Russian tanks roll into Ukrainse as Euro leaders thrashed out peace settlement

[Magda Hassan]

I was wondering about who this 'academic' is and WTF the Potomac Foundation is supposed to be. Other have had the same idea it seems.

Collected Thoughts on Phil Karber

By Jeffrey | 7 December 2011 | 56 Comments
Well, what to say about Phillip Karber's forthcoming report that suggests China might have more than 3,000 nuclear weapons stashed away in all those tunnels that the Second Artillery has been building over the past few decades?
Well, for one thing, Karber's claims are utter nonsense. For another, Karber is unbelievably successful at generating unwarranted publicity.
Sure, China has lots of tunnels. But all of Karber's sources about fissile material production are based on a mid-1990s Usenet posting by an internet troll.
Actually, it's worse than that, but this will take some time to explain.
Let's start with my letter to the Washington Post, which the Post refused to publish. The short version is that China simply doesn't have enough plutonium for all those warheads, tunnels or not.

I am appalled by William Wan's article entitled "Digging into China's nuclear tunnels."
Nuclear weapons are not made with tunnel spoil. They are made with fissile material. China does not have enough fissile material to support a stockpile of the sort that Dr. Karber imagines.
Based on publicly available information about China's nuclear weapons testing, we know that Chinese nuclear weapon designs since the 1970s make liberal use of plutonium. China operated exactly two nuclear reactors for the production of military plutonium through 1991. Open-source estimates reliably band China's production of plutonium at 2-5 metric tons. Classified Department of Energy estimates, leaked to the press, provide a narrower band of 1.7-2.8 metric tons. (Hui Zhang, a former colleague of mine at Harvard who previously worked in the Chinese nuclear weapons establishment, calculates Chinese production as being on the low end of that estimate in the most recent International Panel on Fissile Materials report.) Using a conservative estimate of 4-8 kilograms of plutonium per warhead, that yields a total force of probably no more than 375 warheads, with an extreme upper bound of no more than 700 warheads. This figure would be for every plutonium-based nuclear weapon China ever produced, not merely those in the current stockpile.
Declassified US estimates of China's current nuclear weapons stockpile from the mid-1990s, not surprisingly, place the size of China's nuclear weapons stockpile between 200-300 nuclear weapons. In more recent years, Chinese officials have stated that China possesses the smallest nuclear weapons arsenal among the so-called P5 states. The UK and France are believed to have less than 200 and 300 nuclear weapons, respectively. Notice how all these numbers are copacetic?
So where does Dr. Karber get his wildly divergent estimates? Nowhere does Mr. Wan mention that Dr. Karber's "analysis" of China's plutonium production relies on a few Chinese blog posts that discuss a single, anonymous 1995 Usenet post, subsequently plagiarized by a Singapore University student, that is so wildly incompetent as to invite laughter. (I have mocked this essay repeatedly on my own blog, Arms Control Wonk.com.)
Actually, Dr. Karber doesn't mention this either. His research ended with the Chinese blog posts, which is something that no responsible scholar would do. A real scholar would have traced the blog posts back to the original Usenet posting, then back to the article in a Hong Kong dissident publication that started this nonsense and then gone to the library (I know, such a chore!) to make a copy. Dr. Karber did none of these things. My colleague, Dr. Gregory Kulacki, however, did exactly that. We will be making the original document available, but let me simply observe that it is very clear that this is simply not a reliable source for the size of China's nuclear arsenal.
If I take any solace out of this pathetic episode, it is that Dr. Karber's students will have learned first-hand how not to do research.
Jeffrey Lewis
Monterey Institute, Washington, DC

