“The WTC Bombing, the Three Mile Island Intrusion and the Potential Threat to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants” “Terrorism, Infrastructure Protection, and the U.S. Food and Agricultural Center”

“Countering the New Terrorism”

“Countering the Proliferation of Chemical Weapons”

“Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy”

Testi-mony

“Combating Terrorism: In Search of A National Strategy” “Terrorism: Current and Long Term Threats”

“Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological Terrorism”

Reprint “Future Trends in Terrorist Targeting and Tactics” “Is Europe Soft on Terrorism?”

Papers “An Agenda for Research on Terrorism and LIC in the 1990s” “Concerns About Terrorists with PGMs” “Terrorist Targeting: Tactics, Trends and Potentialities” “Concerns About Terrorists with Manportable SAMs”

“Deterrence, WMD, and Security Assurances—a European Perspective” “Terrorism and WMD: An Analysis of Trends and Motivations”

“Biometrics: Facing Up To Terrorism” “Responding to Terrorism Across the Technological Spectrum”

“The Ultimate Fifth Column: Saddam Hussein, International Terrorism, and the Crisis in the Gulf”

“Holy Terror: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative”

Policy Reports/ Reviews

“U.S. Countermeasures Against International Terrorism”

“Recent Trends and Future Prospects of Iranian Sponsored International Terrorism”

“Revival of Religious Terror Begs for Broader U.S. Policy”

48

RAND has made impressive and significant contributions to terrorism-related research prior to and after 9/11. RAND organized several projects and produced numerous publications pre-9/11 related to terrorism, which proved not only relevant and immediately necessary when 9/11 occurred, but also demonstrates that RAND was challenging conventional thought prior to 9/11. After the attacks, RAND has increased its research efforts on terrorism-related issues. It has developed five intensive programs and a newslink on its website for public use. However, the question is whether RAND still has the imaginative outlook that it had prior to 9/11. Although most of its research agenda focuses on areas covered by its counterparts, one area that reflects innovative thinking is its research effort aimed at rehabilitating K-12 education in the Middle East. Only RAND and Carnegie deal with rebuilding social structures in the Middle East as we will see in the upcoming charts.

49

Duplication and Gaps in Think Tank Research

As discussed, there are several areas of research that most of the institutions examined have focused on since 9/11. Because their work is overlapping, it contributes to a narrow scope of study that impairs the current state of the think tank community’s response to the threat of terrorism as it reflects in the quality of their research output. The following chart describes in detail the research objectives that are duplicated among the think tanks studied in this paper.

Areas of Overlap in Research Description Homeland Security Department Proposals Nearly each institution covered by this study has some sort of

ongoing program devoted to homeland security and the newly created cabinet office. The question is, are they thinking about anything different? Are they thinking about it in a non-partisan or un-constricted way?

Improving Relations with the Arab World While each institution has committed effort to examining where the rift in American-Arab relations originated and how it can be bridged, their approaches have been different but their general focus appears to be the same. Brookings, Hudson, and Carnegie have initiated Visiting Fellows Programs to bring experts from the Middle East, and others have started programs or released publications on diplomatic issues involved in the WOT and larger issues of how to heighten American awareness of foreign perspectives and promote American-Arab relations and understanding at the national level

Emergency Response and Preparedness to Bioterror Attacks

A host of programs and studies have been carried out regarding bioterrorism defense issues ranging from public vaccination to first-call responders to possible consequences of “dirty bomb”-type attacks

Concern with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are clearly the two countries of primary concern to the institutions included in this study. They are certainly two of the most relevant nations regarding the terrorist threat and America’s most necessary allies, but it appears as though other vital countries like Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and much of North and East Africa are being ignored.

