Patrick C. Doherty: All Publications, Events and Press

Untangling the Paradox of Iran

Communications — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
09/26/2008 - 12:15pm

On September 26, 2008 the New America Foundation’s American Strategy Program hosted Hooman Majd to discuss his recent book, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran.

The book is a critical, but affectionate portrayal of Iranian society pointing out similarities and differences between Iranians and Americans. Iranians are like Americans in that they are concerned about their economy, their livelihoods, and their politics. They do not wake up every morning thinking they are living under tyranny. What the Iranians are looking for is respect. Respect for them as a people and for them as an Islamic Republic. When the U.S. claims that they will talk with the Iranians “on our terms at a place and time of our choosing” those statements are disrespectful to Iran as a sovereign nation.

It is important to note that current sanctions against Iran are affecting that nation. Majd said China continually uses Iran as a market for its low-cost substandard goods. The housing market in Iran has typically been the primary economic sector of stability, but that is showing a slight downturn. However, that downturn is not the same as the housing crisis facing the U.S. Majd noted any sanctions against the Iranian central bank would be severely detrimental to the country.

Iranian attitudes toward the recent Russian invasion of Georgia showed Iranians supportive of Russia. Iranian leadership sees this as an opportunity. Iran is viewed as the only state standing in the way from Russia becoming a regional hegemonic power. It is in the U.S. interest to support Iran in order to prevent extension of Russian influence.

In the June 2009 election, there is an opportunity for the reformists to take control of the Iranian government. However, President Ahmadinejad is constantly showing himself as a world leader with trips to the UN, dinners with American scholars, and meetings with Iranian Americans. When Ahmadinejad recently spoke to the UN General Assembly he held a press conference after his speech where he only took questions from Arab and Iranian reporters so it would be easily accessible on news networks in the Middle East.

Finally, Majd discussed the issue of Iranian political activists. He noted that the worst measure the U.S. can take is to support reformists groups. Due to anti-American sentiment among parts of the Iranian population, when the U.S. supports something the Iranian people are less likely to follow.

-Timothy Little, Research Intern for the American Strategy Program

Click here to watch a short video about modern Iran, narrated by Hooman Majd.

Cuba's October Surprise

Articles — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:55:00 -0400

If you live in Galveston, Texas, Hurricane Ike will be remembered for its destruction. But history may remember the ninth named storm of the 2008 season for swinging the 2008 presidential campaign.

That's because Ike devastated a little island off Florida named Cuba. In fact, Cuba sustained damage from four hurricanes: Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike. Gustav hit the Western end of Cuba as a Category 4 storm. Ike entered the east of Cuba as a strong Category 3 then shredded the full length of the island for three days. There were reports of walls of water 50 feet high hitting the north shore.

In a country of more than 11 million… more

Richard Clarke Says Cuba Not a State Sponsor of Terror

Communications — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:31:00 -0400

From The Havana Note: Richard Clarke: Cuba Not a State Sponsor of Terror As Congress comes to grips with the magnitude and political implications of the devastation across Cuba from Hurricanes Fay, Gustav and Ike--it is vitally important to make sure that Washington understands something Cuba is not. Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism and hasn't been at least since the Clinton Administration conducted a formal review of the list in the late 1990s. more

Patrick Doherty in Council on Foreign Relations Daily Analysis | 'Seeds of Economic Reform on Cuba's Farms'

Communications — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:08:00 -0400

New America in the News:
"Cuba has a chance to be a real role model for Latin America, as the region tries to figure out how to survive the coming global economic transition from high waste to high efficiency," writes Patrick Doherty of the New America Foundation. But he cautions that "economic change has to come faster than Raul is presently orchestrating." LINK

Cuba, Latin America and U.S. Grand Strategy

Communications — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:45:00 -0400

The U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative talks a lot about the need for a new policy towards Cuba. And we should. Fifty years of failure is a shameful, bi-partisan indictment of how policy is made in Washington. As we will continue to show, more people, like Senator Arlen Specter, recognize that a change in Cuba policy is on the way. But change for change's sake is foolish, and could easily backfire on the United States. Fortunately, the emerging consensus on changing our relationship with Cuba coincides with another consensus in Washington, that America needs a major overhaul of all our… more

What would Richard Nixon do on Cuba? He would end the embargo.

