@@ JINSA - How JEW occupied America (God bless Hitler, he saw all of this & tried to save humanity from demons) @@
Arash
August 15, 2002
The Men From JINSA and CSP
By Jason Vest
Almost thirty years ago, a prominent group of neoconservative hawks found an effective
vehicle for advocating their views via the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a group
that fervently believed the United States was a hair away from being militarily surpassed
by the Soviet Union, and whose raison d'être was strident advocacy of bigger military
budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of
a Likudnik Israel
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_on_the_Present_Danger).
Considered a marginal group in its nascent days during the Carter Administration, with the
election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 CPD went from the margins to the center of power
(http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3135).
Just as the right-wing defense intellectuals made CPD a cornerstone of a shadow defense
establishment during the Carter Administration, so, too, did the right during the Clinton
years, in part through two organizations: the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jewish_Institute_for_National_Security_Affairs)
and the Center for Security Policy (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/csp.php).
And just as was the case two decades ago, dozens of their members have ascended to
powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues,
abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and
persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues--support for national missile
defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems,
arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general--into a hard line, with support
for the Israeli right at its core.
On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for
war--not just with Iraq, but "TOTAL WAR", as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential
JINSAns in Washington, put it last year
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Ledeen).
For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia
and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin
Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy
against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between U.S. and
Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and
prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved
with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.
For example, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Defense_Policy_Board) -- chaired by JINSA/CSP
adviser and former Reagan Administration Defense Department official Richard Perle
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Perle), and stacked with advisers from
both groups--recently made news by listening to a briefing that cast Saudi Arabia as an
enemy to be brought to heel through a number of potential mechanisms, many of which mirror
JINSA's recommendations, and which reflect the JINSA/CSP crowd's preoccupation with Egypt.
(The final slide of the Defense Policy Board presentation proposed that "Grand Strategy
for the Middle East" should concentrate on "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as
the strategic pivot and Egypt as the prize").
Michael Ledeen has been leading the charge for regime change in Iran, while old comrades
like Andrew Marshall (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Marshall) and
Harold Rhode (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harold_Rhode) in the Pentagon's
Office of Net Assessment
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Net_Assessment) actively tinker with
ways to re-engineer both the Iranian and Saudi governments.
JINSA is also cheering the U.S. military on as it tries to secure basing rights in the
strategic Red Sea country of Eritrea, happily failing to mention that the once-promising
secular regime of President Isaiais Afewerki continues to slide into the kind of
repressive authoritarianism practiced by the "axis of evil" and its adjuncts.
Indeed, there are some in military and intelligence circles who have taken to using "axis
of evil" in reference to JINSA and CSP, along with venerable repositories of hawkish
thinking like the American Enterprise Institute
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute) and the Hudson
Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute), as well as
defense contractors, conservative foundations and public relations entities underwritten
by far-right American Zionists (all of which help to underwrite JINSA and CSP).
It's a milieu where ideology and money seamlessly blend: "Whenever you see someone
identified in print or on TV as being with the Center for Security Policy or JINSA
championing a position on the grounds of ideology or principle--which they are
unquestionably doing with conviction--you are, nonetheless, not informed that they're also
providing a sort of cover for other ideologues who just happen to stand to profit from
hewing to the Israeli Likudnik and Pax-Americana lines", says a veteran intelligence
officer. He notes that while the United States has begun a phaseout of civilian aid to
Israel that will end by 2007, government policy is to increase military aid by half the
amount of civilian aid that's cut each year--which is not only a boon to both the U.S. and
Israeli weapons industries but is also crucial to realizing the far right's vision for
missile defense and the Middle East.
Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to
provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war,
over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a
$1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its
rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush Administration, JINSA's board of advisers
included such heavy hitters as Dick Cheney
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/cheney_r/cheney_r.php), John Bolton
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bolton/bolton.php) and Douglas Feith
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/feith/feith.php), the third-highest-ranking executive
in the Pentagon.
Both Richard Perle (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/perle/perle.php) and former
Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/woolsey/woolsey.php), two of the loudest voices in the
attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane
Kirkpatrick (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/kirkpatrick/kirkpatrick.php), Eugene
Rostow (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eugene_V._Rostow) and Michael
Ledeen--Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis.
According to its website, JINSA exists to "educate the American public about the
importance of an effective U.S. defense capability so that our vital interests as
Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs
community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic
interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East".
In practice, this translates into its members producing a steady stream of op-eds and
reports that have been good indicators of what the Pentagon's civilian leadership is
thinking.
JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the U.S. government and
Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one
that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in
control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence
solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial
supporter.... Arafat has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the
West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster". And if there's a way to advance
other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA
doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with
interests inimical to ours", but Israel "stands with us when we need Israel", and a U.S.
policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit the Arabs' ability to do damage to either of
us".
The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired U.S.
generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli
officials and the still-influential U.S. flag officers, who, upon their return to the
States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik
line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes U.S. service academy cadets to Israel
each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.)
In one such statement, issued soon after the outbreak of the latest intifada, twenty-six
JINSAns of retired flag rank, including many from the advisory board, struck a moralizing
tone, characterizing Palestinian violence as a "perversion of military ethics" and holding
that "America's role as facilitator in this process should never yield to America's
responsibility as a friend to Israel", as "friends don't leave friends on the
battlefield".
However high-minded this might sound, the postservice associations of the letter's
signatories--which are almost always left off the organization's website and
communiqués--ought to require that the phrase be amended to say "friends don't leave
friends on the battlefield, especially when there's business to be done and bucks to be
made".
Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in
its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors
who do business with the Pentagon and Israel.
While some keep a low profile as self-employed "consultants" and avoid mention of their
clients, others are less shy about their associations, including with the private
mercenary firm Military Professional Resources International, weapons broker and military
consultancy Cypress International and SY Technology, whose main clients include the
Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees several ongoing joint projects with
Israel.
The behemoths of military contracting are also well represented in JINSA's ranks. For
example, JINSA advisory board members Admiral Leon Edney
(http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=718), Admiral David Jeremiah
(http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=726) and Lieutenant General
Charles May (http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=746), all retired,
have served Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as either consultants or board members.
Northrop Grumman has built ships for the Israeli Navy and sold F-16 avionics and E-2C
Hawkeye planes to the Israeli Air Force (as well as the Longbow radar system to the
Israeli army for use in its attack helicopters).
It also works with Tamam, a subsidiary of Israeli Aircraft Industries, to produce an
unmanned aerial vehicle.
Lockheed Martin has sold more than $2 billion worth of F-16s to Israel since 1999, as well
as flight simulators, multiple-launch rocket systems and Seahawk heavyweight torpedoes.
At one time or another, General May, retired Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan
(http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=2047) and retired Admiral
Carlisle Trost (http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=776) have
labored in LockMart's vineyards.
Admiral Trost has also sat on the board of General Dynamics, whose Gulfstream subsidiary
has a $206 million contract to supply planes to Israel to be used for "special electronics
missions".
By far the most profitably diversified of the JINSAns is retired Admiral David Jeremiah.
President and partner of Technology Strategies & Alliances Corporation (described as a
"strategic advisory firm and investment banking firm engaged primarily in the aerospace,
defense, telecommunications and electronics industries"), Admiral Jeremiah also sits on
the boards of Northrop Grumman's Litton subsidiary and of defense giant Alliant
Techsystems, which--in partnership with Israel's TAAS--does a brisk business in rubber
bullets. And he has a seat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard
Perle.
About the only major defense contractor without a presence on JINSA's advisory board is
Boeing, which has had a relationship with Israeli Aircraft Industries for thirty years.
(Boeing also sells F-15s to Israel and, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, Apache attack
helicopters, a ubiquitous weapon in the occupied territories).
But take a look at JINSA's kindred spirit in things pro-Likud and pro-Star Wars, the
Center for Security Policy, and there on its national security advisory council are
Stanley Ebner (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/ebner/ebner.php), a former Boeing
executive; Andrew K. Ellis (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7856), vice president
for government relations; and Carl Smith, a former staff director of the Senate Armed
Services Committee who, as a lawyer in private practice, has counted Boeing among his
clients. "JINSA and CSP," says a veteran Pentagon analyst, "may as well be one and the
same."
Not a hard sell: There's always been considerable overlap beween the JINSA and CSP
rosters--JINSA advisers Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Phyllis Kaminsky
(http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=730) also serve on CSP's
advisory council; current JINSA advisory board chairman David Steinmann
(http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=704) sits on CSP's board of
directors; and before returning to the Pentagon Douglas Feith served as the board's chair.
At this writing, twenty-two CSP advisers--including additional Reagan-era remnants like
Elliott Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams), Ken deGraffenreid
(http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/facultyID.20/profile.asp), Paula Dobriansky
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky), Sven Kraemer
(http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/facultyID.23/profile.asp), Robert Joseph
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/joseph/joseph.php), Robert Andrews
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Andrews) and J.D. Crouch
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/crouch/crouch.php) --have reoccupied key positions in
the national security establishment, as have other true believers of more recent vintage.
