Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The RAND Corporation: America's University of Imperialism

By Chalmers Johnson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted April 30, 2008.


For decades these self-professed saviors of the Western world helped precipitate U.S. foreign policy disasters like the Vietnam War.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Debate Continues, but There's Little Doubt Speculators Are Adding to Pain at the Pumps
Thomas Palley

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
'The Dope Craze That's Terrorizing Vancouver'
Lani Russwarm

Election 2008:
After Biden, the Economic Debate Takes Shape
Bill Scher

Environment:
Manufactured Famine: How Europe Is Snatching Food from the World's Poor
George Monbiot

ForeignPolicy:
Bush Is Pouring Gas on Afghanistan's Bonfire
Chris Hedges

Health and Wellness:
U.K. and Australia Fight Breast Cancer with Free Screening for Women 50+
Alice Alech

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Immigration: Too Hot for the Dems?
Roberto Lovato

Media and Technology:
Progressive Media's New Smackdown Power: Why Swiftboat Tactics Aren't Working in '08
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
The Christian Right's Slick Campaign to Make Abstinence Seem Trendy
Vanessa Valenti

Rights and Liberties:
Martin Luther King: 'I Have a Dream'
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sex and Relationships:
Sex Worker Rights Are Human Rights
Juhu Thukral

War on Iraq:
Standoff with Police as Iraq Vets Demand to Meet with Obama Campaign
Alex Kane, Jessica Lee

Water:
Will Thirsty States Get Great Lakes Water?
Dave Dempsey

More stories by Chalmers Johnson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The RAND Corporation of Santa Monica, California, was set up immediately after World War II by the U.S. Army Air Corps (soon to become the U.S. Air Force). The Air Force generals who had the idea were trying to perpetuate the wartime relationship that had developed between the scientific and intellectual communities and the American military, as exemplified by the Manhattan Project to develop and build the atomic bomb.

Soon enough, however, RAND became a key institutional building block of the Cold War American empire. As the premier think tank for the U.S.'s role as hegemon of the Western world, RAND was instrumental in giving that empire the militaristic cast it retains to this day and in hugely enlarging official demands for atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Without RAND, our military-industrial complex, as well as our democracy, would look quite different.

Alex Abella, the author of Soldiers of Reason, is a Cuban-American living in Los Angeles who has written several well-received action and adventure novels set in Cuba and a less successful nonfiction account of attempted Nazi sabotage within the United States during World War II. The publisher of his latest book claims that it is "the first history of the shadowy think tank that reshaped the modern world." Such a history is long overdue. Unfortunately, this book does not exhaust the demand. We still need a less hagiographic, more critical, more penetrating analysis of RAND's peculiar contributions to the modern world.

Abella has nonetheless made a valiant, often revealing and original effort to uncover RAND's internal struggles -- not least of which involved the decision of analyst Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971, to leak the Department of Defense's top secret history of the Vietnam War, known as The Pentagon Papers to Congress and the press. But Abella's book is profoundly schizophrenic. On the one hand, the author is breathlessly captivated by RAND's fast-talking economists, mathematicians, and thinkers-about-the-unthinkable; on the other hand, he agrees with Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis's assessment in his book, The Cold War: A New History, that, in promoting the interests of the Air Force, RAND concocted an "unnecessary Cold War" that gave the dying Soviet empire an extra 30 years of life.

We need a study that really lives up to Abella's subtitle and takes a more jaundiced view of RAND's geniuses, Nobel prize winners, egghead gourmands and wine connoisseurs, Laurel Canyon swimming pool parties, and self-professed saviors of the Western world. It is likely that, after the American empire has gone the way of all previous empires, the RAND Corporation will be more accurately seen as a handmaiden of the government that was always super-cautious about speaking truth to power. Meanwhile, Soldiers of Reason is a serviceable, if often overwrought, guide to how strategy has been formulated in the post-World War II American empire.

The Air Force Creates a Think Tank

RAND was the brainchild of General H. H. "Hap" Arnold, chief of staff of the Army Air Corps from 1941 until it became the Air Force in 1947, and his chief wartime scientific adviser, the aeronautical engineer Theodore von Kármán. In the beginning, RAND was a free-standing division within the Douglas Aircraft Company which, after 1967, merged with McDonnell Aviation to form the McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Corporation and, after 1997, was absorbed by Boeing. Its first head was Franklin R. Collbohm, a Douglas engineer and test pilot.

In May 1948, RAND was incorporated as a not-for-profit entity independent of Douglas, but it continued to receive the bulk of its funding from the Air Force. The think tank did, however, begin to accept extensive support from the Ford Foundation, marking it as a quintessential member of the American establishment.