50

As a result of the duplication of terrorism-related research objectives among think tanks, fewer efforts are directed towards other necessary topics causing the emergence of neglected research areas as the following table summarizes:

Neglected Areas Description

Intelligence Reform The limited amount that has been said – usually as a subtopic within larger studies on homeland security – has not reflected any serious examination of the so-called intelligence breakdown that left America vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks. There has been minimal consideration, let alone innovative consideration, of the need for reform within the American intelligence community

Finding energy alternatives to fossil fuels

The country needs a Manhattan-style project committed to developing ways for reducing the American dependence on the fossil fuels that has so greatly complicated our foreign policy

Reforming and Rebuilding Arab Societies

While, as addressed in the above chart, much attention has been given to the dynamics of terrorist networks and to diplomatic strategies for garnering support from Arab governments, there is a clear and critical gap in analysis of the long-term problems facing what America can do to stop terrorism at its roots – by improving the welfare of the Arab Street and helping to form more progressive societies in this part of the world. This is clearly a far more complicated subject, but one that should not be neglected nonetheless. Only the Carnegie Endowment, through its Political Change in the Middle East program, and RAND, through its program to reform K-12 education in the Arab world, have established an ongoing effort to confront such issues. Overall, however, not enough people are addressing the question: “Why do they hate us?”

Cyber Terrorism Computer technology is a vital resource, but one that empowers small groups to disrupt entire systems. In computer networks and the internet lay the basis for our defense, financial, and communication systems, all of which are potentially vulnerable to cyber terrorism – a threat that is not being addressed enough by think tanks today

Protecting Critical Infrastructure

Among our most glaring weaknesses in the face of terrorism is the vulnerability of the control centers and networks that serve as the foundation of our society and daily life. From the airports and train tracks vital to our transportation systems to the hubs that run our energy systems. From the electrical grids that fuel our entire civilization to nuclear power plants that could unleash catastrophe if targeted for attack, and the buildings and landmarks that have proven vulnerable in the past. These are crucial security concerns that are not receiving due interest from experts.

The Origins of Terrorism While many experts have dedicated their efforts to scrutinizing the origin and structure of terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, few have worked to break down the history of terrorism – its cultural, political, economic, and social origins. This topic leads to the type of unconventional, outside the box thinking that could foster a better long-term strategy to diffuse the terrorist threat

51

Conclusions

If the United States is to deal with the domestic and global challenges posed by 9/11, it is clear that major changes will be needed in order to strengthen the institutions that help government think. Over the last 20-25 years, the funding patterns in the public and private sectors have served to narrow the focus and limit the time horizons for most of the policy-oriented research institutes in Washington. Politicians and bureaucrats who have become captive to special interest and short-term political agendas have reinforced this trend on the user side. The convergence of these new realities have forced think tanks to become more specialized in order to create a research architecture that reflects the narrow range of interests presented by the funders and users of public policy research. Granted these trends have also improved the quality and efficiency of the research and analysis at some institutions, but the cost to the entire think tank community has been devastating. These factors have made it difficult if not impossible to mount an effective response to 9/11 because the current funding culture at both liberal and conservative foundations is so restrictive. These overly restrictive funding policies make it extremely difficult for institutions to set their own research agendas and think creatively about the issues facing the nation. In addition, the current funding and policy environment discourages these institutions from conducting truly independent and interdisciplinary policy oriented research. Think tanks in the US have allowed their missions and programs to be limited by the parameters set by funders, special interest politics and myopic academic disciplines. The convergence of these factors over the last 20 years has served to severely diminish the role these institutions have played throughout the 20th century as catalysts for ideas and innovations. The full dimensions of these unfortunate developments are outlined below.

I. Changes in the Funding Environment

Federal, state and local governments have cut their funding for public policy research

while corporations and private foundations have stopped providing general operating (unrestricted) support for most institutions and have limited their grant making to project-specific (restricted) support. In addition, endowment funds for core programs and operations are increasingly difficult to raise. These factors have forced general-purpose policy research organizations to evaluate the viability of certain programs, even when they are serving a real need. The prospect of further funding cuts has forced institutions to diversify their base of support and develop alternative revenue sources. This has weakened the infrastructure of public policy research organizations and created distortions in missions, programs and staffing patterns. Funding for policy research has always been a relatively small slice of the philanthropic pie. Starting in the 1980's, however, the liberal foundations' retreat from funding policy research had a profound effect on many centrists and the left of center think tanks. This change in funding priorities left many think tanks without the resources they needed to launch an effective counter assault on the conservative war of ideas. This lack of parity among the leading think tanks in Washington has had a tremendous impact on the quality and diversity of opinions represented in a number of critical policy debates. The end of the Cold War has had a profound impact on the funding of institutions focused on international and security affairs since many donors no longer saw the need for such programs and shifted their funds to service domestic oriented programs.

