By 2005 the number of studies program staff (17) working at the Center for Geoeconomic Studies was second only to the number of staff at Foreign Affairs magazine (18).209 The numbers of staff focusing on other aspects of U.S. foreign policy were all much fewer during that year: Asia 11; Middle East 10; Council Meetings 9; Global Health and Environment, Science, and Technology 9; Europe 8; Washington Program 7; U.S. Foreign Policy 7; Director of Studies Office 7; National Security 5; Center for Preventative Action 3; Africa 2; Latin America 2.210
These organizational changes at the Council were framed by dramatic events that put foreign policy front and center in the political and economic life of the United States. Within a week of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Gelb formed an Independent Task Force on terrorism, consisting of fifty individuals with longtime leaders Carla A. Hills and Richard Holbrooke as co-chairs. The group, labeled the “centerpiece of the Council’s work” during 2001–2002, met twenty times to define, debate, and discuss the key issues, then wrote a report that was submitted to members of the Bush administration.211 The CFR’s Annual Report for 2002 claimed a central role for the organization during this period: “This year, perhaps more than ever, the Council’s independent task forces have played an important role in shaping foreign policy. Decision makers in government look to the Council’s task forces … to help guide their decisions.”212
The CFR’s role in setting the framework for policy decisions leading to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was also substantial. CFR Fellow and Director of National Security Studies Kenneth Pollack took a leading role, advocating war to force regime change in Baghdad when he wrote what chairman Peterson called a “trailblazing” article in Foreign Affairs in early 2002 and a CFR book that same year called Gathering Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.213 The Council’s key role in the decision to go to war and the implementation of U.S. policy in occupied Iraq will be the subject of detailed study in Part II of this book.
Gelb retired as CFR president in 2003, succeeded by Richard N. Haass. In the 2003 Annual Report, chairman Peterson paid tribute to Gelb, pointing out that during his decade-long tenure, CFR programs sharply expanded, with the overall number of full CFR Fellows jumping from ten to seventy, and the Washington program’s Fellows going from zero to twenty-three. Study seminars in nine key cities went from zero to over fifty a year.214 Independent Task Force reports were “having more impact than ever.”215 In 2003 ITFs were studying Iraq, homeland security, public diplomacy, terrorist financing, and other topics, resulting in over a thousand news stories by nearly every major newspaper and news organization in the United States. New government policies followed.216
The change in CFR’s presidents was to some extent connected with the developing situation of the United States in its war and occupation of Iraq. In June 2003, Richard Haass left his position as director of policy planning at the State Department to become CFR president. The New York Times stated that unidentified “friends of Mr. Haass” believe that he, as a close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, was frustrated about losing some Washington policy battles. But Haass told the Times that he was not leaving out of discouragement; rather it was because he was offered the important opportunity to lead the Council.217 A few months later, however, the Times quoted Haass as being worried about translating U.S. power into “lasting influence…. It would be tragic or worse if history looked back at this period and said we did not use our power wisely.”218 The Times portrayed Haass as an “enthusiastic devotee” of Henry A. Kissinger, and as a “beleaguered multilateralist” within the unilateralist-oriented Bush administration, and felt out of place by the late spring of 2003, and suggested that this is one reason he resigned from his State Department position.219
By 2004, there was a somewhat changed mood in the CFR and within the larger U.S. capitalist class. Some movement was under way from a world hegemonic (and unilateralist) approach to foreign policy toward a more cautious balance of power perspective. CFR leaders were worried about the possible weakening of the NATO alliance system, because of growing strains over how to deal with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and an unstable Middle East. As a result, an ITF on “Transatlantic Relations” was organized, headed by Henry A. Kissinger and Lawrence H. Summers. The stated purpose was to
revitalize the Atlantic alliance by forging new “rules of the road” governing the use of force, adapting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to meet today’s threats coming from outside Europe, and launching a major initiative to bring about political and economic reform in the greater Middle East. The Task Force, which included former senior government officials, business leaders, and policy experts from both sides of the Atlantic, generated significant media attention on the United States and Europe. In addition to briefings in the United States, Task Force members took their report on the road, holding meetings and press conferences in London, Paris, Brussels, and Rome.220
During this period, the CFR also conducted studies on the issue of global warming, one product being a Council Policy Initiative in the form of a book by CFR Fellow David G. Victor. Meant to foster dialogue on a critical issue rather than develop policy consensus, Victor’s book, Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options, appeared in 2004.221 It offered three weak policy options. The CFR’s overall policy on this important topic as well as Victor’s book will be returned to in chapter 8 of this book.
By 2005, the tenth anniversary of the CFR’s Independent Task Force program, over fifty reports had been completed. The 2005 Annual Report summed up this aspect of the Council’s work as follows:
As Task Forces are intended to help shape the public debate on critical foreign policy issues, the Council mobilizes its resources to maximize the impact of Task Force reports, both at the time of initial release and as developments warrant. In addition to media outreach, the Council supports the efforts of Task Force chairs and members to reach influential practitioners in the executive branch, in Congress, and beyond.222
Task force reports from the 2004–2005 period that appear to have had an important lasting influence include one on “Iran: Time for a New Approach” headed up by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert M. Gates, and another “In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How” co-chaired by Vin Weber and Madeleine K. Albright.223
The year 2005 also saw the first discussion of a new type of CFR product, called a Council Special Report (CSR). Introduced in 2004, CSRs are concise policy studies that aim at contributing to an emerging debate or a rapid response to a developing crisis. They are produced in consultation with an advisory committee of experts chosen by CFR leaders and are published by the Council.224
After the Council’s Studies Program was renamed the “David Rockefeller Studies Program” in 2007, it was focused on what the CFR considered to be the four “most significant” foreign policy issues facing the United States in the twenty-first century: conflict in the Middle East; rising powers in Asia (that is, China and India); globalization; and the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.225 Council Fellows, representing what CFR leaders called the nation’s “preeminent foreign policy organization,” were busy briefing government officials—263 separate briefings were given during the 2006–2007 fiscal year, for example.226 These briefings included eight given to many of the