The Post Letters editor Michael Larrabee objects, by the way, to my claim that the Post "refused" to print the letter although not so strongly that he would agree to publish it. Larrabee also would not agree to publish a letter from Gregory Kulacki. It will be interesting to see if the Post will permit any criticism of the story to appear on its pages.
I also received a form letter from the reporter, William Wan, similar to one he sent to several other people in the arms-control community. Wan, by the way, was aware of much of the story I am about to relay, since Gregory Kulacki talked extensively with him in advance. Wan didn't let that stop him, of course.
Gregory has detailed a lot of what I am going to say in a series of blog posts at All Things Nuclear: Research in the Internet Age: Karber and China's Nuclear Arsenal, The September 1995 Trend Magazine Article, and Prof. Karber Adjusts His Report on China's Nuclear Arsenal.
You should totally read Gregory's posts. (While you are at it, also read commentaries by James Acton and Tong Zhao.) But this was a collaborative effort, and I've been looking forward to telling what I think is a pretty interesting yarn that ends in a very embarrassing way for Dr. Karber. And, since Gregory is so nice and professional, I sort of feel someone should tell it my way. You know, mean.
Now, Karber basically omits any discussion of the declassified US intelligence estimates of the size of China's nuclear weapons (200-300) and plutonium stockpiles (1.7-2.8 metric tons) from the mid-1990s which, when cross-referenced against open-source reconstructions of plutonium and highly enriched uranium production from Albright, Wright and Gronlund, and Zhang, really should end this discussion. There is nothing in Karber's sources that would undermine these estimates. Instead, Karber acts like the only publicly available estimates are from old DIA projections or the rantings of NGO-hippies like NRDC or me ignoring the fact that we both rely heavily on US government estimates that pretty clearly demonstrate there just isn't enough plutonium to go around. Hans Kristensen has a post using this method, titled simply No, China Does Not Have 3,000 Nuclear Weapons.
On To The Main Event

