Excerpted from Uncovering the Right on Campus, copyright 1997 by the Center
for Campus Organizing (CCO) ISBN 0-945210-07-8. The complete bound paperback
book, 134 pages, illustrated, with a color cover, can be yours for only $8
plus $2 postage! ($13 outside the US.) It may be ordered through amazon.com.



'Patriotism' on Campus

by Erin Bush

Dr. Theodore Postol of MIT created a few waves in the Defense Establishment
in 1992. Postol had the nerve to suggest that the Patriot missile, the gem
of the Gulf War that pushed Raytheon into the national spotlight, did not
work as well as the public was led to believe.

In April of 1992, Postol delivered the results of his analysis to the House
Armed Services Committee. Postol's research led him to conclude that "if we
had not attempted to defend against Scuds, the level of resulting damage
would be no worse than what actually occurred."1 These few words were enough
to start a full-scale campaign against Postol and his research.

Up to this point, the Patriot stood as a shining example of the U.S. mastery
of high-tech warfare. On January 30, 1991, General Schwarzkopf declared that
the Patriot had been launched against 33 Scud missiles and had hit every
one. In March of 1991, the Army raised the statistic to 45 hits out of 47
attempts. Raytheon then proudly declared that their product had destroyed
almost 90% of scuds in Saudi Arabia, and 50% in Israel. Soon everyone wanted
the Patriot. Raytheon started to receive orders for the missile from all
over the world. Potential revenues reached into the billions. In addition,
Raytheon seemed likely to receive lucrative governmental contracts for
upgraded versions of the missile defense system.

Charles M. Perry, Vice President and Director of Studies at the
Cambridge-based Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), echoed the
thoughts of many when he stated that the Patriot performed so well that it
could change the whole outlook of American defense. In September of 1991,
Perry declared that "ever since those first dramatic Patriot intercepts over
Tel Aviv, Riyad, and Daharan, the very notion of foregoing greater
investment in missile defense... seems absurd."2

Meanwhile, Postol continued to dispute these claims. In a January 1992
article in International Security (a Harvard-based peer-reviewed journal) he
described using television footage to document the Patriot's "almost total
failure to intercept quite primitive attacking missiles."3

Raytheon led an all-out attack. A litany of unsubstantiated claims against
Postol's professional credentials soon flooded the local media. Postol found
himself fighting attempts to revoke his security clearance, a temporary gag
order that forbade him from mentioning the word "Patriot", and charges that
he faked his data. In addition, Postol's department lost a total of $25,000
in funding from Mitre (a non-profit laboratory specializing in Defense
research) and Martin Marietta (a subcontractor of Raytheon). Postol explains
that "The issue, to me, is that a large Corporation was thuggishly attacking
an individual, both personally and professionally, and that the [MIT]
Administration did not support that individual, but actually saddled up to
that Corporation."

Certainly, the MIT administration had its reasons for discouraging this
political controversy. MIT has enjoyed a close relationship with Raytheon
ever since Vannevar Bush (then an associate professor of electrical
engineering at the school) helped form Raytheon in 1922. In the past 50
years Raytheon has donated $4.7 million to MIT.

One of Postol's critics was Mr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff whose scathing attack
was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 8, 1992. In this op-ed
piece, Pfaltzgraff asserted that the Patriot "successfully engaged" 60% of
the scuds encountered, and that the information that Postol used in their
analysis was flawed. He asserted that the Patriot's performance had
revolutionized America's conception of defense.

The biography at the end of the letter described Pfaltzgraff as a professor
of international security studies at Tufts University's Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy. The fact that Pfaltzgraff was, and remains, President of
the Cambridge-based Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), a
conservative think-tank which receives funding from Raytheon, was
conspicuously absent from this article. As a matter of fact, the IFPA as a
whole seemed rather taken with Raytheon's product.

Pfaltzgraff's sales pitch makes more sense once you dig a bit deeper into
the IFPA. In fiscal year 1991, Raytheon's Missile Systems Division donated
$60,000 to the IFPA. Charles F. Adams, an ex-CEO of Raytheon who now chairs
the finance committee of its board of directors, also serves on the board of
the IFPA.

The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, which is associated with the IFPA,
also has a cozy relationship with Raytheon. Here, Charles Adams serves as
the Chairman of the Board of Visitors (he is also a Trustee Emeritus of
Tufts). Tufts has also received generous contributions from Mr. Adams and an
undisclosed amount from both the Charles F. Adams Charitable Trust and
Raytheon.