52

Donors have also moved away from providing on-going, unrestricted support for think tanks and have opted for short-term financial commitments (1-2 years) and project specific grants so they can have greater flexibility in how they allocate their funds. Private foundations have also expanded and professional zed their staffs and launched foundation directed programs which further limits some foundations grant making programs. These changes have created an environment where foundations are constantly developing new programs and initiatives, which they fund at the expense of established programs. This desire to launch new initiatives forces institutions to continually develop new programs or redesign existing programs to meet new funding requirements. While new initiatives provide donors with an effective tool to bring attention to a problem or an issue, the compulsion to constantly develop new programs (what I call “program-it is”) has had a negative impact on policy research organizations and the entire nonprofit community. It is important to recognize that philanthropic foundations and individual donors are interlopers--third parties in the policy formulation process. Since they are neither the producers nor users of the public policy research, this compounds the program-itis problem further since these interlopers have considerable influence in defining an institution's research agenda through project specific funding. Combined with the constant drive for new initiatives, this outside interference tends to weaken think tanks and cause significant distortions in research programs and the policy formulation process. These interrelated trends have created a highly restrictive funding environment that is often counter productive.

The rise of interest group politics and the advent of project specific funding have served

to fuel the proliferation of specialized policy research organizations in America. Over the last 15-20 years, the number of specialized public policy research institutes has grown at an astounding rate. Although this expansion is a positive development, the specialized and issue-specific organizations compete annually for the same scarce resources as multi-purpose research organizations. The number of public policy research organizations has increased more than ten-fold in the last 75 years and doubled since 1965. There are currently over 1500 independent and university affiliated public policy research institutions in operation in the United States. Many of these institutions are competing for the same dollars, scholars, and influence. Over two thirds of the institutions that have come into being in the last 30 years have been specialized research organizations--a trend compounded by the previously mentioned changes in funding patterns. A competitive environment tends to favor those scholars and institutions that are entrepreneurial over those that are more established or unable to package and sell their programs to donors and interest groups that have a narrow agenda.

Today virtually every political faction or cause now has a think tank that is organized to

promote its position on a particular policy or program. These specialized institutions and programs are attractive to funders who want to target their dollars at specific problems or issues. This trend toward increased specialization has had a direct impact on the programs, constituencies and funding sources of multi-purpose academic oriented policy research organizations such as the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. While this trend has contributed to more focused research, it has also served to discourage truly interdisciplinary responses to complex issues and has limited the creativity of the scholars working to address policy problems. Despite these problems there seems to be no end in sight for the emergence of the lean, mean, specialized, partisan, policy machines which represent the fastest growing segment of the think tank community in the United States.

53

Funders and other stakeholders in the policy process have also grown impatient with conferences, forums and seminars on public policy issues. Finally, many donors now prefer operational, advocacy-oriented programs and institutions over those that limit their activities to dialogue and debate of public policies and programs. This new orientation has forced the non-partisan, multi-purpose institutions to reconsider their methods of operation. It has also served as a catalyst for the creation of many of the activist think tanks that have come into being in the last 20 years.

These trends have created a think tank community that is overly specialized and whose

independence and credibility is being threatened by a funding environment that encourages “tunnel analysis.” II. Changes in the Policy Environment

The once civil and scholarly exchange of ideas and information on and about public

policy issues has been transformed into a “war of ideas.” For good or ill, this new approach to the public policy formulation process has sent shock waves throughout the public policy research establishment and reignited the age-old conflict between academics and policy makers. While many scholars look down from their ivory towers with disgust, these new policy oriented insurgents have effectively out-penned and out-marketed their counterparts in some of the more established research organizations. This has largely been due to the failure of the traditional policy research establishment to understand and respond to the fundamental changes that have taken place in Washington and other capitals around the world. Those who view this simply as another manifestation of partisan politics have missed the point. These institutions are redefining the very nature of how public policy research is conducted and disseminated.