While CSP boasts an impressive advisory list of hawkish luminaries, its star is Frank
Gaffney (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/gaffney/gaffney.php), its founder, president
and CEO. A protégé of Perle going back to their days as staffers for the late Senator
Henry "Scoop" Jackson (aka the Senator from Boeing, and the Senate's most zealous champion
of Israel in his day), Frank Gaffney later joined Perle at the Pentagon, only to be shown
the door by Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/carlucci/carlucci.php) in 1987, not long after Perle
left.
Frank Gaffney then reconstituted the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present
Danger. Beyond compiling an A-list of influential conservative hawks, Gaffney has been
prolific over the past fifteen years, churning out a constant stream of reports (as well
as regular columns for Moonies mouthpiece the Washington Times
http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies) making the case that the gravest threats to U.S.
national security are China, Iraq, still-undeveloped ballistic missiles launched by rogue
states, and the passage of or adherence to virtually any form of arms control treaty.
Frank Gaffney and CSP's prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut
all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees
should be killed (such as the V-22 Osprey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey), give
no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full steam ahead on just about
every national missile defense program. (CSP was heavily represented on the late-1990s
Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, which was
instrumental in keeping the program alive during the Clinton years.)
Looking at the center's affiliates, it's not hard to see why: Not only are makers of the
Osprey (Boeing) well represented on the CSP's board of advisers but so too is Lockheed
Martin (by vice president for space and strategic missiles Charles Kupperman
(http://www.fightingterror.org/members/index.cfm) and director of defense systems Douglas
Graham).
Former TRW executive Amoretta Hoeber
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/hoeber/hoeber.php) is also a CSP adviser, as is former
Congressman and Raytheon lobbyist Robert Livingston
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/livingston/livingston.php).
Ball Aerospace & Technologies--a major manufacturer of NASA and Pentagon satellites--is
represented by former Navy Secretary John Lehman
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/lehman/lehman.php), while missile-defense computer
systems maker Hewlett-Packard is represented by George Keyworth
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/keyworth/keyworth.php), who is on its board of
directors. And the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus and Osprey (or "tilt rotor")
caucus are represented by Representative Curt Weldon
(http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/d9bd00a0920b05bf?hl=en) and Senator
Jon Kyl (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/kyl/kyl.php).
CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas
Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABM_treaty) has essentially become policy, as have other CSP
reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBT),
the Chemical Weapons Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention)
and the International Criminal Court
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court).
But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form
of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of
the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter
to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative
manifesto (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm).
The paper's first prescription was for an Israeli rightward economic shift, with tax cuts
and a selloff of public lands and enterprises--moves that would also engender support from
a "broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders".
But beyond economics, the paper essentially reads like a blueprint for a mini-cold war in
the Middle East, advocating the use of proxy armies for regime changes, destabilization
and containment.
Indeed, it even goes so far as to articulate a way to advance right-wing Zionism by
melding it with missile-defense advocacy. "Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to
cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove
the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state", it
reads. "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical
threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in
the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about
missile defense"--something that has the added benefit of being "helpful in the effort to
move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem".
Recent months in Washington have shown just how influential the notions propagated by
JINSA and CSP are--and how disturbingly zealous their advocates are. In early March
Douglas Feith vainly attempted to get the CIA to keep former intelligence officers Milt
Bearden and Frank Anderson from accepting an invitation to an Afghanistan-related meeting
with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon--not because of what the two might say
about Afghanistan, according to sources familiar with the incident, but likely out of fear
that Anderson, a veteran Arabist and former chief of the CIA's Near East division, would
proffer his views on Iraq (opposed to invading) and Israel-Palestine (a fan of neither
Arafat nor Sharon).
In late June, after United Press International (UPI) reported on a U.S. Muslim civil
liberties group's lambasting of Frank Gaffney for his attacks on the American Muslim
Council, Gaffney, according to a fellow traveler, "went berserk", launching a stream of
invective about the UPI scribe who reported the item.
It's incidents like this, say knowledgeable observers and participants, that highlight an
interesting dynamic among right-wing hawks at the moment. Though the general agenda put
forth by JINSA and CSP continues to be reflected in councils of war, even some of the
hawks (including Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz) are growing increasingly leery of
Israel's settlements policy and Frank Gaffney's relentless support for it.
Indeed, his personal stock in Bush Administration circles is low. "Frank Gaffney has worn
out his welcome by being an overbearing gadfly rather than a serious contributor to
policy", says a senior Pentagon political official. Since earlier this year, White House
political adviser Karl Rove has been casting about for someone to start a new, more
mainstream defense group that would counter the influence of CSP.