Although this situation does raise some serious questions about a possible
conflict of interest, this is only the beginning of the story.



Commies, Money and the IFPA

The IFPA started operations in 1976 with the largest single seed grant,
$325,000, ever given by the Scaife Family Trust 4, to stress "the danger of
international communism and the need for a strong defense for the United
States."5 The Scaife conglomerate remains a generous supporter of the IFPA,
donating $385,000 in fiscal year 1991, as well as the Fletcher School.6 The
John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Center
for National Program Evaluation, and the William H. Donner Foundation also
support the IFPA.

Many prime weapons contractors contribute to the IFPA as well. Other than
Raytheon, Rockwell International, McDonnell Douglas, Westinghouse, G.T.E.,
and Boeing Aerospace are all patrons. The Defense Nuclear Agency and the
Department of the Navy also awarded grants to the Institute in F.Y. 1991.
All in all, these contributions and grants supplied $1.5 million for the
Institute yearly.

The philosophy of the IFPA has been described as "frankly hawkish." Their
topics of study have included how the U.S. can retaliate against a nuclear
strike, how cruise missiles should be deployed, and how the U.S. can protect
its land-based missiles.7

The international spectrum has changed considerably since 1976, with the
"threat" of international communism now rather weak, so perhaps we should
feel a bit sorry for these guys. Give them a pat on the back, hand them a
gold watch, and let them take a rest from all of that "protection" they have
been providing?

Nothing of the sort! These are resourceful people. They have found a new
enemy: international arms control. A 1990 IFPA annual report explains that
"Emphasis is placed on the need to both anticipate and to preclude arms
control accords that would prevent needed modernization."8 (Perhaps this
includes funding for the Patriot and its spin-offs?)

The Institute's 1990 annual report explains how "drawing upon its extensive
network of research consultants and overseas contacts, the IFPA team has
provided clients and contracting agencies with "strategic" assessments in
the area of defense cooperation, including market analyses."9 This is a
cryptic statement, but when you consider who the clients and contracting
agencies of the Institute are, it also becomes rather interesting. Just what
kind of international "market analysis" would a weapons manufacturer need?



Just How Influential Are These Guys?

The IFPA holds numerous conferences, workshops, and seminars all over the
world to affect the opinions of top policymakers. These events often attract
both US and international policymakers. One such workshop sponsored by the
Institute was held in Washington DC in October 1989 and was entitled
"Theater Nuclear Forces in a Changing Political, Budgetary, and Arms Control
Environment." The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the
Under-Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, and the Senior Director for
Defense Policy and Arms Control at the National Security Council attended
this event.

IFPA-sponsored seminars, such as the "The Rush to Disarm: Maintaining
Strategic Deterrence in a Changing Era" (Washington, March 1990) are focused
more exclusively on the U.S. Congress. The IFPA held thirty-eight Breakfast
Seminars alone in a 1989-90.10

The Institute's annual report is full of photographs of members of the IFPA
advising former President Bush, General Brent Scowcroft, and Sam Nunn, among
others. A letter from Bush excerpted in their annual report: states, "Many
thanks... for that session at Kennebunkport which I found most interesting
and helpful."11 Apparently, this Institute has been successful in catching
the ear of Washington.

The IFPA has also been able to attract many policymakers into its
organization. The board of directors reads like a membership roster of the
Reagan and Nixon Administrations: Caspar Weinberger (Reagan's Secretary of
Defense and council to the Nixon Administration), Peter Dailey (coordinator
of Reagan's "public diplomacy" effort to persuade Europe to accept
deployment of Pershing II missiles, and member of the "November Group" of
Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President), and Frank Carlucci (Deputy
Director of the CIA under Reagan, National Security Advisor to Reagan, and
Deputy Weinberger during the Nixon Administration). Pfaltzgraff served on
Reagan's advisory team on foreign policy and intelligence during the 1980
campaign.12

The IFPA's Board of Research Consultants includes three ex-members of the
National Security Council, three members of the Executive Committee of the
Committee on the Present Danger (including the Chairman), and two top
National Security Advisors to Reagan. These people can only help maintain
the prestige of the group.



A Shadowy Relationship with the NSPA

The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis shares office space with a group
called the National Security Planning Associates, Inc. (NSPA). IFPA
President Pfaltzgraff, Vice President Charles Perry, and Treasurer Robert
Herber all serve on the board of directors of NSPA. This situation gives the
term "interlocking directorates" a whole new meaning.

