By Colonel Daniel M. Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, CDI - Center for Defense Information
SubscribeThe madman shouted in the market place. No one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible. Dag Hammarskjold, Markings
We live in the age of “instant.”
This is both good and bad. Sometimes it is both at the same time.
For example, the economically influential often seem to have instant access to the politically powerful, and through such access can shape policy decisions for private gain or public good.
Among the less influential, those who are “connected” can instantly communicate with each other, sharing ideas, preferences, information, and opinions. Most of the time these views will be rationale and factual, but some seem drawn from other worlds if not universes.
Instant Communications
In unregulated cyberspace, the time lapse between action and reaction can be as little as the instant needed to type a keystroke. This also can be either constructive or destructive.
And in the military, the drive is on to render the “sensor-to-shooter” time delay under 10 minutes – an “instant” when compared even to the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.
In this instant, sensory-overload world, even those who are interested in public policy issues can be hard-pressed to find the time to sort through conflicting data and views. In slower times, one could stop and reflect on what was written and being debated. Context – the big picture – and bias could be determined, empowering the observer to make an informed decision about who was right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, mad or sane.
But context for policy-makers in today’s instant world is too often confined to the short-term if not the immediate. Complicating this foreshortened time horizon is the breadth of effects generated by public policy decisions, effects that run the gamut from the local to the global and back again at the speed of light, bringing with them the unintended and unexpected.
The Pentagon - following September 11th, 2001
In earlier times, providing context for significant issues often fell to “blue ribbon” commissions and temporary advisory groups. Beginning in the early 1900s, there were also the occasional independent research organizations – what today are termed non-profit “think tanks” – that offered context and informed advice on social, economic, and international relations policy to governments.
Now there is a virtual “think tank” universe. At the century’s turn, over 3,200 research organizations operated across the globe, some affiliated with universities, others independent, some non-partisan, many more strongly conservative or liberal. Of these, some 1,200 are in the United States and 100 in Washington, DC.
Among these 100 is the 30-year old Center for Defense Information (CDI), a non-partisan research organization founded by retired senior military officers who challenged long-standing assumptions and policies about nuclear warfighting and the conduct of the Vietnam War. CDI’s founding philosophy rested on the premise that if the public in a democracy is provided with reliable facts and informed opinion – context – it will be able to arrive at a consensus about what is in the nation’s best long-term interest.
In pursuit of this objective, over the ensuing years, other issues were brought under CDI’s microscope: the size and priorities of the defense budget, the wisdom of developing specific weapons systems, the effects of the world arms trade, missile defense, environmental impacts of military activity, and international peacekeeping and treaties. More recently, weapons in space, military transformation, and of course the campaign against terrorism have absorbed much of the effort of CDI’s 30-person staff.
Moreover, CDI is branching out geographically. Its first “remote site” was established in Los Angeles in 2001. The same year a small office was opened in Russia to provide an independent source of information about U.S. policies and programs to members of the Russian government and public and funnel unmediated Russian views back to the United States. Supporting this effort are electronic publications in both English and Russian that originate from CDI’s Washington office. August 2002 saw a new office open in Brussels, and plans are well along to open a branch in Beijing.
Through its local and global activities, CDI is uniquely positioned to contribute unbiased context to the national and international security debate and to produce creative solutions on issues related to security policy, strategy, operations, weapons systems, and defense budgets. In the instant age, people want answers, not advice.
This is not the “safe center” or the now-proverbial “third way” of approaching and formulating policy. But CDI has never sought the comfort of running with the herd, for more often than not the herd can be spooked into heading off a cliff. And in the instant world, where the herd can become maddened by a stray rumor or innuendo, it is even more important to get information in the right form and delivered at the right time to the public and politicians.
The message may be unpopular; it may be “out of the box.” But given context and facts, it will be an answer to the ranting of madmen in the market place.
