I thought the US was awash with think-tanks providing advice on security and other matters to the government.

http://www.policyjobs.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=373

They are not necessarily government funded or impartial (though most claim impartiality), so the direction and results of their research tends to be guided by the interests of those with the cheque books, which is inline with the American way (those with the money determine national priorities). The whole neocon movement is supposed to have sprung from a Jewish funded think-tank.

So I am not sure that I agree with the assertion that not a single think-tank is seriously researching warfare or terrorrism.

Yes, I wondered about that. I think it is possible for all those statements to be true at the same time: advice is given, and paid for, and nobody is doing serious thinking. To the extent that we can show that, I'd say that the echoes are getting louder.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that these think-tanks are not paid for their advice. They are paid for by benefactors who would be wasting their money if they did not insist on some serious thinking being done in return.

Of course the neutrality of these benefactors is open to question, andthe direction of the research and selection of researcher may well result in advice that if adopted will provide some benefit to the benefactors interests.

From the Lighthouse: Pentagon Touts New Budget Baseline

What should be the size of the U.S. defense budget? Whatever your orientation or understanding of military affairs, it’s unlikely that you would answer the question by pulling a number at random. Yet Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staffs Chairman Mike Mullen, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell—and even the New York Times—seem to agree on a method for determining this figure that is arguably equivalent to that: determining some level of military spending based on its relationship to U.S. gross domestic product. Today, U.S. military spending is about 4 percent of GDP—far lower than the ration obtained during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or World War II—but this number hardly seems relevant, according to Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs.

“Does it not make much more sense to assess the actual threats the country faces, to determine the optimal means of meeting or deterring these threats with a sufficient degree of confidence, and then to add up the costs of obtaining the stipulated means?” asks Higgs in a new op-ed. “Whether this total amount happens to be 1 percent or 20 percent of GDP is entirely beside the point, which is to protect the American people from potential, likely, external attackers. Once an adequate defense program has been designed and its components priced, the military leadership can present the total bill to Congress and defend it by showing, item by item, why each of its elements is necessary to achieve the desired degree of national security.”

Government spending as a share of total output is a wholly inadequate way to measure government intervention in the economy, as Higgs has explained in Neither Liberty nor Safety. Still less is it an adequate way to determine defense needs. But its political uses are plainly obvious. Touting a baseline in this manner prevents military spending from significantly shrinking. “This sequence of events is a recipe for upward-ratcheting growth of the defense share of GDP, regardless of its reasonableness in relation to dealing with actual foreign threats,” writes Higgs.

“Military Spending / GDP = Nonsense for Budget Policy Making,” by Robert Higgs (3/7/08) http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2143

“Military-Economic Fascism: How Business Corrupts Government, and Vice Versa,” by Robert Higgs (The Independent Review, Fall 2007) http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=51&articleID=665

Neither Liberty nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government, by Robert Higgs http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=68

Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy, by Robert Higgs http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=65