The disintegration of the post World War II, policy consensus, changes in party politics

and rules, the rise of special interests and a need for a quick response to complex policy problems has created a greater demand for policy research and fostered the growth of specialized public policy think tanks. In politics today, information no longer translates into power unless it is in the right form at the right time. These changes have created a marketplace of ideas where politicians, bureaucrats and the public go shopping for research and analysis that meet their needs, and more often than not, it provides answers, not advice. In this Moroccan policy bazaar, policy makers are not only looking for information, they are also looking for cues that will help them know what position they should take on issues. This trend has forced think tanks to redesign their products and operations and to place much greater emphasis on marketing strategies that effectively target key politicians, constituencies and donors.

When the Heritage Foundation and other neo-conservative organizations first appeared

on the policy scene in the U.S. in the 1970's, they were viewed as extremist organizations by many in the liberal and conservative establishment in Washington, London and Bonn. This “bad boy” image served Heritage well as it launched its war of ideas in the media and the halls of Congress and set out to raise millions through its national direct mail fundraising campaign. While many predicted that Heritage would not last, its coffers and credibility continued to grow. The political landscape has been transformed in the last 27 years and many of the radical ideas that fueled the policy debates of the ’80s and ’90s have now become mainstream. While there

54

has been a fundamental shift in American politics, politicians and the American public remains centrist in their political orientation. These new realities have created a quandary for many intellectual ramparts on the right as well as considerable dissension among their ranks about how far to push the limits of policy advocacy. The left is no better off, having gone from mainstream to no steam at all. In the war of ideas, the left was unarmed for most of the ’80s and ’90s and failed to provide a meaningful and coherent alternative to the policies developed by think tanks on the right. After 25 years one has to ask why haven’t the Centrist and Left of Center groups not sought to create an effective counter part to the Heritage Foundation. This has resulted in a lack of parity in the policy institutions in Washington that is affecting the quality and level of debate on key issues.

Globalization and the movement of capital, labor, technology and goods simultaneously

unite and divide the countries of North/South and East/West. Globalization also serves as a platform for a host of transnational problems such as terrorism, proliferation of WMD, AIDS, hunger and global warming require a global response. Some think tanks have the competitive advantage as truly transnational organizations that can effectively bridge the chasm between North/South and East/West. In addition, the emergence of regional economic alliances have created a new network of regionally oriented policy institutions. There are very few institutions that can effectively cover both domestic and international affairs but the US position in the world demands that we do a more effective job of balancing and integrating our domestic and global priorities. The diversified think tanks tend to be the same ones that find it difficult to compete with the highly specialized organizations that have a clear market niche and constituency.

III. Institutional Constraints

Increasingly, political leaders and theorists and practitioners have come to understand

that in order to have any lasting impact on domestic and international policy problems they must work and think on a number of levels simultaneously. Policy makers are often faced with a set of complex and often conflicting social, political, economic, legal and cultural choices when making decisions. This new reality challenges the way many think tanks are currently structured. Currently, think tanks are organized around traditional disciplines that mirror how many foundations and government agencies are organized. If think tanks are to help government think outside the box, they must be encouraged to conduct innovative and interdisciplinary research and analysis. This can only be achieved if public and private donors provide the necessary funding and latitude in setting their research priorities.

A decline in general operating support and the high costs associated with operating some

think tanks have also forced many think tanks to rethink how they staff and organize their operations. The academically oriented institutions have been hardest hit by this trend because of their reliance on highly trained scholars. In addition to higher salary costs, these institutions are faced with other costs associated with recruiting and retaining first-rate scholars. This trend has resulted in policy organizations hiring more policy analysts and non-resident scholars in order to reduce costs and increase flexibility. Donors must understand the fact that policy innovation comes at a price because it is often an inefficient activity. Supporting think tanks that recruit scholars and policy analysts who have the skills and courage to challenge conventional wisdom, who work in a truly collaborative and interdisciplinary groups will not come cheap.

55

Advances in telecommunications and the short-term orientation of many members of the legislative and executive branches of government have given policy institutions a very narrow window of opportunity in which to shape and influence policy. Issues now have a short shelf life and some institutions find themselves going out of business shortly after they are incorporated. This problem is most acute among organizations that are overly specialized or are slow to identify and respond to emerging policy issues. Organizations that are out of touch with key policy trends are likely to become irrelevant or find themselves out of business. Once again, the think tank community must adapt to this change but not become a slave to it. One of the lessons of 9/11 is the value of sustained research and analysis on long term, critical issues like terrorism. Certain institutions (Rand, Carnegie and CSIS) were able to respond immediately because they continued there research on this issue long after the funding dried up. Funders, Policy makers and think tanks need to come together to develop a strategy for supporting an appropriate mix of institutions (specialized/diversified), funding strategies (short term/long term, general operating/project specific support) and research (current/enduring policy issues).

