Changes

[[Category:Nuclear PR]]The [[Department of Defense]]'s '''Office of Net Assessment'''(ONA), "the [[Pentagon]]'s internal [[think tank]],"[http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2185/7_12/78791093/p1/article.jhtml] was "created and [[Andrew Marshall]] was named its first director in 1973, and Marshall has been reappointed by every administration and Secretary of Defense since then. The accomplishments of the office are legionlegendary. In the 1970s, it produced the analyses of U.S. and [[Soviet Union|Soviet ]] military investment that compelled the [[Carter administration]] to reverse the decline in American military spending. It produced the analysis that moved the U.S. nuclear posture away from massive retaliation and towards a strategy that would better deter Soviet nuclear aggression. It was also the office that persistently called attention to the vast overestimates of the Soviet GNP that were put out by the [[CIA]] during the [[Cold War]]. It was the first to develop the idea that the American military can be transformed by the [[Revolution in military affairs|revolution in information technology]]. Every Secretary of Defense for twenty-five years, regardless of party, has kept Andrew Marshall close to him, because Marshall spoke truth to power." --[[Gary J. Schmitt]], [[Project for the New American Century]], November 10, 1997.[http://www.newamericancentury.org/defnov1097.htm] -------- Official Title: Andrew Marshall"... but arguably the most important in shaping American military thinking, Directorstimulated by a small, Office of little-known office in the Secretary Pentagon. The Department of Defense / 's Office of Net Assessment (OSD/NA), directed by Andrew Marshall, closely analyzed the Soviet writings and built on them with its own analytical rigor. The objective of a net assessment, as perfected by Marshall's office, was to provide an even-handed look at both sides of complex military competitions, examining the long------- According to [http://wwwterm trends and present factors that govern the capabilities of the United States and its potential enemies.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19991025&s=19991025silversteinside "Our Man In ONA"] by Ken SilversteinIn particular, Marshall had a penchant for historical case studies which proved especially useful for highlighting the political, ''The Nation''social, October 7cultural, 1999: and ideological dynamics that affect military developments. Studies sponsored by his office were highly influential in shaping opinions in the defense, intelligence, and foreign policy communities." "In 1972 [[Henry KissingerJames Carafano]] hired Marshall to work at the , [[National Security Council]http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1756/index.php "Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050"], and he was soon appointed head of the Pentagon's newly created ONA'Richmond Independent News'', September 13, 2002.--------"In 1971, [[Richard M. Nixon]], which was charged dissatisfied with rating the threat to national security posed by quality of the intelligence he was receiving, ordered a comprehensive restructuring of the Soviet Unionintelligence community. One As part of his earliest studies proclaimed that the CIA shake-up, a new 'net assessment group' was seriously underestimating Soviet military spending and power. Secretary of Defense created in the [[National Security Council]], with the director reporting to [[James R. SchlesingerHenry Kissinger]] promptly used . The job of the report office would be to bludgeon Congress into allocating more money to counter the Russian bear. "During evaluate the intelligence from the various agencies about Soviet and [[Ronald ReaganChina|Chinese]] years nuclear capabilities, and compile it all in one place. Marshall helped write a secret document that called , having been deeply immersed in intelligence issues during his early years at [[RAND Corporation]]/Rand, had the right credentials for the United States to have job. He was appointed as the ability to fight group's first director. "In 1972, his friend and win a nuclear war with Russia. 'Well ahead of most Sovietologistsfellow researcher at Rand, Mr[[James R. Marshall noticed weaknesses of Soviet societySchlesinger]], who was serving as defense secretary in the Nixon administration,arranged to have Marshall' reads s outfit moved over to the Journal profilePentagon. 'In 1977, he focused on Marshall has been at the environmental and demographic crises that were undermining the Soviet systemOffice of Net Assessments (ONA) ever since.  "ONA had a murky brief.Marshall' Associates s job was to imagine every kind of his have no recollection of Marshall's threat the military might ever having expressed such viewsface. The ex-Pentagon man says, 'Until He has used the very end he was ONA to assist [[Team B]] in its efforts to access raw intelligence, follow Soviet military thinking closely, run war games involving novel scenarios, and teach a major promoter of summer seminar at the line that 'The Russians are coming [[Naval War College]]. His taste for daring ideas has not abated, and they're 10 feet tallhis knack for cultivating eloquent spokesmen to do his talking for him helped him spin a web that would overwhelm the defense establishment 30 years later.' "Late into 1989--after [http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/nd03/nd03husain.html] ==Staff== *Andrew W. Marshall, Director, Office of the fall Secretary of the Berlin wall and shortly before Defense / Net Assessment (OSD/NA).*[[Mikhail GorbachevDavid S. Yost]]'s ouster in the Soviet Union, 1984--Marshall was insisting that high levels 86.*[[John Milam]], strategic analyst.*[[Donald Henry]], "special assistant to the director of military spending were as urgently needed as ever. 