Think Tanks, the Media, and the Future of Ideas Distribution

The Washington Post Think Tanked Blog is covering a news announcement this week that I have some thoughts on.

Time magazine and the Center for a New American Security have partnered to produce a new video series, Command Post. The series will examine key national security issues over the course of a week. Command Post will be co-hosted by CNAS President John Nagl and Time Pulitzer Prize winning national security correspondent Mark Thompson.

“Command Post will work to inform the American people about principled, pragmatic defense and security policies that will keep the country strong and safe,” said Nagl in a released statement.

The CNAS-Time project marks another collaboration between the think tank and media outlets of the kind that has been criticized in the past. The venture raises the question of whether think tanks, which may be beholden to their funders, make good partners for mainstream media.

Questions usually end with a question mark, so allow me to ask and answer the question. Is it a good idea for media organizations and think tanks to collaborate in the production and distribution of informed content? Of course it is, and this isn't a new phenomenon, rather a natural evolution and adaptation for both media and knowledge organizations like think tanks - indeed think tanks are simply catching up with academia in this regard.

The way information flows today is different than the way it did when fewer options existed. One of the criticisms mentioned in the Think Tanked article is the suggestion that think tank content is inherently biased or a form of propaganda due to the funding model of Think Tanks. Perhaps, but in my experience with think tanks, most think tanks produce legitimate ideas formulated through research and critical analysis - and yes one can often find good ideas even when a bias exists.

I also think this criticism is largely overblown, because it starts with the premise that important leaders and decision makers are incapable of evaluating the legitimacy or credibility of information. Because important leaders and decision makers in the US often shape information towards desired conclusions (particularly in political campaigns), folks sound silly to me when suggesting leaders are being unduly influenced. Seriously, are you suggesting an idea is genuine crap? Since when did the quality of an idea matter in highly partisan politics? Influence with ideas is often much more complex than critics of think tanks allow for in their criticisms.

Partnerships with media organizations isn't new to the Center for New American Security, which currently has two Senior Fellows consistently contributing on the Foreign Policy website; Marc Lynch and Tom Ricks. The extension of a media collaboration model to TIME magazine represents the traditional media outlet TIME expanding their new media models in new ways, not CNAS expanding themselves in new ways. If anything, CNAS can be accused of doing exactly what they are best known for doing - developing a larger influence enterprise through new media social collaboration models towards the purpose of distributing their ideas horizontally to broader audiences. How terrible! Think Tanks traditionally produce high quality content, so why wouldn't content distributors like TIME look to collaborate with organizations like CNAS that produce higher quality content. Indeed, some of the best ideas in the Navy discussion come from Think Tank folks, and too often the distribution models for those ideas are so small - nobody ever reads those ideas.

We have seen Think Tanks approach new media and the distribution of ideas in multiple ways attempting to capitalize on modern information network models. For example, The Heritage Foundation Foundry Blog is one example of an in-house publishing model for distributing the ideas of the Heritage Foundation outside their traditional backgrounder and report model. Center for American Progress also has a traditional content model of backgrounders and reports, but for their new media model they established Think Progress as an external, collaborative network for social networking their ideas horizontally. Most traditional think tanks, both partisan and non-partisan, have developed internal models for content distribution that now extends to blogging. CATO for example operates multiple blogs (here, here). CSIS uses multiple types of social networks to push ideas, and I would note CSIS and Lowy Institute both do a great job moving their ideas socially through Twitter - which is where I know a lot of researchers get exposed to their content. It isn't a stretch at all to say The Lowy Institute leads the Navy discussion among all think tanks globally because they do a better job than other think tanks promoting their ideas socially. This report, for example, is widely read and perhaps the most frequently publicly discussed think tank content produced in 2011 related to maritime affairs in the Pacific.