Telecommunication and information technologies are redefining how think tanks operate,

and while advances in these areas can be a double-edged sword, non-profits cannot ignore technology's impact on how they operate. Information no longer translates into power unless it is in the right form at the right time. Many think tanks now have websites and conduct policy debates via the Internet. The high cost of domestic and international airfares and the reality that more and more people get their information from the internet, television, radio and film requires that organizations reexamine how they do business and the methods they use to reach the constituents they represent and/or the clients they serve. The PolicyFax has become a particularly effective medium for reaching policy makers and key constituents. More importantly, advances in telecommunications challenge the traditional notion of what a think tank is and how it should be organized and staffed (i.e. a full time resident scholar vs. associate scholars who are located throughout the US and who are linked by the Internet). Unfortunately, the ability of many think tanks to effectively incorporate these strategies into their operations is limited. Think tanks should be encouraged to use these tools and incentives should be provided for programs that incorporate these and other technologies into their operations.

The need for a quick response to policy issues and problems has forced many think tanks

to develop new product lines. Short, pithy reports, journal articles and policy briefs that can be quickly read and digested have replaced book-length studies as the primary output of many think tanks. In addition, a premium has been placed on writing articles and op-ed pieces for newspapers and making appearances on radio and television programs. This new brand of research and analysis is dependent on what I call the public policy food chain, which includes a range of knowledge and policy oriented institutions. These new products are often distilled from the in-depth research conducted by scholars at free standing, academically oriented think tanks such as Brookings, American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and university-affiliated think tanks located on campuses throughout the U.S. These institutions provide the intellectual muscle that the policy advocates at the specialty think tanks translate into executive memos, legislative alerts, policy bulletins and briefs that are circulated to the Washington bureaucracy, White House staffers, members of Congress and the media. This policy research and analysis food chain need to be strengthened so that think tanks can continue to improve the message and the medium through which they translate their ideas into action. If

56

we truly desire innovative policy analysis we must be willing to support a diverse set of public policy organizations. The unfortunate reality is that partisan politics, over specialization and funding limitations have created an environment in the US that is not conducive to policy innovation because they tend to encourage group think.

Clearly these trends have affected the think tank community's ability to anticipate and

effectively respond to the challenges posed by 9/11. The changes that have taken place over the last twenty years have weakened the intellectual and institutional fabric of these institutions. This trend must be reversed and appropriate interventions developed and implemented. Think tanks serve our country best when they are able to:

Study and analyze issues of national and international concern; Challenge conventional wisdom and develop workable alternatives to the status quo; Anticipate problems before they arise; Communicate their findings and recommendations to policy makers and the public.

In order to realize these objective we must develop a new architecture for how think tanks are currently being funded. Specific interventions need to be mounted that will help develop the critical mass of researchers and analysts that will be needed to confront the domestic and international challenges that lie ahead. If we want our think tanks to be able to effectively challenge the conventional wisdom in Washington, we must be prepared to strengthen these institutions so that innovation, diversity and collaboration can flourish once again.

57

Appendix A : TERRORISM COMMISSIONS SUMMARY

Summary Report on Commissions on Terrorism

This study is a fact-finding and an analytical mission focusing on the role of think tanks in the WOT. It considers three commissions that have issued reports over the past four years: the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Gilmore Commission), the Markle Foundation’s Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, and the Hart-Rudman Commission (US Commission on National Security/21st Century).

By gathering information on both the staffing and funding of these three commissions, and by examining each commission’s reports, the study hopes to answer several important questions. First, after finding the key recommendations made by each of these commissions in their specific area of focus, were any of these recommendations heeded by the government? If they were not, why was the government not willing to implement findings that might have prevented – or at least might have minimize the impact of – past terrorist attacks or perhaps help to prevent future ones? And finally, what does the failure of these commissions to influence government action say about the ability for independent policy analysis to have an impact on policy making?