'I don't think I've ever seen so much uncertainty about the future as there is today,' he said. net assessment in the Office of Net Assessment within OSD"Since the collapse of Communism, Marshall has spent much energy hunting for a suitable threat to replace Boris the Bear[http://www.fcw. He first turned his attention to [com/fcw/articles/2002/0520/web-ncw-05-23-02.asp May 2002].*[North Korea]http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/meyer/SMMCV-MIT.pdf Stephen Michael Meyer], with a 1991 ONA report concluding that Principal Investigator, Office of Net Assessment (Transformation and Adaptation of Civil-Military Structures in the event of war, Pyongyang's troops could wipe out Seoul within ten days and US forces would be unable to do much to stop themRussia) (1992 - present).*[[Andrew May]] ([http://blog.mopsos.com/archives/Schrage_wp03-1. After it became apparent that North Korea was on the verge of mass starvation and collapse, Marshall turned his attention pdf 2003])--------According to China[http://www. An thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19991025&s=19991025silversteinside "Our Man In ONA study from the mid-nineties stated that Beijing"] by Ken Silverstein, ''s military was modernizing so rapidly that the The Nation'', October 7, 1999: "In 1972 [[People's Liberation ArmyHenry Kissinger]] would soon be able hired Marshall to defeat work at the United States in a regional conflict in Asia. A second ONA report, prepared for the agency by [the] [[RAND CorporationNational Security Council]], estimated that Beijing is spending about $140 billion a year on defense. That figure is more than twice as high as other high-end estimates and seven and he was soon appointed head of the Pentagon's newly created ONA, which was charged with rating the threat to eight times higher than commonly accepted low-end onesnational security posed by the Soviet Union. In 1997 yet another ONA-sponsored study ominously concluded One of his earliest studies proclaimed that China viewed the United States as a declining superpower and CIA was scheming to exploit America's seriously underestimating Soviet military weaknessspending and power. Secretary of Defense [[James R. Schlesinger]] promptly used the report to bludgeon Congress into allocating more money to counter the Russian bear.  "Such conclusions are highly dubiousDuring the [[Ronald Reagan]] years Marshall helped write a secret document that called for the United States to have the ability to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia. China's military capabilities are modestWell ahead of most Sovietologists, Mr. Marshall noticed weaknesses of Soviet society,' reads the Journal profile. The country's ground-troop strength has been cut in half--to 2 million--since In 1977, he focused on the seventies, environmental and most of its soldiers field weapons demographic crises that are a quarter-century old. Beijingwere undermining the Soviet system.' Associates of his have no recollection of Marshall's air force doesn't have a single longever having expressed such views. The ex-range bomberPentagon man says, and according to 'Until the very end he was a story in Time this past June, its entire nuclear arsenal 'packs about as much explosive power as what major promoter of the U.S. stuffs into one Trident submarineline that 'The Russians are coming and they're 10 feet tall.' "Marshall has also been an enthusiastic supporter Late into 1989--after the fall of [[Star Wars]] the Berlin wall and related schemes. Just last year he gave secret testimony shortly before the [[Rumsfeld CommissionMikhail Gorbachev]], which issued a report stating 's ouster in the Soviet Union--Marshall was insisting that the United States could face a ballistic missile threat from countries such high levels of military spending were as urgently needed as Iraq and North Korea within a very short timeever. Its recommendations led to legislation'I don't think I've ever seen so much uncertainty about the future as there is today, signed by President Clinton [in 1999], mandating the deployment of a multibillion-dollar ballistic missile shield 'as soon as technologically feasiblehe said.' "Since the collapse of Communism, Marshall's pivotal position in has spent much energy hunting for a suitable threat to replace Boris the military gravy train became clear in 1997, when incoming Defense Secretary Bear. He first turned his attention to [[William Sebastian CohenNorth Korea]] proposed downgrading , with a 1991 ONA report concluding that in the ONAevent of war, Pyongyang's status. A group of Congressional hawks troops could wipe out Seoul within ten days and defense executives led by [[James GUS forces would be unable to do much to stop them. Roche]], a former Marshall aide now at [[Northrop Grumman]]After it became apparent that North Korea was on the verge of mass starvation and collapse, immediately mounted a fierce counterattack Marshall turned his attention to protect their manChina. Marshall's friends in An ONA study from the press also weighed in, with letters and articles appearing in outlets such as mid-nineties stated that Beijing's military was modernizing so rapidly that the Washington Times, Aviation Week, [[People's Liberation Army]] would soon be able to defeat the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street JournalUnited States in a regional conflict in Asia. 'Americans don't go to sleep at night worrying about how we'll win A second ONA report, prepared for the agency by [the next war,' ] [[Paul GigotRAND Corporation]] wrote in the Journal, estimated that Beijing is spending about $140 billion a year on defense. 