According to its tax returns on public record at the Attorney General's
Office in Massachusetts, the non-profit IFPA lists NSPA (a for-profit
company) as a "related party" to whom the IFPA furnished $164,687 in fiscal
year 1991. This includes a $141,000 loan and $3,000 "investment." Strangely
enough, in the same year, the NSPA sold 300,000 shares of penny stock, worth
$3,000, to an undisclosed party. This situation suggests a financial
relationship between the two organizations that most boards of directors
would not allow. It makes one wonder if the foundations that have been
supporting the IFPA are aware that the Institute is siphoning such a
considerable sum of money into a for-profit group.



The Connection to Academia

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole story is the effect that
IFPA and its supporters have on academia. Pfaltzgraff is considered to be an
expert on arms control and lectures at Tufts on that topic. Given his
apparent political bent, one wonders how well he can deliver a neutral
presentation of the issues surrounding arms control accords. One could also
wonder how this man has time to teach at all. Besides lecturing, Pfaltzgraff
devotes 35 hours a week to the IFPA13 and an undisclosed amount of time to
his post as a Board member at the NSPA, and he serves on the Board of
Advisors of the Naval War College.

It is also interesting to note that a Pfaltzgraff Professorship is endowed
by Shelly Cullom Davis, an investment banker and former chair of the
Heritage Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee, as well as a
member of the Board of Directors at Stanford's Hoover Institution and the
Fletcher School. His wife, Kathryn Davis, serves on the IFPA's Board of
Directors.

The close financial ties between defense contractors and universities has
developed a serious threat to academic freedom. In the past decade, cuts in
federal and state non-military funding have forced colleges and universities
to find alternative means of funding their research. Many professors have
discovered that the Department of Defense (DOD) and its contractors offer
the most lucrative grants. Unfortunately, this money usually comes with many
strings attached. Professors are penalized for any behavior that could place
their patron in a bad light, regardless of the accuracy of their research.
The DOD even penalizes other researchers who dispute the results of
researchers it funds. This situation effectively stifles debate among many
of our nation's top intellectuals.

When funding comes either from the DOD or its contractors, professors are
also often forced to operate under the burdens of classification, or
pre-publication "review." When funders have the power to censor reports
before they are published, or deny professors access by revoking the
security clearances of those who do not cooperate, the whole system of peer
review collapses. This situation invites shoddy research and lures
professors into collusion with the private weapons industry.

Theodore Postol summed up the potential dangers well when he said, "Many of
the foundations that fund us have their own political perspective and if you
stray too far from that perspective, they will stop funding you." Referring
to the grants from military contractors, he adds, "it is no accident that
Pfaltzgraff gets funding while I don't. Nobody is going to pay me to go rain
on their parade." 14

[Erin Bush interned at CCO's predecessor, the University Conversion
Project.]



Notes

  1. Golden, Daniel. "Missile-blower," The Boston Globe Magazine. July 19,
     1992, p. 17.
  2. Perry, Charles M. "Theater Missile Threats and Defense Options in the
     1990's", The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science.
     Pfaltzgraff, Robert, ed. Sage Publications; Newbury Park, CA, September
     1991, p. 79.
  3. Ibid. p. 18.
  4. Saloma, John S. Ominous Politics. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: NY. 1984,
     p. 29.
  5. Ominous Politics, p. 20.
  6. According to their annual report, the Sara Scaife Foundation donated
     $225,000 to the Fletcher School in 1990.
  7. Williams, Dennis; Abamson, Pamela; and Fineman, Howard. "Idea Factories
     of the Right" Newsweek. December 1, 1980, pp. 35-36.
  8. Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis Annual Report, 1990. p. 10.
  9. Ibid. p. 11.
 10. 1990 IFPA Annual Report, pp. 26-33.
 11. Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis Annual Report, 1990 p. 6.
 12. Roosa, John. "Tufts University: Students Counter Spys," The National
     Reporter. Winter 1985, Vol. 9, No. 1; p. 33.
 13. According to the 990 tax form of the IFPA for fiscal year 1991, Robert
     Pfaltzgraff averaged 35 hours of work weekly, and received a salary of
     $150,912, as well as $23,592 in benefits.
 14. Interview of Theodore Postol by Erin Bush, August 1992.




This article is excerpted with permission from the book "Uncovering the Right
on Campus".  See more info on the book at: http://organizenow.net/cco/right