This is a slide from Karber's presentation at a dinner seminar hosted by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center on September 26 titled "China's Underground Great Wall: Have We Underestimated Beijing's Strategic Forces?" As "Chinese statements on nuclear weapons," Karber cites a few Chinese blog posts, one of which really got my attention. When Gregory sent it to me, I immediately emailed back "It's the return of Yang Zheng!"
Now, my Chinese is lousy but even I recognized Yang Zheng's essay. For those of you who don't remember, some so-called experts cite an essay by a Singapore college student, Yang Zheng, as evidence that China has thousands of nuclear weapons. (I have dealt with this subject repeatedly.) Suffice to say, this essay is completely incompetent the list of fissile material facilities is just totally wrong. Yang claims this information all comes from a leaked Chinese military document provided to a Hong Kong dissident magazine called The Trend.
Now, as Gregory has already noted, Karber cites a bunch of Chinese-language blog posts that are best described as general interest discussions of the claims made in the Yang Zheng essay, not as definitive statements of Chinese nuclear-weapons holdings. That's not to say the authors aren't clever, but the authors are not professional analysts and have no privileged access to information. They are just random people saying things like Hey! I read on the internet that China has 3,000 nuclear weapons. Is that true?
About the same time, Gregory and I received a forwarded email from Karber defending his estimate, in which he wrote that "The 2350 number was originally reported to have come from a leaked PLA document in 1995 …" Now, mind you, Karber didn't have a copy of that "leaked document" or even the original article in The Trend. He was just repeating something he found on the internet. But, since he made such a clear reference to the Yang Zheng essay and the 2350 estimate, Gregory and I decided it was time for someone to actually do some research and get a copy of this article.
The first thing I discovered was that Yang Zheng was a bit player in this whole fiasco he had plagiarized his essay from this 1995 Usenet thread. Do you remember Usenet? Probably not if you had a life in the mid-1990s. Usenet was an internet bulletin board. As I say, Yang either plagiarized the essay either that, or someone cleaned it up and falsely attributed it to him. Otherwise, Yang's main contribution was to drop into the discussion and start throwing around racist comments, calling some of the other posters "Bananas" yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Classy.
The actual author of the incorrect list of fissile material production facilities was an anonymous poster named Ma Tuowen that's "Mark Twain." How clever. It turns out Ma was posting anonymously because "I don't want my boss to know I'm wasting his time." (Ma's areas of interest range from Chinese nuclear weapons to strategies for the computer game Civilization.) He had quite a history of saying irritating things. A very young Dwayne Day, now at the National Academies, got very irritated with Ma and his "poorly-written, bombastic, incoherent bullshit." (D-Day does not suffer fools. It is one reason he is awesome.)
Then I noticed something really interesting Ma didn't actually read the original Hong Kong article himself. (Yang Zheng, in his plagiarized essay, claims Ma is the source of the leaked document, which is totally wrong.) Ma was just speculating in response to a question by yet another reader, a Chinese mathematics professor named Li Xaolin. I emailed Li, who is a nice guy and remembered the discussion. "Now I remember, it was 1996, when Li Denghui (Tenghui Lee), then the President of ROC announced two countries', there was a debate in soc.culture.china, soc.culture.taiwan. Some Taiwanese claim that China was no match in nuclear arsenal to the west with only a couple of hundreds of warheads." Ma just read Li's summary of the article in The Trend, then made up his bogus list of Chinese fissile material facilities, that later appear under Yang Zheng's name.
So, it turns out the entire discussion is based on a very casual summary of something a mathematics professor thinks he read in Hong Kong paper. Obviously, we needed the source of all this nonsense.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Gregory headed to Hong Kong to track down the original document and try to make contact with the author. Gregory went through every issue of The Trend until he found it. And there it was! At that point, it became clear that this was not a very reliable source of information. The article claims that China, for example, has six Xia-class ballistic missile submarines and was conducting undetected 15-kiloton nuclear weapons tests in Sichuan. Yeesh! Gregory has placed a copy online and also made available a copy to Karber.
Most importantly, the article in The Trend does not cite "a leaked PLA document in 1995″ as the source of the numbers. The mathematics professor just made a mistake. All these people have simply been repeating his summary on an internet bulletin board, but the numbers in the article come from someplace else.
Then Gregory noticed something even more interesting. The Trend has a slightly more formal sister publication. It turns out the two publications each carried an article on the topic of China's nuclear weapons within an issue of the other, a topic neither had covered before or would cover again. Although the authors use different pseudonyms, the two articles seem to Gregory to be written by the same person. Someone who, apparently, lives in the United States.
We are still trying to find the original author of the article in The Trend. But it may not matter because we have found the source of his estimates. It appears that the numbers in The Trend were copied from a 1986 article in the English-language publication Navy International, written by an American named Bradley Hahn, who published extensively on China's nuclear forces in the early 1980s. We are still trying to reach Hahn, but it seems that the author of The Trend piece simply took details from Hahn's article in Navy International 91:10 October 1986, pp 624-630, and tweaked them slightly. Let's compare:
* The Trend: "In the CCP nuclear arsenal, 40% are nuclear bombs, 34% are strategic nuclear missiles, 25% are tactical nuclear missiles, 1% are nuclear mines."*
* Hahn: "An estimated breakdown of how they employ their current nuclear arsenal reveals about 44% bomb, 34% strategic missile, 20% tactical missile and about 2% mine warheads."
There are lots of other similarities. Put them together and it is a total cut-and-paste job with some salacious details about nuclear weapons testing thrown in.
As far as we can tell, Hahn had some pretty amazing access for an American in the early-1980s. But I think some of his Chinese sources pulled his leg a bit.
Guess how Gregory noticed the overlap between The Trend and Hahn? He didn't one of Karber's Chinese blogger sources did! Gee, I guess bloggers sometimes know what they are doing. Unfortunately for Karber, this means he and his students knew, or should have known, they were dealing with recycled American estimates. But Karber didn't share this little detail.
I think it is important to document all this. As Gregory explains over at All Things Nuclear, Karber is already starting to alter his slides in particular, the one that I have reproduced in this post in ways that obscure the source of his "estimates" of China's nuclear weapons stockpile. Gone are any references to 2,350 warheads, replaced with annual production numbers from the same poisoned source.
No, China Does Not Have 3,000 Nuclear Weapons
Wan quotes Karber saying "I don't have the slightest idea how many nuclear weapons China really has, but neither does anyone else in the arms-control community." That's false a lot of people in the US intelligence community, as well as in the arms control community, have spent a lot of time and energy developing estimates of China's fissile material production to bound the potential size of China's nuclear arsenal. To equate Karber's know-nothingness with these efforts at real scholarship is offensive.
We actually know quite a lot about China's nuclear weapons, thanks to real scholarly research. You know, the sort of thing that Gregory did starting with the simple task of going to the library. It is a little tedious, I confess. But it can be fun like when I trekked to China's original nuclear weapons design facility near Haiyan and brought home a lot of footage of Chinese nuclear tests and pictures of bomb mockups.
I don't know how to describe what Karber and his students did, although "threat inflation" comes to mind. So do a lot of other not very nice terms. Gregory chose "incompetent and lazy," which William Wan used to make Gregory's legitimate criticisms of Karber's methods seem overheated.
I like "goat rodeo," but that's just me.
Karber dismisses criticisms as though his speculations are just part of a healthy debate. But preparing for a debate takes time and money it is much easier for Karber to sit in his house in Great Falls and make things up than it is for Gregory to get on an airplane and go to the library in Hong Kong. A participant in an academic debate has a responsibility to do his homework an obligation captured in the notion of scholarship that Karber shirks by simply implying that real estimates are more or less the same as whatever he happens to find on the internet that day. By Karber's reasoning, he could just as easily argue that all those Chinese tunnels house aliens. (Hey, maybe this is where the Chinese store all our Treasury securities!)
So, no China does not have 3,000 warheads. But thanks for wasting everyone's time.

