NOV 2 — On Thursday, I shall be at breakfast with hawkish Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, who heads the House Intelligence Committee.

Last Thursday, it was lunch at Capitol Hill after a talk by Senator Carl Levin, who heads the Armed Forces Committee. No, I am not on first-name terms with these august personalities but, like every journalist in Washington, I am on the mailing lists of several think-tanks that make these interactions possible.

Washington, at a time of war, is fertile ground for the 1,700-odd groups plying their time-tested tradition of influencing public policy and public opinion. And with US President Barack Obama on the brink of announcing his most important foreign policy decision — a battleplan against Al-Qaeda — there has been a surge in punditry.

Should the US embark on an Iraq-type surge in Afghanistan? Should it stick to a narrow counter-terrorism strategy? Or move to disengage from Afghanistan?

Each option has its vocal proponents.

“This is the time when no think-tank will let go a chance to make its presence felt. Heritage, for instance, is very skilful at making is positions heard on the Capitol Hill. Others, like Brookings Institution, are equally adept at working the executive branch,” says Professor Donald Abelson of Western Ontario University and the author of “Do Think Tanks Matter? Assessing The Impact Of Public Policy Institutions”.

The Heritage Foundation is a bastion of conservative thinkers, while Brookings tends to be liberal. Along with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Council on Foreign Relations and American Enterprise Institute, these form the most prominent foreign policy think-tanks in the US. Needless to say, there are scores of others specialising in fields as varied as urban studies, environment, health and education.

Their inputs are especially sought after at this point because the administration as well as the Democratic and the Republican parties are split on the issue of whether to intensify the Afghanistan war.

Obama is keeping his cards close to his chest, but it is no secret his Vice-President favours focusing instead on Pakistan, where the majority of the Al-Qaeda leaders have taken root.

Many liberal Democratic leaders in the House and Senate oppose expanding the war effort, as does a sliver of Republicans. All sides are sensitive to public opinion polls, which show the war is unpopular.

Obama's consultative decision-making style contributes to making his White House very accessible to think-tanks.

“Compare that to the Bush administration, which was insular,” says Abelson. “The think-tanks, whether of the right or the left, faced a challenge in trying to reach the President and his close circle.”

Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings who had advised Obama in his campaign days, earlier this year chaired a White House review of the US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The review led to Obama declaring the battle in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity”.

Anthony Cordesman of the CSIS, a one-time aide to Republican Senator John McCain, was part of the advisory team.

Both experts continue to be part of the White House consultations.

The incidence of such direct involvement of think-tanks in widening policymaking horizons and creating new options is well-documented. For instance, US think-tanks played a key role in developing and building support for the enlargement of Nato as part of a broader US strategy to overcome Europe's Cold War divide.

In another example, the Carnegie Endowment provided a platform for the meetings in Washington of South African politicians, clergy, businessmen, academics, exiled liberation figures and members of the US establishment in the 1980s. The initiative, which ran for eight years, paved the way for the first dialogue on South Africa's future.

Similarly, the Heritage Foundation advocated and laid the underpinnings for former President Ronald Reagan's plans to build an orbital ballistic missile shield, known as the Strategic Defence Initiative, or more popularly, “Star Wars”.

“Of the many influences on the US policy formulation, the role of the think-tanks is the most important and least appreciated,” according to Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Haass, notably, made that statement while doing a turn at the State Department in the Bush administration.

Haass' double role illustrates a unique feature of the American political system, the so-called revolving door.

Sizeable sections of the administration are sourced from think- tanks; these people then return to their roosts after serving their turn. And thanks to their experience in real-world policymaking, they provide a sort of shadow foreign affairs establishment which then evaluates policy issuing from the White House.

The administration, for its part, also taps the think-tanks as venues to build public support for its policy. When the gap between public opinion and the administration's policy is high — as in the case of the Afghanistan war — this platform is not to be underestimated.

“It is a major foreign policy decision, and the administration will want as many people on board as possible,” says Abelson. — The Straits Times