Collbohm stayed on as chief executive officer until 1966, when he was forced out in the disputes then raging within the Pentagon between the Air Force and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. McNamara's "whiz kids" were Defense intellectuals, many of whom had worked at RAND and were determined to restructure the armed forces to cut costs and curb interservice rivalries. Always loyal to the Air Force and hostile to the whiz kids, Collbohm was replaced by Henry S. Rowan, an MIT-educated engineer turned economist and strategist who was himself forced to resign during the Ellsberg-Pentagon Papers scandal.

Collbohm and other pioneer managers at Douglas gave RAND its commitment to interdisciplinary work and limited its product to written reports, avoiding applied or laboratory research, or actual manufacturing. RAND's golden age of creativity lasted from approximately 1950 to 1970. During that period its theorists worked diligently on such new analytical techniques and inventions as systems analysis, game theory, reconnaissance satellites, the Internet, advanced computers, digital communications, missile defense, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. During the 1970s, RAND began to turn to projects in the civilian world, such as health financing systems, insurance, and urban governance.

Much of RAND's work was always ideological, designed to support the American values of individualism and personal gratification as well as to counter Marxism, but its ideological bent was disguised in statistics and equations, which allegedly made its analyses "rational" and "scientific." Abella writes:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: soviet union, nuclear war, cold war, military, ellsberg, rand corporation

Chalmers Johnson's latest book is Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, now available in a Holt Paperback. It is the third volume of his Blowback Trilogy. To view a short video of Johnson discussing military Keynesianism and imperial bankruptcy, click here.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Imperialism usually equals war, a philosophy of the absurd
Posted by: Lector on Apr 30, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s been inbred into Western tradition and continues to be a tool of the state today and its servants still get Presidential Medals of Freedom that glorify man’s brutal human nature. As nature's way to ensure the survival of the fittest, as the only proper occupation for gentlemen elitists and generals who would hardly sniff at the thought of sacrificing 77 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 30, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rape, Pillage and Plunder - The Corpirates/Dead Eyes DREAM!
Posted by: williameon on Apr 30, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do
The Corpirates lay the World to waste
in such haste?
Why the rush?
Who can stop them?

Why all the security and secrecy?
Always Hush Hush and in such a rush.
What is DICK doing behind the curtain?
Spinning a even larger web of Treachery and Deceit.

Throw enough
BU__! SH__! on The WAll
and
Some of it Sticks.

Corpirate
Skyscrapers
Full of
BU__! SH__!

CBS, ABC, NBC, FAUX, Enron!

Fascism = Imperialism
Imperialism = WAR.
WAR = Poverty
Poverty = Inequality
Inequality = Repression
Repression = Organization
Organization = Representation
Representation = Democratization
Democratization = Change
Change = Revolution
Revolution = Change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

International privacy violations & RAND ?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 30, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
.
...Canadian Privacy & "Did RAND Corporation Pen the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?"

Is the HTP Act ... an act of international domination?

???

No citizen of **any nation** retains their theoretical or functional Right to Privacy...

...because AMERICANS willed it so.

if it were YOUR next door neighbour... what would you think about it?

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obviously the social and Behavioral Sciences Dept are all JH classes
Posted by: Purple Girl on Apr 30, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a person with a Bachelors of Science in Soc, Anthro & Gerontologies- I must ask - WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TEACHING AND WHAT ANTISOCIAL IDIOTS ARE THEY GRADUALTING FROM THE PROGRAM???
Any person who went into the Social Sciences becasue of the love of it- the fascination of it's intricacies- knew in the '70's the ME was a hornets nest- A no Win Situation- if aggression was involved! I remeber the Hostage Crisis, Highjacking and the Oil crisis. It was inevitable if the Corps and their Gov't Lap dogs continued their involvement with the oppressive regimes (royal Families in those Cast systems) WE would continue to have problems, and they would only get worse! then the invasion of a region that is already hostile because of foreign presence who ignite further Radical Response. wah thas not yet happened (or come to light) is the fact that 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemy'ideology. there i sa commonality between such groups as the Sunnis & Shia andit will be no surprise when they decide to join together to fight a common enemy. Our citizens- kids- will be caught in the middle. the moment boots were set down in Afghanistan I Knew this was going to be a Cluster F*ck- They would be surrounded, Iraq has only ignited their fight beween each other for power- any attack on Iran will result in a combining of forces.
Looking at the last 60 yrs- Rands Lack of Independent thinking Social Scientists is painfully obvious- unfortunately many lives have been lost because of their Egocentric sociopathic mentality. and more will follow if these innately socially uneducated egg heads are allowed to continue their Fake form of Behaivior Science.Sh*it at least hire a Damn Historian, with some knowledge of ME Culture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all brains
Posted by: chrysalis124812 on Apr 30, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All brain, no heart equals gratutious cruelty, leading to the ultimate stupidity. Love matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Go Pogeaux
Posted by: tom cady on Apr 30, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire

In a world that contains Laffer Curve, an Axis of Evil, Iraqi Freedom, Mission Accomplished, Clear Skies, Clean Waters, Healthy Forests, Family Values, No Child Left Behind, and a Patriot Act it is a good reminder for our time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Expose all FFRDCs
Posted by: wagadog on Apr 30, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FFRDC stands for Federally Funded Research and Development Center.

In addition to RAND, might as well take a closer look at the activities of MITRE corporation, SRI, Lincoln Labs, the Courant Institute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RAND's nuclear activism is only part of the picture.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 30, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a good overview of the world of Team B, and how it gave rise to the world of today, there is a great BBC Series entitled "The Power of Nightmares."

Intro:
In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed, and today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life.

But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us - from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand - and the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells across the world - a threat that needs to be fought with a War on Terror. . .


RAND is also a manipulator of what they call "the mass consciousness." They are public perception experts, who use psychological tools in an attempt to guide the public's wants and desires.

If you've been following the torture issue, and have read what the anti-torture psychologists and commentators like Naomi Klein and Alfred McCoy, then you would know that mental coercion techniques have been practiced by the CIA for decades.

What RAND does, and similar groups, is to attempt to use similar strategies for large-scale manipulation of public opinion. For example, they worked hard to convince the public that the Soviet Union was a massive threat.

One classic and now-forgotten example of this is the effort to tie the Soviet Union to "international Islamic terrorism" in the 70s and 80s. The CIA had created this story as a "black PR op" against the Soviet Union in the 70s, but it was then picked up by the neocons and presented to Reagan as fact. It was not true; no evidence ever emerged of any such relationship, even after the USSR collapsed. (Religious fanatics and the USSR would not get along; in fact, many Islamic terrorists had covert backing via U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the early 1980s, up till 2001, in fact).

Pushing such bullshit into the public's consciousness is not an easy task. It requires a massive PR effort across all information outlets - print, television, radio, and even word-of-mouth/ "buzz marketing" efforts. That's how the lies about Iraqi WMDs were spread, for example. It's also how pharmaceuticals like Ritalin and Prozac are marketed to the public.

Other places like RAND include the Brookings Institute, the Rendon Group, the Lincoln Group, and so on. People have to get trained in the tactics used, and that happens at places like this:

The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) is an American interdisciplinary research body in Stanford, California. The center officially became part of Stanford University, effective Jan. 1, 2008. It is dedicated to advancing knowledge about human behavior through research, hereby focusing on the social sciences and humanities. The Center is funded by the Ford Foundation, and was founded after World War II.

Spooky - they've got a big locked gate, no casual visitors, up in the hills behind Stanford... that's one of the places where the leading figures of MindF*ckers Inc. learn the tricks of the trade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Statesmanship?
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Apr 30, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next time America produces a statesman, let me know. Until then, we are left with Rand and its cabal of neocon criminals. The atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq endure while this crowd endorses "star wars, " tactical nuclear warfare, cluster bombing, ethnic cleansing and likely air attacks on Iran. Will Americans ever wake up and become citizens of the world? Not likely, but the world will one day endure enough and when that happens Rand will not be of any use to bail us out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even darker waters: the U.S. Biological Warfare Program.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 30, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two real categories of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear and biological weapons. I suggest the NewSpeak phrase "weapons of mass destruction" be flushed down the toilet. There are nuclear and biological weapons and chemical weapons. The specifics do matter.

The U.S. biowarfare program began in 1942 when executives from Merck Pharmaceuticals, public academics, and Army Chemical Corps officers all sat down to discuss the use of bioweapons and poisons in warfare. The British had been the leaders in this area (recall poison gases were heavily used by both German and British sides in WW I).

It grew to gigantic proportions over the years - a kind of dark shadow of the nuclear program that was far more public. For every large nuclear test, there was an equally large biowarfare test. Entire islands were bombarded with weaponized anthrax, tularemia, - the whole story is told by THE BIOLOGY OF DOOM - The History of America's Secret Germ Warfare Project. - By Ed Regis. (1999)

It was supposed to have been wrapped up in 1969 - but only the "offensive biowarfare program" (the Army apparently accidentally gassed a bunch of sheep somewhere near Utah's Dugway Proving Ground) but then the Soviets got ideas. From 1972 until the fall of the USSR, they created a truly massive biowarfare program. They had cruise missiles that would deliver a steady blanket of powdered anthrax over gigantic regions - hundreds of square miles. They pursued this path because they felt it was a cheaper alternative to nuclear weapons.