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive...hil-karber



From Sourcewatch:

Potomac Foundation

According to the Potomac Foundation web site, the organization is a "501©(3) non-profit, private operating Foundation which conducts policy analysis of international security/economic issues and domestic political developments. These analyses are presented in the form of conferences, seminars and papers which are published and disseminated to the U.S. Congress, the Administration, the media, and other policy organizations." "The Foundation was organized in August 1988 in Virginia as a non-stock corporation. It operates as a non-profit organization exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The founders are a group of business executives with professional backgrounds in international security affairs. They are the directors and officers of the Foundation and all reside in Northern Virginia."[1]
"Principal activities are analysis of public policy in the areas of international security and economic affairs and the operation of the Center for the American Founding."[2]
The organization's Schedule of Events dates from January 1999 to October 2002.

Contents

• 1 Leadership
  
• 2 Board of Directors
  
• 3 Senior Fellows
  
• 4 Funding
  
• 5 Funding Contributions
  
• 6 Contact details
  
• 7 Related SourceWatch articles
  
• 8 External links
  

Leadership

• Dr. Daniel F. McDonald, President
  
• Brenda Hunter, Executive Assistant
  

Board of Directors

• Dr. Joseph Braddock (Joseph V. Braddock)
  
• Dr. Bernard J. Dunn
  
• Florian N. Hofer, Secretary/Treasurer
  
• Dr. Daniel F. McDonald, President
  

Senior Fellows

• Dr. Norman A. Bailey
  
• Dr. Paul Goble
  
• Walter Hahn
  
• Dr. Reiner Konrad Huber
  
• Phillip Karber
  
• Dr. Phillip Petersen
  
• W. Bruce Weinrod
  

Funding

According to Media Transparency, for the years 1996 through 2000, the Potomac Center received $285,386 in grant funds from neoconservative funders JM Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. Funds were distributed between the Foundation's Center for the American Founding and Foundation publications.

Funding Contributions

• Center for the Study of Public Choice[3]
  

Contact details

8618 Westwood Center Drive
Suite 110
Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: (703) 506-1790
Fax: (703) 506-8085
Email: info AT potomacfoundation.com
URL: http://www.potomacfoundation.com

Related SourceWatch articles

• funders
  
• think tank
  
• Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
  

External links

Inspection Report: Concerns Related to the Office of International Material Protection and Emergency Cooperation, Inspector General, Department of Energy, April 2003. The report "found that DOE contractor officials did not adhere to contractor procurement policies and procedures when contracting with the Potomac Foundation to provide support for the Board of Visitors...." [Note in report: "The Board of Visitors was comprised of senior figures from the political, business, legal, and investment banking communities, and provided non-binding advice and assistance to IMPEC on the Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program with the Russian Federation. It met once formally in December 2000."] It was "determined that the Potomac Foundation received full payment for two meetings of the Board of Visitors, including compensation for the entire Board of Visitors even though all Board members did not attend the meetings."

After his report with Wesley Clarke some others did a bit of research on him and the 'foundation' and there iis this interesting thread on ATS
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008757/pg1

Haniel
+8 more
posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link
So a few days ago I read this article in the New York Times:

WASHINGTON Ukraine's military has an urgent need for nonlethal military assistance like body armor, night-vision goggles, communications gear and aviation fuel to defend against a potential Russian attack, according to a new analysis by a former NATO commander and a former Pentagon official.

But wary of provoking Russia, the Obama administration has been reluctant to provide it, they say.

"Implementation of U.S. nonlethal military aid is seriously flawed and needs immediate correction," Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Phillip A. Karber wrote in a copy of the report that The New York Times obtained on Tuesday. General Clark, who is retired, is the former NATO commander who led the alliance's forces during the 1998 Kosovo conflict, and Mr. Karber is a former strategy adviser to Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger.