How powerful is social networking models for moving ideas produced from Think Tanks? In the global information distribution model of today, The Lowy Institute is leading the public naval affairs narrative by being the leading think tank content and ideas provider... and they are leading from Australia. The Indians read their work, the Japanese read their work, the Koreans read their work, obviously the Americans do, and it is safe bet the Chinese do... and in global social communities like Twitter where a policy discussion has been known to break out in public with many eyes watching, their ideas are prominently featured in the debates. Think about it.

CNAS is evolving into what can be described as a Think Tank 2.1 model where the traditional think tank model distributes their ideas with intent to influence through a social network, and they leverage the new media presence of traditional media brands to do it. It is effective, after all, the article I quoted regarding this new partnership between TIME and CNAS comes from the Think Tanked blog - published under the traditional brand Washington Post.

This is the future of think tanks, because influence can be measured a number of different ways for purposes of fundraising. Which scenario has more influence on you? When you find an interesting article from the AP while conducting a Google News search, or when a colleague you have high esteem for sends you an email and says "Read this!" and it links to an interesting article on some obscure blog brand like Information Dissemination? When colleagues I have respect for share a link with me, whether via email or Twitter or Facebook, it can have much more influence on my impression of the content than it would when I simply find an article reprinted in CLIPs.

That social model for information influence, enhanced by broader distribution through traditional media brands like Foreign Policy or TIME Magazine, is what CNAS is looking to take advantage of as a way of forwarding their ideas. The CNAS information model increases the probability that some staffer on the Hill will be informed by CNAS information and then forward that information to their Congressman or Senator, and through the consistency of good content generation, CNAS then competes for influence in the idea space among the decision makers in government.

This is a topic I've discussed at length with the folks at USNI many times - who do get it btw. Steve Waters and John Morgan didn't want to hear it, they already know everything - just ask them - which is why they need to go, but I honestly believe a similar model of leveraging partnerships within the Navy academia knowledge capital communities (USNA, NWC, NPS, NDU, etc) and think tanks who focus on naval affairs (Brookings, Hudson Institute, CATO, CSBA, CNAS) would allow a traditional media and publishing organization - USNI - find other partners in the Navy community (SNA, Navy League, NWC Foundation) to help build an idea influence enterprise network for broadly distributing relevant, credible Navy information to broader audiences. Because USNI Proceedings is a periodical, and not a news daily, there is no reason partnerships couldn't work with a traditional news organizations in print (WashPo, NYT, LATimes, Virginia Pilot, San Diego Union Tribune), TV (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN), or radio.

Collaborative partnerships are the most productive way information can be moved today, and social distribution is the most effective way to be influential with good information. All CNAS and TIME are doing is proving that both organizations apparently understand how the model works better than everyone else, and in the end both brands will be enhanced by the effort.

Need an example how brand influence is expanded when it is implimented correctly? The Foreign Policy brand today vs before they revamped themselves leveraging their social model is a perfect example. Still an influence periodical (perhaps more influential today with broader name recognition), FP is also an influential contributor to the daily narrative on important foreign policy issues. One would be hard pressed to suggest CNAS hasn't also benefited greatly from brand exposure with the presence of Tom Ricks and Marc Lynch writing on the Foreign Policy website. Bottom line, the social information model works when content is good, and think tanks produce higher quality content than most organizations - after all it is their job to do exactly that.

Muhammad Nabbous

Over the past few days I have been observing a webcam channel sponsored by the Libya17Feb folks and in particular the citizen journalism of a young married Libyan man named Muhammad Nabbous. "Mo" as he is nicknamed, has been an inspiration to many Libyans across North America, Europe, and the Middle East.

I do not know much about Muhammad Nabbous, or rather I only know him by watching his webcam broadcast over the last few days. He was an intelligent, very tech savvy young man who spoke English very well which made him very popular as he attempted to raise awareness in North America regarding the violence taking place in Libya, and specifically from Benghazi.