According to those who have communicated with karl Rove on the matter, his quiet efforts
are in response to complaints from many conservative activists who feel let down by Frank
Gaffney, or feel he's too hard on President Bush. "A lot of us have taken Gaffney at face
value over the years", one influential conservative says. "Yet we now know he's pushed for
some of the most flawed missile defense and conventional systems. He considered Cuba a
'classic asymmetric threat' but not Al Qaeda. And since 9/11, he's been less concerned
with the threat to America than to Israel".
Frank Gaffney's operation has always been a small one, about $1 million annually--funded
largely by a series of grants from the conservative Olin
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/olin.php), Bradley
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/bradley.php) and various Scaife foundations
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/scaife/scaife.php), as well as some defense contractor
money--but he's recently been able to underwrite a TV and print ad campaign holding that
the Palestinians should be Enemy Number One in the War on Terror, still obsessed with the
destruction of Israel.
It's here that one sees the influence not of defense contractor money but of far-right
Zionist dollars, including some from Irving Moskowitz
(http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_a/ipc_a-1/img1/2004/August/irving_moskowitz-b.jpg), the
California bingo magnate (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/09/bingo.html). A
donor to both CSP and JINSA (as well as a JINSA director), Moskowitz not only sends
millions of dollars a year to far-right Israeli settler groups like Ateret Cohanim
(http://www.stopmoskowitz.com/ateret.html) but he has also funded the construction of
settlements, having bought land for development in key Arab areas around Jerusalem.
Moskowitz ponied up the money that enabled the 1996 reopening of a tunnel under the Temple
Mount/Haram al-Sharif, which resulted in seventy deaths due to rioting.
Also financing Frank Gaffney's efforts is New York investment banker Lawrence Kadish
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/kadish/kadish.php). A valued and valuable patron of
both the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush, Kadish helps underwrite CSP as
well as Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/avt.php),
an offshoot of conservative activist William Bennett's Empower America
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Empower_America), on which he and Frank
Gaffney serve as "senior advisers" in the service of identifying "external" and "internal"
post-9/11 threats to America. (The "internal" threats, as articulated by AVOT, include
former President Jimmy Carter, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham and Representative Maxine
Waters).
Another of Gaffney's backers is Chaim (Poju) Zabludowicz, heir to a formidable diversified
international empire that includes arms manufacturer Soltam
(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4570_131/ai_82135384) --which once
employed Richard Perle--and benefactor of the recently established Britain Israel
Communication and Research Centre, a London-based group that appears to equate reportage
or commentary uncomplimentary to Zionism with anti-Semitism.
While a small but growing number of conservatives are voicing concerns about various
aspects of foreign and defense policy--ranging from fear of overreach to lack of
Congressional debate--the hawks seem to be ruling the roost. Beginning in October,
hard-line American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin (to Rubin, outgoing UN human
rights chief Mary Robinson is an abettor of terrorism) arrives at the Pentagon to take
over the Defense Department's Iran-Iraq account, adding another voice to the Pentagon
section of Ledeen's "TOTAL WAR" chorus.
Colin Powell's State Department continues to take a beating from outside and
inside--including John Bolton and his special assistant David Wurmser
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wurmser_d/wurmser-d.php). (An AEI scholar and
far-right Zionist who's married to Meyrav Wurmser
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/wurmser_m/wurmser-m.php) of the Middle East Media
Research Institute--recently the subject of a critical investigation by London Guardian
Middle East editor Brian Whitaker
(http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/b5292d7d104228eb?hl=en) --Wurmser
played a key role in crafting the "Arafat must go" policy that many career specialists see
as a problematic sop to Ariel Sharon).
As for Donald Rumsfeld (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/rumsfeld/rumsfeld.php), based
on comments made at a Pentagon "town hall" meeting on 6 August 2002, there seems to be
little doubt as to whose comments are resonating most with him--and not just on missile
defense and overseas adventures: After fielding a question about Israeli-Palestinian
issues, he repeatedly referred to the "so-called occupied territories" and casually
characterized the Israeli policy of building Jewish-only enclaves on Palestinian land as
"making some settlement in various parts of the so-called occupied area", with which
Israel can do whatever it wants, as it has "won" all its wars with various Arab
entities--essentially an echo of JINSA's stated position that "there is no Israeli
occupation".
Ominously, Rumsfeld's riff gave a ranking Administration official something of a chill: "I
realized at that point", he said, "that on settlements--where there are cleavages on the
right--Wolfowitz may be to the left of Rumsfeld".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8810.htm
More on JINSA
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/jinsa.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JINSA
More on Center for Security Policy (CSP)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/csp.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy
Neocons Revive Cold War Group
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3075
US think-tanks give lessons in foreign policy
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/0c5bdbd69470096a?hl=en