The study hopes to confront these questions by examining the make-up of these

commissions, and by comparing their reports to the reality of what the government has done to combat the threat of terrorism since the reports were issued. Thus far, the study has found that the government in fact ignored many important recommendations that illuminated glaring vulnerabilities in protecting the United States and its interest from potential attacks. It has also found that the government failed to respond significantly to the commissions’ findings regarding the nation’s weaknesses in responding to attacks in an efficient manner.

One such example is the lack of response on the government’s part to the Gilmore

Commission’s recommendation that a “senior authority” in the federal executive branch should be placed in charge of our overall planning in preventing and responding to “conventional”, biological, chemical, or nuclear terrorist attacks. The failure of the government to implement such a plan – proposed in the commission’s first and second annual reports, released on December 15, 1999 and December 15, 2000, respectively – has been a glaring weakness in defending against terrorism, and only now, in the wake of 9/11, is such an apparatus (the Department of Homeland Security) being seriously considered. Other examples range from the Hart-Rudman Commission’s imploring that the United States be more sensitive in its relationships with the international community to its advice that intelligence gathering structures should be revised, neither of which were given much real attention by the American leadership at the time.

Clearly, things have changed in the past year; accordingly, the study also intends to

examine whether the commissions’ respective recommendations have made any more impact since 9/11. In terms of a push for more cohesion and information sharing among the different levels and agencies of government, in addition to a greater push towards preparedness regarding

58

concerns such as preparation for health care response, it appears as though the findings of these commissions is beginning to have greater impact. Further investigation of reports issued over the past year, including the first report by the Markle Foundation’s task force, released on October 7, 2002, should yield more information.

All these issues lead to a consideration of the ability of think tanks, civil society

organizations, and other institutions of independent policy analysis to influence policy making. Such considerations have a clear relevance to the success of the United States and its allies in the war on terror.

59

Appendix B: TERRORISM COMMISSIONS REPORT

Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for

Terrorism involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Gilmore Commission)

On December 15, 2000, the Gilmore Commission released a report of its key recommendations for defending the nation against terrorism. These recommendations were divided into three categories: executive, congressional, and functional actions. Suggested reforms for the executive branch centered on the creation of a “National Office for Combating Terrorism.” The most critical feature of this suggestion is that the commission advised against giving the director of this office any operational control or an independent budget. The commission sees the office’s value as a formulator of strategy and a plans reviewer for the President, as well as the liaison between Congress and the President on homeland security issues. Congress is to create a “Special Committee for Combating Terrorism.” Functional recommendations include the improvement of intelligence sharing by providing security clearances and more information to designated State and local entities as well as developing a an integrated, web-based information system. The commission also advocates bulking up the human intelligence force. Finally, the Gilmore Commission urged broad improvements in coordination between the three levels of government for planning against potential attacks; likewise, it urged improved coordination in organizing health and medical response procedures should an attack occur. In 1999, the Gilmore Commission was contracted by the National Defense Research Institute in accordance with the secretaries of Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Attorney General; its staff is listed below (* = non-voting): James Gilmore L. Paul Bremer George Foresman Michael Freeman William Garrison Ellen M. Gordon James Greenleaf Dr. William Jenaway

William Dallas Jones Paul M. Maniscalco John O. Marsh Kathleen O'Brien M. Patricia Quinlisk, M.D. Patrick Ralston William Reno Joseph Samuels, Jr.

Kenneth Shine, M.D. Allen Dennis Vickery Hubert Williams John Hathaway* Mike Wermuth* Jennifer Brower*

Markle Foundation: Task Force on National Security in the Information Age On October 7, 2002, the Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, which commenced its research in April of 2002, released its first report: “Protecting America’s Freedom in the Information Age.” The report’s primary recommendation is that a new Department of Homeland Security – and specifically not the FBI – should be the lead advisor to policymakers with regard to the shaping of domestic information and intelligence priorities. It specifically cites the need to separate law enforcement from the task of providing intelligence information to policymakers. Beyond that, the Task Force calls for a networked information technology system that effectively shares information among local, state, regional, and federal agencies as well as the private sector. The guidelines of such a system should be set by the President. The report calls for this system in light of the need for “a more horizontal, cooperative, and fluid process for intelligence collection, sharing and analysis.” More generally, the report calls for a dramatic increase in spending towards the sharing and analyzing of