Muhammad's activities were particularly interesting to me. While at home in front of his webcam, we would take phone number requests from the thousands of people monitoring his web channel and reach out to loved ones on behalf of those overseas. All phone calls to Libya continue to be blocked by the government, but telecommunications works inside Libya, so to many hundreds Muhammad would function as a lifeline to connect families and provide status updates to those concerned outside Libya.

Muhammad would also conduct other activities as a citizen journalist, for example, last night while I was monitoring his channel there were around 20-30 explosions inside Benghazi. The young man connected one cell phone to his webcam, grabbed another cell phone and his camera, and drove around to various checkpoints to investigate the explosions while live streaming audio descriptions to those watching. He would hold the camera with one hand, drive with the other, hold the cell phone in his lap and describe all activities.

During these times media would often tune in and report through Twitter what was being said and done during this young mans live investigations. Once he would return home after his investigations, he would upload the video to the same channel and people could watch these investigations that would add video to the audio for more context to explain events unfolding in Benghazi. It really has been incredible to observe this citizen journalist in action inside a war zone, in particular a city under siege like Benghazi.

This morning Muhammad Nabbous was shot and killed during one of these investigations. The channel is always being viewed by thousands of people, and it is remarkable the outcry of inspiration and mourning taking place in chat this morning after his wife confirmed the young mans death.

I can't help but observe how important Muhammad Nabbous is as an example of the intersection between technology and war. As people become more aware and more capable utilizing these technologies, the ability of people to connect out of war zones on a personal level to a large audience poses challenges to decision makers as sympathetic movements can force the hands of political leaders and influence decision making. There were many news organizations that reported the activities of Muhammad Nabbous with as much if not more credibility as Libyan State TV (for good reason).

As I watched Muhammad Nabbous and began to observe major news organizations linking to his webcam feed, my impression was he on the verge of becoming an enormously popular individual world wide for his efforts in Libya, indeed last night he conducted several phone interviews with the western media and I suspected we would see these stories about this young man on cable news networks over the coming days.

It was not to be. God bless Muhammad Nabbous and comfort his wife. I never met the young man, but I found him both inspiring and admirable for the courage he repeatedly demonstrated to do all he could for his country and his people as they struggle to break from the grips of dictatorship.

The Iran Questions

I think The Atlantic deserves a lot of credit. They have effectively leveraged the reputations of their intellectual capital towards bringing about a serious and constructive discussion on the issues related to the Iranian nuclear program. It started with two contributions in the most recent edition - this article by Jeffery Goldberg and this article by Robert Kaplan.

Impressive is the follow on articles here, here, here, here, here, and too many other places both on the site and around the web to link. What we are seeing is fantastic journalism being leveraged to generate a Web 2.0 model for the collaboration and debate of serious issues and ideas on the web, and it is so rare in American politics today that I think some folks are overreacting and believe the sky might be falling. Hardly, the discussion is both healthy and informative - something that has been missing in regards to serious national security debates in the 21st century.

There are three key questions emerging that I think are worth a blog post.

1. Will there be military action against the Iranian nuclear program?
2. If military action is inevitable, who will take that action against the Iranian nuclear program?
3. What is a legitimate plan C that doesn't involve military action?

My answers are sure to piss someone off.

The answer to the first question is - probably, yes. I do not believe the current US diplomatic effort has a chance in hell succeeding. I'm old school when it comes to diplomacy, I firmly believe Roosevelt's model was exactly right, and in particular with the Middle East - every approach must be speak softly and carry a big stick. I think the US does a terrible job speaking softly, because in my opinion all we do is loudly offer sanctions as a solution to every problem. I also think that when it comes to the diplomacy of carrying a big stick, the US instead brings a tiny twig of bamboo. This is a discussion about nuclear weapons, and our stick is a conventional military confrontation that the whole world believes would do little to hurt the government of Iran.

Both Progressives and Conservatives will argue that President Obama is somehow different than President Bush when it comes to Iran. I don't see the difference - and if it exists - it is too nuanced for the Iranians to notice. At the end of the day both presidents used sanctions as the carrot and a twig represented by conventional military power as a stick. I don't think that model has a chance in hell of working. Want results - ditch the sanctions and work on issues that actually mean something to Iran - like investment and trade with a focus on economy. We didn't have to kill the Iranian economy with sanctions - it was already dead.