In 1999 many people thought it had all ended, and that sanity had prevailed.

Now we come to the US Army Defense Intelligence Agency and the world's largest private research firm, Battelle Memorial Institute - and we find that these guys are still actively engaged in biowarfare research.

As of 2004, the situation is as follows:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Tucker.asp

By far the most probable source of the anthrax used in the Fall 2001 attacks is a Battelle lab, and while a very small number of people may have been responsible, the FBI was prevented from investigating them; the head of the Amerithrax case was replaced and a false lead to Stephen Hatfill was pursued, while the real culprits got away scot free.

So, forget about RAND - they're tiny compared to Battelle. Blackwater is a rank little outfit compared to Battelle, who is truly massive and also completely unreported on by the so-called "left". Battelle is the scientific heart of the nuclear-biological warfare complex in the United States - and yet most people have no idea they exist, even though they are the world's largest private research firm.

This really is the darkest of the dark subjects. The deliberate use of infectious disease as a weapon against civilian populations - it really doesn't get much worse than that, does it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» G. Achin--Great Post! Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: G. Achin--Great Post! Posted by: EncinoM
» Encelmo Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: ncelmo Posted by: EncinoM
What does RAND stand for?
Posted by: war_on_tara on Apr 30, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it always capitalized? Or does it have something to do with Ayn Rand, heh heh? Or did I overlook the explanation somewhere in this rather long article?

Anybody know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What does RAND stand for? Posted by: captbobalou
» RE: What does RAND stand for? Posted by: cultureindustries
» RE: What does RAND stand for? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Clueless Americans
Posted by: willymack on Apr 30, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a small town in Sothern Oregon. Most people here are good-hearted, but obstinately ill-informed and rigid in their thinking, when they bother to think, which isn't often. You can walk down Main Street and ask ten people at random what the Rand Group is, and all you'll get is a blank stare 99% of the time. I'm not going to make any aweeping statements about how ignorant and naive our people are,( this is ALREADY being done by people abroad who are actually educated and knowlegeable), but, it seems to me that the reason swine like cheney can meet with oil company exeutives in secret to plan the plunder of Iraq,and who knows what else, then thumb his nose at the American people, tell a senator to go fuck himself, and inform our people that government business is none of our business, and GET AWAY WITH IT, speaks of an incurious, lazy, and intellectually dead citizenry. No wonder some people say we don't deserve our freedoms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clueless Americans Posted by: e rice
Article missed the point...
Posted by: captbobalou on Apr 30, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RAND is a nonprofit. It's not particularly evil. Anyone willing to a) raise money and b) give 25% of it to RAND can become a RAND "employee." In return, RAND will provide a cube or an office, an oldish PC, occasional meeting space, copiers, and fiscal agency.

Funding drives this think tank, which follows the same dynamic as all other think tanks: they are successful because they can come up with ideas that cause funders to part with money. RAND folks just happen to have "ins" with DoD-related funders. IPS doesn't (though they could if they worked at it and wanted to).

There's not much mystery here if you actually go to RAND and talk to folks who work there. Think tanks exist as homes for academics who want to turn ideas into action and who are willing to pander to the needs of funders. If you want to point fingers and call foul, you need to look at where the funding comes from, and it becomes quite clear.

Don't like it? Pony up some bucks to fund folks who have different approaches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, Cap'nBob, but I think you missed the point...
Posted by: rockpicker on Apr 30, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a little busy trying to feed myself and put gas in my vehicle to be out raising funds from my peers.

Money IS the problem.

The ones with disposable income now are war criminals or war profiteers. Who else is there?

Money begets money. That's why the war drags on.

Who's going to fund a think tank with the stated goal of monkey-wrenching the war machinery? Any idea what havoc that would cause?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

even more horrific than rand's lunacies
Posted by: e rice on Apr 30, 2008 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the idea that, for decades, none of those in power ever seem to have consulted anyone else, or questioned rand in any way.

the diplomats and members of our foreign service who had actual, personal knowledge and experience of upper levels of other countries, historians, or even the elite of other countries, were apparently ignored in favor of ivory tower intellectuals and career militarists.

no matter how many of rand's ideas were proven false, its advice continued to be sought. why?

this certainly doesn't say much for anyone in elected office over the past 60 years. bribery by corporations aside, how could so many people have been so completely unrealistic as never to question or oppose rand's advice?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Iron Triangle of academics, government and industry - the working end...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 30, 2008 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the so-called "military industrial congressional complex".