[...]

The visit of General Clark, who ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and Mr. Karber took place in late March and early April. They traveled at the invitation of Ukrainian officials, and the trip was paid for by the Potomac Foundation, an American nonprofit research center.

The article and the accompanying report/assessment (which you can read here) alone are interesting, but what really caught my attention was this "Potomac Foundation". I had never heard of them. According to the article, they're just "an American nonprofit research center". The report has a bit more detail, stating...

With travel costs covered by the non-*profit Potomac Foundation (an organization with a long history of supporting East European and former Soviet Republic training for NATO membership), Clark and Karber traveled to Ukraine to undertake a joint militarily oriented, non*public assessment, and do so on a non‐partisan basis.

So I was curious and decided to look into the Foundation, to see what they do. What I found (or didn't, rather) answered none of my questions and raised even more. This group is a ghost. I'm convinced that we're dealing with a shadow CFR-like think tank.


For example, their website is absolutely blank. Literally a giant blank screen. An advanced Google search shows that their name does not appear in any news besides the aforementioned New York Times article and a few others that comment on it. And for a "research center", they don't seem to publish anything (at least publicly). The only thing I did find was a nearly 100-page long paper by the Dr. Philip Karber (the same one who went to Ukraine) on the topic of "Net Assessment", which (after a quick Google search) I found out means "the principal framework for analyzing the national security strategy of the United States". In other words, complicated national security stuff that is beyond my expertise and that of the general population.

So I started digging deeper. I found that SourceWatch has a page on the Foundation, though it was published more than 6 years ago and is probably out of date. It describes the Potomac Foundation as:

"a 501©(3) non-profit, private operating Foundation which conducts policy analysis of international security/economic issues and domestic political developments. These analyses are presented in the form of conferences, seminars and papers which are published and disseminated to the U.S. Congress, the Administration, the media, and other policy organizations."

The media and policy organization bit is clearly a lie, since there is literally no trace of this. But we can't confirm the others, which means that whatever "research" the Potomac Foundation does ends up going straight to the President of the United States and the upper echelons of Congress. Maybe others.

The SourceWatch page goes on, listing a few of the Foundation's members and fellows. No names really stand out, but they all seem to be a sort of combination of professors, political/international relations/security experts, former DoD/NATO officials, private executives, etc. These are individuals with a lot of experience, influence, and connections. Enough so that their research gets sent to the higher levels of the US government and they get personally invited by the Ukrainian government to participate in (according to the report mentioned at the beginning) "in 35 meeting [sic] with senior officials, military commanders and various politicians".

So I kept on digging, and was able to find the Foundation's old 990 tax form from 2010 thanks to ProPublica, which you can read here. From what it says, the Foundation has received funding from The Boeing Company, the Soros/Open Society Fund (in other words, George Soros), and the Smith Richardson Foundation, which also funds pretty much all the top think tanks in the United States including the Council on Foreign Relations (which is no stranger to conspiracy theories and accusations of dictating policy behind the scenes).

I also found in the form that the Foundation runs something called "ChinaVitae", which "was founded in 2001 with two objectives: to raise the quality and quantity of English language, biographical information on China's top leadership; and to create a centralized repository of such information available to a worldwide audience." In other words, literally spying and trying to gather/information on China's top leadership.


And that's pretty much everything I've been able to find on these guys. Frankly I'm at a loss of what to make with them.

Thoughts?edit on 20-4-2014 by Haniel because: Minor grammatical corrections








the2ofusr1

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link
Awesome work ...S&F ...I have no idea about what it means but will mark and hopefully it will become another dot that might help later ...tks

ETA I did a little reading on Dr. Philip Karber ...Seems that he is a questionable character .There is a good blog post from people that have looked at some of his past work and found it wanting ...He seems to make things up and is probably guilty of embellishing certain points ... edit on 20-4-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)







TerryMcGuire

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link
Yep, Haniel. Sounds like you have pried loose a beetle from the woodwork. Sunlight? Blink blink as it slithers back to the recesses, hidden from the public spotlight, though of course the pubic spotlight seems to be running only on a couple of dead triple AAA batteries.

Thanks for the legwork.





MagesticEsoteric

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link
a reply to: Haniel

Very interesting.