But we also need a bigger stick. We are talking about a nuclear weapons program - one that the national security establishment of this country has significant concerns with (enough that Presidents imply the threat of military action). The stick needs to be proportional to the threat - and if the threat is that Iran would allow the use of nuclear weapons under any conditions - then perhaps we need to imply the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. I'm not a big fan of MAD, nor am I a fan of preemptive strike - but I think a hint of both would be constructive towards making our twig look a bit more like a Louisville Slugger. It will also do wonders for getting the attention of anyone in the world who doesn't understand how serious we take this issue.

Conventional military power is not a threat to Iran. Invasion is beyond silly to contemplate, and beyond the capacity of the DoD when forces are engaged in Afghanistan. Conventional air strikes would have to be over a long period of time if they were going to be effective towards the objective - and even then I think most people agree that is simply a delaying effort with no tangible impact on the calculations of the Iranian government. Threaten to put a nuclear bomb on target in Tehran - and the whole world will sit up with attention. I know folks think it is crazy to suggest that nuclear weapons should be used as a stick in foreign policy - but remember that is the exact threat this whole issue is about to begin with. We are either serious people with serious solutions to serious problems - or we are not. I don't think most Americans are as serious about this issue as they pretend to be, and the vast majority have white lines and red lines they simply won't cross because they fear being judged by their peers. Yes, I truly believe that politically correct peer pressure no different than what one might find on an American high school playground is a player in international politics - and it why those who don't give a shit about peer pressure get their way in the 21st century. Iran, and North Korea, and even China to a large degree - don't give a shit what us Westerners think.

Since sanctions will not be removed, and the chances of Barack Obama making a threat to Iran with nuclear weapons is very near nill - I suspect diplomacy will fail and there will be a military confrontation with Iran over their nuclear program.

Which leads to the second question...

A recent poll of opinions in the Middle East conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with Zogby International is a must read, because the results are remarkable. In virtually every category the Obama administration has effectively lost every single gain made with his speech in Cairo, Egypt - meaning there has been no progress at all by this administration shaping opinions in the Middle East. Even more remarkable, the poll reveals a spectacular failure on the part of the Obama administration in regards to the Iranian nuclear program issue. The question I have regarding the results is whether the poll represents legitimacy for Iran (in the eyes of Iranian leaders) on the Arab street regarding their pursuit of nuclear weapons? I do not know that answer.

Consider the following two fictional news stories:

The United States Air Force bombed several Iranian nuclear facilities last night in a daring middle of the night raid that destroyed several dozen nuclear facilities across Iran. In response to the attack, Iran attacked several neutral flagged ships in the Persian Gulf and destroyed an oil terminal in Kuwait near where US cargo ships were docked in support of Iraq war operations. A Saudi super tanker was still burning in the Persian Gulf this morning as US Navy vessels were on the scene to extinguish the fire. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait launched a protest against the actions of the United States in the United Nations this morning, blaming the United States for the attacks against the Sunni nations around the Persian Gulf.

The Israeli Air Force overflew Saudi Arabia and bombed several Iranian nuclear facilities last night in a daring middle of the night raid that destroyed several dozen nuclear facilities across Iran. In response to the attack, Iran attacked several neutral flagged ships in the Persian Gulf and destroyed an oil terminal in Kuwait near where US cargo ships were docked in support of Iraq war operations. A Saudi super tanker was still burning in the Persian Gulf this morning as US Navy vessels were on the scene to extinguish the fire. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait launched a protest against the actions of the Israel in the United Nations this morning, blaming _____ for the attacks against the Sunni nations around the Persian Gulf.