'Andy Marshall does, which That figure is why Americans ought to worry that he's being banished more than twice as high as other high-end estimates and seven to outer Siberia by a witless and bureaucratic Pentagoneight times higher than commonly accepted low-end ones.' Cohen swiftly backed off In 1997 yet another ONA-sponsored study ominously concluded that China viewed the United States as a declining superpower and Marshall remains at his postwas scheming to exploit America's military weakness. " -Such conclusions are highly dubious. China's military capabilities are modest. The country's ground-troop strength has been cut in half--to 2 million--since the seventies, and most of its soldiers field weapons that are a quarter-- In [http://www-hoovercentury old.stanford.edu/publications/digest/022/berkowitz.html "War Beijing's air force doesn't have a single long-range bomber, and according to a story in the Information Age"] ([[Hoover Institution]]Time this past June, Spring, 2002), Bert Berkowitz writes: "These technologies are turning over many traditional notions its entire nuclear arsenal 'packs about how to wage waras much explosive power as what the U.S. stuffs into one Trident submarine. Much of this new thinking can be traced to the Pentagon's '''Office  "Marshall has also been an enthusiastic supporter of Net Assessment''' [[Star Wars]] and its director, Andrew Marshallrelated schemes. Although little known to Just last year he gave secret testimony before the general public[[Rumsfeld Commission]], which issued a report stating that the office has often been much more influential than its obscure title suggestsUnited States could face a ballistic missile threat from countries such as [[Iraq]] and North Korea within a very short time. It is an in-house think tank for DOD charged with looking 10 or 20 years into the futureIts recommendations led to legislation, signed by [[President Clinton]] [in 1999], sizing up mandating the threats the United States will face, and analyzing how we will match themdeployment of a multibillion-dollar ballistic missile shield 'as soon as technologically feasible. ' "In the early 1990s, Marshall began to speak about a 'revolution s pivotal position in the military affairsgravy train became clear in 1997, when incoming Defense Secretary [[William Sebastian Cohen]] proposed downgrading the ONA' (RMA)s status. This revolution was driven mainly A group of Congressional hawks and defense executives led by the great changes that were under way in information technology[[James G. As Roche]], a result of these changesformer Marshall aide now at [[Northrop Grumman]], military forces would be able to have immediately mounted a better picture of the adversary and would be able fierce counterattack to strike at him with precision weapons from great distance. The military would protect their man. Marshall's friends in the press also need to become more mobile because largeweighed in, stationary forces would be too vulnerable. "Over with letters and articles appearing in outlets such as the course of three decades[[Washington Times]], many promising majorsAviation Week, lieutenant commanders, and GS-13 civilians have done a tour through the Office of Net Assessment''[[Weekly Standard]]'' and the [[Wall Street Journal]]. These officers are now generals, admirals'Americans don't go to sleep at night worrying about how we'll win the next war, and members of ' [[Paul Gigot]] wrote in the PentagonJournal. 'Andy Marshall does, which is why Americans ought to worry that he's Senior Executive Service being banished to outer Siberia by a witless and have considerable influence in drafting war plans bureaucratic Pentagon.' Cohen swiftly backed off and designing new weapons programsMarshall remains at his post." -------- == Other SourceWatch Resources == *In [[Bush administrationhttp://return to space]www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/022/berkowitz.html "War in the Information Age"] *([[nuclear weaponsHoover Institution]] *[[revolution in military affairs]] == External Links == '''[[September 11, 2001]]''' Spring, 2002), Bert Berkowitz writes: *Jason Vest, [http://www"These technologies are turning over many traditional notions about how to wage war.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/11/vest-j.html Why Warnings Fell on Deaf Ears], Much of this new thinking can be traced to the Pentagon's 'American Prospect''Office of Net Assessment''' and its director, June 17, 2002: "For Andrew Marshall. Although little known to the [[Bush administration]]general public, the Cold War never ended -- so [[al Qaeda]] had to get in line behind office has often been much more serious enemiesinfluential than its obscure title suggests. ... What did the president know and when did he know it? Following revelations that It is an in-house think tank for DOD charged with looking 10 or 20 years into the future, sizing up the threats the White House had reason to suspect an imminent al-Qaeda attack last yearUnited States will face, even The New York Times has noted that and analyzing how we will match them. "In the perennial post-early 1990s, Marshall began to speak about a '[[Watergaterevolution in military affairs]] question seems entirely appropriate' (RMA). Nor should it be put exclusively to President Bush: In most countries, This revolution was driven mainly by the directors great changes that were under way in information technology. As a result of the internal and external security services these changes, military forces would be able to have resigned by now. ... Proponents a better picture of such blinkered defense priorities -- Andrew Marshall's Office of Net Assessment at the Pentagon, the [[Rumsfeld Commission]]s on ballistic missiles and space, and [[Frank Gaffney]]'s privateadversary and would be able to strike at him with precision weapons from great distance. The military would also need to become more mobile because large, [[defense contractor]]-funded [[Center for Security Policy]] come to mind -stationary forces would be too vulnerable. "Over the course of three decades, many promising majors, lieutenant commanders, and GS- 13 civilians have produced done a steady stream tour through the Office of reports based on dubious methodologyNet Assessment." These officers are now generals, admirals, and members of the Pentagon'''General''' *Knut Royce, s Senior Executive Service and have considerable influence in drafting war plans and designing new weapons programs."