reply to post by HanzHenry
The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative
education. We are committed to improving the nation’s [the US] ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to
achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.
Upon reading ISW’s Board of Directors and donors from their 2011 annual report, it becomes rather obvious as to what the ISW is designed for and
whose ‘objectives’ it is designed to propagate. A quick glance of the ISW’s main donors for 2011 is telling; the list of military (defense)
contractor’s donors include:
General Dynamics, (General Dynamics is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat vehicles and systems, armaments, and
munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and mission-critical information systems and technology.) CACI, (CACI provides information solutions and
services in support of national security missions and government transformation for Intelligence, Defense, and Federal Civilian clients. A member of
the Fortune 1000 Largest Companies and the Russell 2000 Index, CACI provides dynamic careers for approximately 15,000 employees working in over 120
DynCorp International, (DynCorp International is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy
objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development.)
Palantir,(Our products are built for real analysis with a focus on security, scalability, ease of use and collaboration. They are broadly deployed in
the intelligence, defense, law enforcement and financial communities.)
Northrop Grumman, (Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems,
cybersecurity, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide.)
These companies represent just a few of the huge US corporate military contractors, ranging from hardware and logistics, to telecommunications and
intelligence software that are primary donors of the ISW. The ISW describes its Corporate affiliations as a “Corporate Council”: (my emphasis)
Many of America’s top corporations are members of ISW’s Corporate Council. Corporate Council members believe that an advanced understanding of
military issues results in significantly better national security policy. They recognize the relevance, accuracy, and impact of ISW’s research and
analysis. Corporate Council members receive a number of benefits, including exclusive briefings with ISW’s leadership, advance publications, access
to our network, tailored analysis, increased corporate visibility, and invitations to exclusive events and discussions with national security leaders.
So the ISW is providing “tailored analysis” for its Corporate clients, and also provides “exclusive briefings with ISW leadership”. Does this
sound like a ‘non-profit’ organisation? Does providing “tailored analysis” for military contractors include raising the ‘need’ for such
equipment and contracts? And do military contractors make money in any other way than profiting from war? One would find it difficult to put these
things together and not see a conflict of interest from this alleged ‘objective’ research NGO.
The board of Directors at the ISW is also somewhat telling as to its political and corporate affiliations, some of the distinguished board members
include such humanitarian adherents as founder of ISW Kimberly Kagan (Supported US ‘surge in Iraq, husband is resident scholar at Neo-Con
‘think-tank’ the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), brother is the husband to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland) Liz Cheney,
(daughter of war-criminal Dick) and leading Neo-Con mouthpiece and US militarist William Krystol, who all sit alongside many fellow US-militarism
proponents, retired US Army Generals, and policy planners.
It seems that at least one of the organisers for McCains trip: Elizabeth Obagy, named as a “Political Director” of the Syrian Emergency Task
Force, is also a “Syria specialist” at what appears to be a Neo-Con led US ‘NGO’ that propagates US militarism on behalf of huge military
contractors and ‘defense’ corporations. So why would Liz Obagy be organising illegal trips for US Senator John McCain into Syria in her role as
“political director” at the SETF, whilst also claiming to offer ‘balanced’, ‘neutral’ and ‘objective analysis’ on the Syrian conflict?
One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise there is a massive conflict of interest here. When approached on Twitter, Moustafa of the SETF,
which is based in Washington DC, claimed their funding comes from American Syrian doctors and expatriate donors. The mission statement of the SETF is
as follows: (my emphasis)
To organize, mobilize and empower the Syrian American community, and our partners in order to play a positive role in public policy regarding Syria
and the Middle East, supporting the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people, improving the lives of average Syrian people, strengthening the rule
of law, and helping in transitioning Syria into a viable, inclusive, diverse, democratic state.
Without delving too far into Moustafa’s ties to the US Government through his previous work experience and former ‘activist’ work; it becomes
clear that his current duties are at the behest of the US State Department. In a recent press release the SETF personally thanked the State
Department: (my emphasis)
Washington, DC–The Syrian Emergency Task Force would like to thank all those involved in making Senator McCain’s trip to Gaziantep and to Syria a
success, particularly the U.S. Department of State….It was a pleasure working with the Department of State in ensuring that the Senator’s visit
went safely and flawlessly,” said SETF Executive Director Mouaz Moustafa.
Employing “political Directors”, that are affiliated with Neo-Con, and military contractor funded ‘NGO’ the Institute for the Study of War,
seems somewhat contradictory to “improving the lives of average Syrian people”, and “supporting democratic aspirations” in the Middle East.
Has it occurred to Moustafa and Obagy, that the vast majority of Syrian people want nothing to do with war criminals and pushers of all things
US/Israeli militarism under the guise of “freedom and democracy”? One thinks this is out of the equation, and Moustafa’s ‘Syrian Emergency
Task Force’ outfit is nothing more than a State Department/Neo-Con/Israel lobby initiated, propaganda outfit.
edit on 6-9-2013 by smurfy because: No edit.