Fill in the blank. Tell me, how exactly does Iran attack anyone besides the United States in the region in retaliation for the Israelis attacking Iran? If Iran attacks Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or any regional country other than Israel - how do they justify the attack to the Arab street? Is the average Sunni Arab going to accept the Iranian line that the Persians attacked their country because Israel bombed them first?

It is difficult to imagine how Iran can lash out against any of the Arab nations in the region after an attack by Israel without flushing Arab street opinion down the toilet. It isn't difficult to see how they might come after the US - that is believable, but the whole 'region up in flames scenario' doesn't quite register with me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US can absolutely crush Iran. The Iranian naval and air force capabilities are only capable of achieving a major surprise attack - not of achieving success in a direct confrontation. There is no military reason why Iran couldn't be destroyed by conventional military power, but there are very serious and important political reasons why it is a very, very bad idea that the US would even think about starting a war with Iran. If we start the war, we put every one of our partners in the region at risk. The same is, to a large degree, not true if Israel starts the war - because the Sunni Arab will not accept that a Shia Persian can kill a Sunni Arabs simply because the Israeli Jew gets militant. That ain't how politics in the Middle East works.

So I firmly believe that the US will not, under any circumstances, put our Arab allies at risk to retaliation by attacking Iran. That also means the US won't be coming to the aid of Israel if they attack Iran. The only way the US enters into a war with Iran is if 1) Iran attacks us directly, or 2) if Iran attacks one of our Arab allies. Because Israel already knows this, I believe they are doing everything possible to convince us to start the war so they don't have to take the blunt of the consequences. With the latest polls showing Iran has the backing of the Arab street, I think it is a legitimate possibility that Iran wouldn't attack the US or Arab nations in the region and prefer instead to fight Israel only and primarily via proxy with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Which leads us to the final question.

Of which I believe this and this discusses an option that is not outside the realm of possibility.

The Daily Idiot

A reminder why TV news will make you dumber, from one of cable TVs top idiots.

If West Point is the "enemy camp" in the Afghanistan War, where exactly would NBC find friendly territory in this war?

On one end we have Glen Beck ready to round up them working illegals, and on the other we have Chris Matthews ready to round up them serving cadets. In case you missed the memo, conservative stereotypes regarding minorities and liberal stereotypes regarding the military are rooted in public displays of idiocy.

If it wasn't for YouTube, I'd never know the kind of nonsense the American people watch on cable news.

Security at Sea and on Land

David Axe recently completed an embed off Somalia on the USS Donald Cook, and has done some excellent reporting. See especially this article at World Politics Review assessing the determinants of the decline in Somali piracy.

Send David Axe To Africa

I am a huge fan of David Axe, and when I heard he had this opportunity I immediately offered to help as best I can. This is the scoop.

It took a year of lobbying, but the NATO force dedicated to deterring and interdicting pirates off the Somali coast has finally approved my request to embark on one of its warships. The offer for a four-day embark this month came just days ago, after I’d already accepted an embed with U.S. forces in Afghanistan for October. All my resources are currently devoted to Afghanistan, so if I’m also going to join NATO for an African pirate adventure, I need your help.

The invitation is to spend a period in late September aboard the USS Donald Cook, pictured, a Burke-class destroyer assigned to Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, a counter-piracy force that also includes British, Greek, Italian and Turkish frigates. The cost of economy-class airfare is around $2,000. I’m asking readers for donations. If I cannot raise the funds in the next 10 days or so, I’ll have to politely decline the invitation. In that case, I will return any donations.

If I do manage to embark, what can readers expect from my reporting? For starters, I’m interested to see how a diverse naval force coordinates vessels, crews and aircraft from different nations. I’m also eager to see how well a guided-missile destroyer, designed for big wars, adapts to the kinds of dirty, tedious maritime security missions that are becoming more common in our globalized world. I want to find out, as best I can, whether naval patrols have contributed to the recent, modest reduction in successful hijackings. Finally, I hope to record some kick-ass high-seas action: helicopters zooming overhead, boats churning through swells, ships slicing through the waves in pursuit of dangerous, heavily-armed criminals.