I can't wait to delve into this info.







Riffrafter

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link
a reply to: Haniel

Extremely interesting, well researched & presented. The fact that this is your first thread is even more impressive.

You've certainly piqued my curiosity on a number of levels and I'll read thru some of the sources you posted in your OP and also see if I can find anything else that may relate to this group.

As you indicate that you're interested in secret societies I look forward to seeing more your of your work & research about other groups like this that you're kind enough to share with us.

Thanks, and again - well done!





MrMaybeNot

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link
a reply to: Haniel

I did a whois lookup on their domain name and it expired almost a month ago and hasn't been renewed, its status is pending deletion. They don't seem too concerned about informing the public of their motives.edit on 20-4-2014 by MrMaybeNot because: (no reason given)







The Vagabond

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link
S&F indeed. You've got something here I think, how much of something is to be determined.

I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of shell institutes that serve the primary purpose of providing honoraria (aka payola) to influential people for advancing a given viewpoint in private. Such and such functionary you never heard of has a seat in the important meetings, so make him a paid and honored members of a group dedicated to the same thing, making what is essentially an infiltration operation look like a distinguished career.

The line between this and a secret society depends on how active they are- is it a bribery foundation or an actual network of active "agents"?





DarknStormy

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link
Sounds like the Jesuits and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they were influencing the Ukraine somehow. Look up Rome on the Potomac.edit on 20-4-2014 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)







stirling

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link
Great score! this Richardson foundation must have very deep shadow government pockets.....





Haniel

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link
a reply to: DarknStormy

While proving that would be really hard, there are some minor connections: Dr. Phillip Karber seems to be a professor at Georgetown Univeristy, which is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the country. Furthermore, I don't recall where exactly I saw this, but there was something stating that the Foundation does provide some support to the University and in particular to Karber's teaching there.

And looking into ChinaVitae's Board of Directors on the "About" page, the man in charge of it as executive director and chairman is one David Gries, who is also apparently a former adjunct professor of International Relations at Georgetown Univeristy. Also some work at the CIA and State Department, in case you wanted to see more flags.

I was looking into Georgetown University's secret societies as a side thing, but now they seem possibly relevant. Granted, given how quietly powerful that university really is (enough to rival the Ivy Leagues) and the specialized school they have, Potomac is probably recruiting straight out of it.edit on 21-4-2014 by Haniel because: minor grammar







docgreen15

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link
Hello Haniel,

Hope this information helps you with your quest... be careful though, they may be dark forces at work here...

Alternative Web Address: www.thepotomacfoundation.org...

Website (above) registered to:
Registrant Name: Phillip Karber
Registrant Phone: (703) 757-9080
Registrant Email: karberp@me.com

Business Address: 8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 110, Vienna, VA 22182. This location is in the Tysons West neighborhood. (This business specializes in Philanthropy)

Telephone: (703) 506-1790
Fax 1: (703) 506-8085
Fax 2: (703) 935-5639

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Dr. Joseph V. Braddock
Dr. Bernard J. Dunn
Mr. Florian N. Hofer, Secretary/Treasurer

PRESIDENT:
Dr. Daniel F. McDonald

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT:
Ms. Brenda Hunter

SENIOR FELLOWS:
Dr. Norman Bailey
Mr. Walter Hahn
Dr. Reiner Huber
Dr. Phillip Petersen
Mr. W. Bruce Weinrod

PROGRAMS:
NATO and European Security
The Foundation has focused on the NATO enlargement process and future NATO organizational and force structure developments. The NATO Enlargement Study Group was initiated in 1995 to promote the public and professional debate on the issues of NATO enlargement.
The Foundation's programs have been directed toward the next tranche of enlargement and the future strategy for NATO.
The program includes policy papers, meetings and roundtables in the Washington, D.C. area, and international conferences.

Project on America's Security
A group of international policy specialists meet to discuss issues related to U.S. foreign policy. The organizing group is chaired by Mr. W. Bruce Weinrod and includes Dr. Jeffrey Bergner, Mr. Tod Lindberg, Mr. Daniel Fata, and Mr. Doug Seay.
During 2002, the project is addressing the transatlantic relationship and U.S. leadership in the 21st century. The project has begun with a series of meetings on current U.S. issues in the transatlantic relationship. International travel is planned for dialogue with policy experts and government officials in Europe.