RAND is certainly part of it. If you feel like looking into this, the place to start is the Center for Public Integrity's Lobbywatch site:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/

For example, Battelle's spending on lobbying doubled from $400,000 to $800,000 from 2003-2004.

In comparison, RAND spent only $120,000 on lobbying, all of that in 2001 only! Wonder what that was for? It all went to Clark & Weinstock:

"Clark & Weinstock is one of Washington’s most highly-regarded government relations and public affairs consulting firms.

Our professionals come from the top of their fields and have worked at the highest levels of government and politics. We serve our clients by working with the White House and Executive Branch agencies, Congress, the news media, the think-tank community, and other interests in both the public and private sectors.

Unlike most Washington DC lobbying firms we utilize a team approach, with the strengths and resources of every Clark & Weinstock consultant available for each of our clients.

Clark & Weinstock specializes in helping our clients develop third-party allies to validate their policy goals and add additional voices to our efforts."


Oh yeah baby - fire me up some Message Force Multipliers!

Just for fun, here is one of Hillary Clinton's top donors of bundled campaign cash, DLA PIPER.

That's how you do research into public-private partnerships. Beyond that it's all Freedom of Information Act Requests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supporting, what is GOING TO BE SUPPORTED!
Posted by: sofla100 on Apr 30, 2008 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's easy to figure out what Rand is all about. To support USA defense policy objectives, and develop "scientific and methodological measures," to support, what is GOING TO BE SUPPORTED. It's sort-of-like reverse engineering. You know the outcome, but you need to "dress it all up," and package it properly. In the meantime, if money is to be made, and it is, you are going to make it, in your university and your think-tank. Rand is a sweet operation for the government and military civilians and officers who can drift back and forth, while taking advantage of those "sweet contracts." Is it really pretty much make believe and its conclusions all the ready predictable (based on just knowing what the President wants)? Of course. Of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rightwing ties that bind: The PNAC Gang
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 30, 2008 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentioned that Donald Rumsfeld, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmay Khalilzad were associated with RAND.

Not coincidentally, the same three neocons were founders of Bill Kristol's rightwing extremist organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an updated form of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) from the Reagan administration.

In 2004, PNAC, which promoted a preemptive war against Iraq prior to 9/11, morphed into a new version of CPD. Former PNAC members (called "signatories") who joined CPD include ex-CIA director James Woolsey, Jr., Max M. Kampelman. Norman Podhoretz, Frank Gaffney and Danielle Pletka.

Senator Joe Lieberman also belongs to CPD as do many associates of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Boeing Company.

Also worth noting, John McCain is a PNAC signatory, as is Hillary Clinton's present foreign affairs advisor, Madeline Albright.

For more information about PNAC and a list of 225 signatories including rightwing Democrats (such as M. Albright), visit my nonprofit investigative website, www.FreedomCentralUSA.com.

-----------------------------------------------

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHERE RAND WENT WRONG
Posted by: Bob Graham Las Vegas on May 1, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 60 to 70 period I noticed an article in the LA Times regarding Rand Corp and it's endeavor to stop the flow of hippies from one state to another . Rand came up with an outlandish idea that people should be issued medallions for the state/county where they resided and new medallions at birth for newcomers . Their idea was to make people from Colorado find someone in California who wanted to move to Colorado and a medallion exchage would happen and the move would be authorized . I know you find this hard to believe , as I did back then even with the experimental craze going on. I could not find a drug which made sense of this idea but my interest was tweaked so I looked into the Rand Corp think tank . While I must admit to the fact that there is a accumulation of some very intelligent people there their mission almost always is in a given direction and IMO free thinking is squashed . Free and spontaneous brainstorming is a real good way to research before heading into the unknown , but is missing at Rand . Directional anything (with directional being the key word)can only result in going in one direction for folks with high IQs and there is always more than one side to everything . I don't see how any real good can come from any organization which directionalizes the thought process and one of the best examples would (IMO)be the "YES" person attitude of Condolesa Rice . This is not the only think tank around, but has been used as a pattern for others and in doing so it is my opinion that they are all flawed .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RANDom Thoughts
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on May 1, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm currently reading Abella's book, and, I'm glad someone's finally exposing this ultra-secret think tank to us. RAND is like cockroaches who usually do their dirty work at night, running through your dwelling eating whatever's available and you can't seem to quite catch them, unless your turn the light on and watch them scurry away.
I am not shocked by what I've read, but what is shocking is that we allow this kind of thought to dominate the national landscape. Heaven help us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]