--------In [http://wwwobserver.guardian.commondreamsco.orguk/headlines03international/0110-01.htm Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil. U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupationstory/0, source says]6903, ''Newsday''1153513, January 1000.html "Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"] ([[The Observer]], February 22, 2004), 2003Mark Townsend and Paul Harris write:  "An administration source said that most of the proposals for [[Climate Change|Climate change]] over the conduct next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of the war lives in wars and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted by the Pentagonnatural disasters.. Last month A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a respected Washington think tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned 'Siberian' climate by Andrew Marshall2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the Pentagon's influential director world." "The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of Net Assessmentanarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, on the future role of Uwater and energy supplies.S. Special Forces in the The threat to global [[war against stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism]], among other issuessay the few experts privy to its contents. Part "  "'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the presentation recommended that oil funds be used Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'" "The findings will prove humiliating to defray the costs of a military occupation in IraqBush administration, according to a source who helped prepare the report. .which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.. He Experts said that the study, undertaken by the [[Center they will also make unsettling reading for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments]a President who has insisted national defence is a priority." "The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser [[Andrew Marshall]], concluded that 'who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the cost of the occupation, past three decades. He was the cost for man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military administration and providing for a provisional under Defence Secretary [[civilianDonald Rumsfeld]] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.' He said the briefing was delivered to the office of " == Related SourceWatch resources ==*[[Paul WolfowitzArmy After Next]], the deputy secretary of *[[Bush administration: return to space]]*[[Defense and one of the administration's strongest advocates After Next]]*[[Institute for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13National Strategic Studies]]*[[nuclear weapons]]*[[Office of Special Plans]]*[[revolution in military affairs]]*[[USAF Institute for National Security Studies]]*[[weaponization of space]]*[[Global Net Assessment]] == External links =====[[September 11, 2001]]===*Jason Vest, [http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/11/vest-j.html Why Warnings Fell on Deaf Ears], ''American Prospect'', June 17, 2002: "For the [[Bush administration]], the Cold War never ended -- so [[al Qaeda]] had to get in line behind more serious enemies. ... What did the president know and when did he know it? Following revelations that the White House had reason to suspect an imminent al-Qaeda attack last year, even The New York Times has noted that the perennial post-[[Watergate]] question seems entirely appropriate. Nor should it be put exclusively to President Bush: In most countries, the directors of the internal and external security services would have resigned by now. ... Proponents of such blinkered defense priorities -- Andrew Marshall's Office of Net Assessment at the Pentagon, the [[Rumsfeld Commission]]s on ballistic missiles and space, and [[Frank Gaffney]]'s private, [[defense contractor]]-funded [[Center for Security Policy]] come to mind -- have produced a steady stream of reports based on dubious methodology." ===General===*[http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/pills2/part13.htm The Definition of Strategic Assessment]. In particular, scroll down to the section on "Department of Defense Net Assessments."*[http://lonecoyote.home.mindspring.com/links_gameind.html BreakAway Games]: "Developers of retail, online, and proprietary military games, including Sid Meier's Antietam, Cleopatra, and Waterloo. Their proprietary software model is in use at the [[Army War College]], [[Naval War College]], and The [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]] Office of Net Assessment." *Knut Royce, [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-01.htm Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil. U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says], ''Newsday'', January 10, 2003: "An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S. Special Forces in the global [[war against terrorism]], among other issues. Part of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source who helped prepare the report. ... He said that the study, undertaken by the [[Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments]], concluded that 'the cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.' He said the briefing was delivered to the office of [[Paul Wolfowitz]], the deputy secretary of Defense and one of the administration's strongest advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13."*''Rosalinda'', [http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes%3Bread=30922 Chickenhawk Intelligence Agency is Born], ''Rumor Mill News'', April 9, 2003.*[[Seymour M. Hersh]], [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact Selective Intelligence], ''New Yorker'', May 5, 2003: "Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?"