Russia and the Post-Soviet Republics
Dr. Phillip Petersen is conducting a Potomac program focused on political, social, and economic forces affecting all regions of the post-Soviet republics.
In 1999 a series of outreach initiatives were begun with the Kurchatov Institute and the Russian Duma. Dr. Petersen worked with Dr. Evgeny Velikhov to develop programs of cooperation on defense conversion, non-proliferation, and civil-military affairs.
In the early phases of this program, a series of four studies explored the developments in all 15 successor states following the dissolution the Soviet Union. Potomac Papers were published on Central Asia, Transcaucasia, Slavic Heartland and Moldova, Baltic States, Alternative Scenarios of the Disintegration of the Russian Federation, and the The Future of Nuclear Weapons in the Kazakh Republic's National Security.

International Economic Policy Group
A series of dinner meetings organized by Dr. Norman Bailey brings together professional interested in international economic and finance issues, particularly as these influence U.S. economic development and foreign policies.

Center for the American Founding
Founded in February 1996, the Center focused attention on the critical need to re-connect our national debate to America's founding principles.
Dr. Balint Vazsonyi, the Center's Director, was a syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard, wrote regularly for The Washington Times, and spoke frequently in the Washington area and other cities. In January 2003, Dr. Vazsonyi passed away following a long illness.

Cold War History Series
The Foundation is sponsoring research programs dealing with the development of U.S. cold war policy and strategies. The first documents the developments of the net assessment methodology conducted under the leadership of Andrew Marshall in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The second deals with the development of cold war strategies during the Reagan Administration.

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
October 2006
Roundtable on African Security in the 21st Century, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and Forum du Futur/Paris held in Paris, France

June 2006
Roundtable on Trans-Border Cooperation in the Black Sea Region held in Washington, DC

September 2005
Roundtable on The Rise of China as a Global Security Actor, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and Forum du Futur/Paris held in Paris, France

August 2005
Congressional Staff roundtables on Transatlantic Relations held in Tbilisi, Georgia

June 2005
Roundtable on International Cooperative Opportunities Related to Irregular Warfare, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Royal United Services Institute held in London, England

August 2004
Congressional Staff roundtables on Transatlantic Relations held in Tbilisi, Georgia

July 2004
Roundtable on Network Centric Operations, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and Forum du Futur/Paris held in Paris, France

April 2004
Roundtable on Transformation and Coalition Operations, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Center for International Relations held in Warsaw, Poland

April 2003
Missile Defense Workshop, co-sponsored with the Institute for Defense Analyses and Forum du Futur/Paris held in Paris, France

October 2002
Roundtable on NATO: The Changed International Security Environment and the Future of the Transatlantic Alliance, co-sponsored with the Hanns Seidel Stiftung held in Munich, Germany

September 2002
Capitol Hill Roundtable on Iraq Issues held in Washington, DC

February 2002
Meetings on Transatlantic Relations held in Brussels, Belgium

November 2001
Roundtable on Political Economy after September 11 held in Washington, DC

August 2001
Congressional Staff roundtables on NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States held in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania

May 2001
Roundtable on Social Security Restructuring held in Washington, DC

February 2001
Capitol Hill Roundtable on Assessment of the First Round of Enlargement; U.S. Relations with Russia Relative to Enlargement; and the Next Steps Toward Enlargement held in Washington, DC

August 2000
Congressional Staff roundtables on NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States held in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania

April 2000
Capitol Hill Roundtable on the Transatlantic Defense Industry held in Washington, DC

EDIT TO ADD: Use search engines that don't 'alter' your search results (duckduckgo.com or startpage.com), you'll get more information on the company like their investigation on China 1000s of nukes in secret tunnels etc, etc .... have fun loledit on 21-4-2014 by docgreen15 because: Add further information on where to search (duckduckgo.com)







Haniel

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link
a reply to: docgreen15

Geez, that's a lot to work with. Thanks!

Though I wonder what they've been doing in the past 8 years.

docgreen15

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link
Yeah they haven't updated their site with that information since then I'm afraid. It's certainly interesting, I hope you can dig up some good stuff.

I'm not being funny but I'd start with just phoning them and declaring what your about (generally speaking), a white lie might not go amiss here and ask where you can get more information on their company.