Covering pirates from the at-sea perspective would complement my efforts last year to report on piracy, from the point of view of its victims on land. My plans include blog series, dispatches for newspapers and magazines and video spots. But the reporting requires your support. Please consider giving via the Paypal button at left.

I've done the math. If 1% of this audience donates $20, David goes to the Gulf of Aden and finds out the scoop behind the coalition piracy efforts, and NATOs work in particular. It is about information, and we choose our news sources. There are so many questions about the US effort to fight pirates, much less the international effort in total, that sending David seems to me to be one really smart way to get a bigger picture.

How many questions have gone unanswered?

How effective is the coalition force in preventing acts of piracy? How much coordination is there really between the various commands: CTF-151, NATO, EU, Russia, China, Iran? How do we end the piracy problems? What is the role of the United States Navy in that maritime security coalition?

There are dozens of questions, too many to just list out. Independent journalism has emerged as an alternative to the mainstream information sources, but the level of competition independent journalism will have is almost entirely dependent upon how we, the consumer, decide to spend our money on information. Those who care about the piracy story and are not satisfied with the mainstream alternatives have options like David Axe, but it comes down to whether you wish to donate towards those alternatives.

Donations via PayPal here.

Medium is the Message...

Make sure to check out Spencer Ackerman's two part interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. Spencer, who now works at the Washington Independent, has a fascinating perspective on the way in which journalism has developed in the age of new media. Long story short, the interaction between reader and journalist is far more dynamic now than it once was, and the story itself more fluid.

Spencer also talks a bit about coming at national security reporting from a progressive perspective, and in particular how, four or five years ago, there was a dearth of progressive work on military oriented issues. I think that there's some truth to this, but that it's more complicated than Spencer suggests. There have always, in the academy, been progressives and leftists working on security and military questions. However, that progressives have been working on security questions doesn't necessarily mean that a particularly progressive vision of strategy developed; on the left broadly conceived, there were always a multiplicity of views about the role that military force played in national strategy, and there weren't any particular poles to which these views could be attracted and made to cohere. It's not entirely different on the conservative side, of course; conservatives vary a lot in their national strategy and national security preferences. Conservatives, however, created and maintained a set of institutions (Heritage, AEI) that could produce coherent conservative visions of foreign policy. This didn't happen so much on the left, at least prior to 9/11, which meant that the progressive conversation on foreign policy sometimes approached cacaphony.

This has, I think, changed substantially in the past nine years, in large part because of the work of folks like Spencer. The development of viable foreign policy think tanks on the left (CAP) has also helped. This is not to say that one can visit a left wing blog and find foreign policy consensus in the comment thread, but it does mean that there are developing centers of foreign policy thought that produce progressive approaches to national strategy. There is no single voice, but then neither is there a single voice emanating from the right on intervention, military spending, and so forth.

Something else that's implicit in the Ackerman interview is the degree to which the journalist as objective reporter of events has fallen by the wayside. Spencer is a progressive journalist of national security, just as Eli Lake is a conservative national security specialist. To use the term "bias" to describe either makes little sense; both work from a particular perspective, and their product needs to be evaluated in the context of that perspective. It has always been so to some degree, but both Eli and Spencer lead political lives that are sufficiently public to remove uncertainty regarding their affiliations. There are drawbacks to this model (arguments that are simply indefensible on the facts manage to survive much longer than they ought), it's hard to argue that the "World round or flat? Opinions differ" model that mainstream media outlets have adopted is superior.

On a final, somewhat related note, I have always been relatively open about my political views in the classroom. This is altogether different than pushing my political views; students progressive or conservative should know where I'm coming from when they evaluate the claims that I make. I also lead a life sufficiently public that it would be impossible to hide what I believe. It seems to work out, as the complaints on the evaluations rarely focus on how I'm either a raging liberal or a tool of the bourgeois establishment.