60

information pertinent to homeland defense. The Markle Foundation is privately funded. The task force members are listed below: Zoë Baird, co-chair William P. Crowell Robert KimmittJames L. Barksdale, co-chair Sidney D. Drell Michael O. Leavitt Alexander Aleinikoff Esther Dyson Tara Lemmey Robert D. Atkinson Amitai Etzioni Gilman Louie Stewart A. Baker David J. Farber Judith A. Miller Eric Benhamou John Gage James H. Morris Jerry Berman Slade Gorton Craig Mundie Robert M. Bryant Morton H. Halperin Jeffrey H. Smith Ashton Carter Margaret A. Hamburg Abraham D. Sofaer Wesley Clark John J. Hamre James B. Steinberg Wayne Clough Eric Holder Paul Schott Stevens Arnold Kanter Rick White Philip Zelikow

Hart-Rudman Commission (US Commission on National Security/21st Century)

The Hart-Rudman Commission issued 50 recommendations for securing the homeland in Phase III of its report, released on February 15, 2001. The first key recommendation of the commission is that the President and Congress should create a “National Homeland Security Agency,” and transfer the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and Coast Guard under its supervision. Likewise, Congress should establish a “special body” to confront homeland security issues. The NSC, on which the report says the Secretary of Treasury should be given a seat, should be delegated authority by the President to coordinate a “top-down strategic planning process,” and subsequently present to Congress an overall national security budget that reflects the NSC’s assessments. Overall, one of the most notable trends of the report is the heightened level of advising and oversight responsibilities it assigns to the NSC.

Other suggested institutional adjustments include the addition of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security within the DoD. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense should make homeland security the primary mission of the National Guard, reorganizing it and retraining it to undertake this mission. Furthermore, the Secretary should redirect the DoD’s focus on the 2MTW threat to one more in line with the new national security strategy, such as furthering its expeditionary capabilities. The State Department should also undergo major institutional reforms: the creation of five Under Secretaries to oversee the regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, Inter-America, and Near East/South Asia. Meanwhile, the report suggests the President abolish the National Economic Council, distributing its responsibilities to the Domestic Policy Council and the NSC.

Also among the Commission’s key recommendations is a boost in human intelligence resources for the CIA, and an overall increased focus on the analysis of intelligence information.

Finally, the Commission advises a major increase in resources put towards long-term research and development, starting with a doubling of the US government’s investment in science and technology R&D by 2010. A National Security Science and Technology Education

61

Act (NSSTEA) should financially and structurally foster education in service of national security. The National Security Education Act (NSEA) and the Montgomery GI Bill should also be broadened. Furthermore, a budget reallocation should favor the modernization element of the DoD budget for R&D/procurement. The Hart-Rudman Commission has a 2-½ year, $10.4 million contract with the federal government; its commissioners are listed below:

Co-Chair: Gary Hart Co-Chair: Warren B. Rudman Anne Armstrong Norm R. Augustine

John Dancy John R. Galvin Leslie H. Gelb Newt Gingrich Lee H. Hamilton

Lionel H. Olmer Donald B. Rice James Schlesinger Harry D. Train Andrew Young

Charles Boyd, Exec. Director Hank Scharpenberg, Chief of Staff Dr. Pat Pentland, Study Group Coord. Study Group Members: Dr. Jeffrey Bergner Dr. Coit Dennis Blacker Dr. Christopher J. Bowie Dr. Ivo H. Daalder Rhett Dawson Dr. Keith Dunn Amb.Chas.W. Freeman, Jr.

Dr. Adam Garfinkle Richard Haass Keith Hahn Frank Hoffman Dr. Charles B. Johnson Robert Killebrew Dr. Richard H. Kohn Dr. William Lewis

James R. Locher, III Dr. Charles Moskos Dr. Williamson Murray Dr. Barry Ross Posen Barbara Samuels Dr. James S. Thomason Ruth Wedgwood

Final Comments

There are a several important similarities and differences reflected in the key recommendations of the three reports. First, all three see the need for a new agency to in some capacity coordinate the government’s new effort to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Where the commissions diverge, however, is on the matter of the status, independent budget, and operational control that this agency should or should not posses.

