And, yes, I agree that large corporations have manifold interests and that there are conflicts. I think the firms in question have both financial and human interests in promoting transatlantic cooperation. While it's true that war is good for business, so is peace and stability. The more Western values prevail, the better things are for all concerned--certainly major multinational corporations.

Just wonderin' - especially now that Malloch-Brown is a British cabinet minister - how that stance would impact transatlantic co-operation.

Regards, C

No criticism of your job choice was implied. If I'd been offered the job I'd have taken it too. I'm not saying this very well - but I'm sure you're capable of remembering that paymasters like BAE (A billion in bribes to Saudis for an arms deal), Lockheed (owns the company that provided Abu Graib interrogators still facing abuse claims and the cruise missiles built using Chinese strip-mined rare earths) and Boeing (remember the airborne tanker scandal, the Osprey?) may not be too scrupulous in demanding value for think-tank money.

military hardware love peacetime, because that's when innovation and spending on procurement is at its peak. Absent a WWII type situation, war spending is generally just on sustainment. But there are more dollars spent in the latter case. That's the bottom line.

More importantly, a stronger US-Atlantic relationship is a key component to breaking down the EU barrier to access. American companies desperately want to get into Europe on an equal footing. Well the USA could always apply to join the EU :-) I'm sure European (and Canadian) companies feel the same way about US trade restrictions, which are often just as onerous.

Regards, C

But some 20 - 30 years of experience has taught me just the opposite about places like AEI, Heritage, Center for American Progress, and others like GMU.

Doesn't that bother you.

I spent a 30 year career as a business economist where my work was judge on the basis of did I help my clients make money or lose less money. But the right wing think tanks almost across the board completely fail this test.

Oh God, for a minute there I had flashbacks to Berkeley where I often had to read sentences like this, invariably written by the professor whose book I had to buy at an outrageous price.

It was as bad as waterboarding.

You have to wonder about the honest intent for peace of any company that makes its money from war or the threat of war.

The thought has occurred to me as well. Still, companies that make -- along with other things -- military hardware love peacetime, because that's when innovation and spending on procurement is at its peak. Absent a WWII type situation, war spending is generally just on sustainment.

Plus, the stronger the NATO alliance, the easier it is to get permission to sell the latest and greatest toys to Allies. That expands the market.

More importantly, a stronger US-Atlantic relationship is a key component to breaking down the EU barrier to access. American companies desperately want to get into Europe on an equal footing.

Regards, C

I'm with you on that, James. Turning it back into a community, post-Cheney, would be a good start.

Whenever I'm told a think-tank says "such and so", I always try to find out where their funding comes from. Follow the money. Any help on that for the Atlantic Council?

Mostly, the AEI comes under Naomi Klein's definition of "think tank" - people paid to think by the folks who make tanks.

Regards, C