It might well be a fully legit company with nothing to fear from them at all but I'd personally likely try and block your number or use a 'pay as you go' sim card when you call as it is 2014 and chances are you'll end up on a 'list' if not, not that it really matters but who wants unwanted attention lol

Why not call the news paper and just try your luck getting in touch with the guy who written the article and see if you can find out what he knows about them or any advice on who to contact.

Maybe even drop that guy an email just asking for further information on their "amazing, noble, brave" work he does lol

The "I'm a student studying..." bluff often works a treat but make sure you have a legit back story in case they are like "ow excellent, where are you studying" etc Maybe have some prearranged questions in relation to a subject matter they are familiar with, then throw in a few curve balls or just ask them open questions to see if they them selves open up and give you a candid response.

Also another avenue to pursue is contacting the "partner" sponsors to those events they held and seeing if you can find out any further intel via them or direct contact phone numbers etc

Hell maybe just give them the old "do you need anyone to update and maintain your website, you admire the work they do, your a patriot and web design is second nature to you so thought you'd offer your services", who knows they might be busy and just agree and throw you over their literature and give you insights into what "image" they want out there, maybe even what they don't want putting on there. It's a long shot, of course it is but you've got to be in it to win it so get your "blag" on and get on the phone lol!!!

It might well be and likely is the case that some of those people don't work there any more, maybe try seeing where they do work not and looking for alternative contact details and also alternative "stories" for why your contacting them quizzing the life out of them lol

Good luck and make sure you pop back and let us know how you got on, regardless of what your found I'm sure people are interested now what they are up to.

Ow and one last thing, one of the people they co-sponsored a event with was "Royal United Services Institute" in England, a British defence and security think tank, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. Makes you wonder, these guys have been around a very long haven't they, interesting at least. They guys sound like the movers and shakers of defense and security on a global scale.





Destinyone

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link
a reply to: docgreen15

Some great digging you've done here, docgreen.

From the registered name of the site we get Dr. Phillip Karbar.

Some info on his involvement on National security globally. Below excerpt from link provided at end.

Dr. Phillip A. Karber is the President of the Potomac Foundation and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, where he is also the founding Director of its Asian Arms Control Project.

In 1981 Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger selected Dr. Karber as the founding Director of the Strategic Concepts Development center (renamed the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University). As designated SecDef "strategy advisor", Dr. Karber reported directly to the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He testified before the Senate on the START, INF, and CFE treaties. In 1986, Dr. Karber was commissioned to head the only study of a "Denuclearized World" conducted for the President prior to the Reykjavik Summit. He also evaluated the Gorbachev force reductions for a joint session of the NATO Political and Military Committees in 1988. He has served as advisor to British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher; Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Worner; and CEO of Ford Motor, Red Poling. Dr. Dr. Karber has also testified repeatedly before the US Congress, as well as the Parliaments of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands.

In the private industry, Dr. Karber was a senior executive at the BDM Corporation, a member of the Board of Directors of Weirton Steel, Chaired the NYSE listed company's Audit Committee, and served as Chairman of the Board of the JFK International Air Terminal. He was also the Governor of the US Polo Association; Trustee of Great Meadows, and served on the German-American Business Council, the US Army Science Board and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Dr. Karber has participated in numerous highly successful IPOs; led two large international acquisitions; and managed three large privatizations. He has been published in two dozen books and authored articles in academic journals such as the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, and the Journal of Diplomatic History).

Dr. Karber holds a BA from Pepperdine College, and a PhD in International Law from Georgetown University, where he was a graduate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He holds post-doctorate certificates from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and Business School, and the Wharton Business Schoo
hsgdisc.wordpress.com...

I can't help but wonder. When we talk about TPTB, if we are getting a tiny look into part of their inner circle think tank in this thread.

Des
edit on 22-4-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)







pslind69

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link
Dumping the URL into The Wayback Machine (archive.org...) gives results. I take it that is what doctor has done.





MagesticEsoteric

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link
a reply to: Haniel
This is one of the more fascinating threads that I've read on ATS in quite some time.

Fantastic job Haniel! and to Doc as well for added input.

I'm glad to see the flag count at 32...but, a tad disappointed that it hasn't moved further than the first page.

I wish I had more to offer but, it appears you guys have covered about as much info that is available on this group.

The idea to call the number listed is great....I'm just to chicken to follow through and not afraid to admit it.