A second convergence comes in the Gilmore’s and Hart-Rudman’s respective conclusions that Congress should establish a special body to handle homeland security issues. Thirdly, all three reports make specific references to the need for more long-term investment in research and development in order to preserve America’s technological edge – a strength they consider key to defending against terrorism. Whether pouring resources into web-based, information sharing networks, modernizing the military, or enhancing educational programs to support our nation’s future scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, the three commissions see a universal need for a more long-term vision in R&D.

62

While all three reports advocate institutional reforms within government, their differences in focus – in which departments and which resources need adjustment – can be seen by comparing the recommendations cited above. All in all, though, they all see a reorganization of the government bureaucracy and a reallocation of funding as vital if the nation is to create a successful front against the terrorist threat. Put more simply, America is not safe with the status quo. The Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, and the Markle Foundation’s Task Force all make unique recommendations towards advancement of the nation’s ability to protect itself, but there are certainly points on which their recommendations specifically overlap or conflict.

63

Bibliography

Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, pursuant to Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 105-85), June 24,2002 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/combating _terrorism06-2002.pdf).

Bremer Report, National Commission on Terrorism (the Bremer Commission), Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism, June 7, 2000 (available at http://w3.access.gpo.gov/net/).

Brookings Institution Report, Protecting the American Homeland: A Preliminary Analysis, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2002; www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/.

Bush, President George W., Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation, Washington, D.C. June 2002a (available at www.dhs.gov/dhpublic/display?theme=44&content=169).

Bush, President George W., The White House, Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 2002 (www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/nat_strat_hls.pdf).

Cilluffo, Frank J., Sharon L. Cardash, and Gordon N. Lederman, Combating Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Terrorism: A Comprehensive Strategy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2001 (see www.csis.org/pubs/2001_combatingcbrnt.htm for a summary of the document).

Collins, Joseph J., and Michael Horowitz, Homeland Defense: A Strategic Approach, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 2000 (available at www.csis.org/homeland/reports/hdstrategicappro.pdf).

CSIS Report, Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org), Defending America in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Organizations, and New Policies, Executive Summary of Four Working Group Reports on Homeland Defense, Washington, D.C.: CSIS 2000 (available at www.csis.org/homeland/reports/defendamer21stexecsumm.pdf).

de Borchgrave, Arnaud, Frank J. Cilluffo, Sharon L. Carash, and Michele M. Ledgerwood, Cyber Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st Century Challenge, Washington, D.C. Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2001 (see www.csis.org/pubs/2001_cyberthreatsandis.htm for a summary of the document).

Gilmore Commission Second Annual Report, Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (known as the Gilmore Commission; www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/), Toward a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Second Annual Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2000.

Gilmore Commission Third Annual Report, Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, For Ray Downey, Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2001.

Gilmore Commission Fourth Annual Report, Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction Implementing the National Strategy, Fourth Annual Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2002.

Goure, Daniel, Defense of the U.S. Homeland Against Strategic Attack, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 2000 (available at www.csis.org/homeland/reports/defenseofushmld.pdf).

Hart-Rudman Commission Report, U.S. Commission on National Security/ 21st Century (known as the Hart-Rudman Commission; www.nssg.gov), Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Phase III Report, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2001.

Harris, Scott A., “Advisory Commission: Factors Affecting Success,” RAND project memorandum prepared for Commission on Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community, unpublished, p. 19.

Heritage Foundation Report, Defending the American Homeland: A Report of the Heritage Foundation Homeland Security Task Force, Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, Jan. 2002; www.heritage.org.

Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, Statement by the President, Washington, D.C., May 8, 2001.

64

Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “President Releases National Strategy for Homeland Security,” July 16, 2002 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/new/releases/2002/07/print/200020716-2.html).

Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Fact Sheet: Strengthening Intelligence to Better Protect America,” February 14, 2003 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-1.html).

President’s Critical Infrastructure Commission Report, The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, Critical Foundations Protecting America’s Infrastructures, Washington, D.C., October 1997 (available at www.ciao.gov/resource/pccip/PCCIP_Report.pdf).

The White House, Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security, Washington D.C., Executive Order 13228, October 8, 2001.

65

responding to 9/11: are think tanks thinking outside...

Documents