Communications — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:58:00 -0400

Watch the video here. Writing just before his death in 1994, Nixon called on the U.S. to end the failed policy of regime change. Nixon, the arch-Cold Warrior, knew that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of its troops from Angola, Cuba posed no threat to the United States. It is time, Nixon said nearly 15 years ago, for the United States to support the Cuban people. What was true then is even plainer today. The New America Foundation's U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative and the Nixon Center hosted leading Nixon, Cuba, and national security practitioners on July… more

Pakistan’s Dangerous Turn

Communications — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
06/20/2008 - 12:15pm

On June 20th the New America Foundation’s American Strategy Program hosted the release of Terror Free Tomorrow’s groundbreaking new surveys of Pakistani public opinion, presented by Terror Free Tomorrow’s President Ken Ballen. New America scholars Peter Bergen and Nicholas Schmidle then provided expert analysis of the data and the detailed the implications of the report for future American policy toward Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan. American Strategy Program Deputy Director Patrick Doherty moderated the discussion. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Peter Bergen zeroed in on the fact that unlike other countries that have suffered extensive terrorism, Pakistanis have not to date conclusively given up support for terrorist groups. He argued that the Pakistani military does not as yet have a coherent counter insurgency strategy, one that combines military action and negotiation with supervised economic aid for poorer, more extreme regions of Pakistan. He also urged that the United States needs to make a long-term commitment to Afghanistan of more soldiers, and should be frank about this commitment with Afghanis and Pakistanis. This, he said, would ensure that people do not feel that the United States will abandon the region, as it did following the Soviet-Afghan war in 1989.

Nicholas Schmidle continued the discussion of insurgency and resistance to both America and the Pakistani government, focusing in part on domestic politics in Pakistan. He described a Pakistan in a state of confusion, with no clear view of who is in charge. He further described Pakistani support for terrorism as a result of the abstract nature of terrorism in the country; while an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to suicide bombing, he said, many support Al Qaeda’s agenda of killing Americans, even though Al Qaeda relies on suicide bombings.

Ultimately, Schmidle said, America can repair its image in Pakistan, but will face difficulty in sustaining any gains made without a sustained American economic and potentially military presence in the country.

The future of Pakistan is of vital importance to the United States, both for its influence on the war in Afghanistan and because it possesses nuclear weapons. The data compiled by Terror Free Tomorrow starkly demonstrates both the dire challenges faced by America, as well as the glimmer of hope that through intelligent, pragmatic and concerted effort, America can recapture support in Pakistan and diminish the importance of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in the region.

-Andrew Lebovich, Research Intern, American Strategy Program

Examining the Next Year on the Israeli-Palestinian Front

Communications — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
06/16/2008 - 12:30pm

On June 16th, the New America Foundation co-sponsored an event with The Century Foundation examining the status quo of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the future it portends. The event hosted was hosted by Patrick Doherty, Deputy Director of the American Strategy Program, featuring three speakers representing the Palestinian, Israeli, and American perspectives on the conflict. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Palestinian activist and former presidential candidate, Mustafa Barghouti offered the Palestinian perspective—outlining the measures taken by the Israeli government in the wake of the Annapolis agreement that is increasingly making the two-state solution impossible. First, contrary to the promises made at Annapolis, the Israeli government has overseen twenty times more settlement expansion than any time before Annapolis. It has recently, for example, signed off on the creation of 7,974 new housing units in East Jerusalem, six times more than for the four years between 2002 and 2006 where 1,600 units were built. Furthermore, the wall that surrounds the West Bank has served as a form of functional annexation as large parts of it reside within the territory. For Barghouti, these expansions increasingly emaciate a potential Palestinian state making it an unviable entity. In addition to these two problems, the increased rate of Israeli military attacks even in the West Bank where there are no rocket attacks are alienating Palestinians and undermines the authority of Palestinian governance and the peace process in general. Since the pre-Annapolis period, attacks have increased by 300% and the checkpoints which constrict Palestinian freedom of movement have increased from 521 to 670. His second line of criticism was of the U.S. The U.S. has, for him, full rights for its bias toward Israel but heavily protests the former’s demand to hold a monopoly on mediating the peace process. In the end, the only solution he finds is a unification of the Palestinian polity under the sign of democracy.

The second speaker, Daniel Levy, Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Initiative in the American Strategy Program at New America, gave the Israeli perspective on the situation. His first observation on the status quo was critical of Bush’s appropriation of the failed Clinton legacy. The latter is marked by an attempt to rush a last-minute peace deal after years of disengagement which is hard to see as working in light of how intransigent the conflict has been over the years. In general, Levy does not think conditions are conducive to reaching an agreement on paper between now and the end of the year. Neither Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert nor Mahmoud Abbas have the degree of legitimacy that can hope to sign and sell a historical agreement. The challenge for the next 6 months is, then, two-fold. First, the Administration should attempt to lock in some of the content of what is being negotiated in order to ensure the next round of negotiations do not start from scratch and, second, to try and change the day-to-day situation on the ground to prevent further slippage on the two-state front. One should be modest in expectations that peace agreements being signed in the short-term will guarantee next administrations will follow them. The option available is for Secretary Condoleeza Rice to set out the parameters of the U.S. position. The first caveat is getting it right in content and negotiating this with the next Administration. Finally, there is a need for a honest conversation between the US and Israel. The former should clearly state its desire for a two-state solution and, if Israel is willing, to ask what parameters it wants. If they are not realistic, however, the American President should take the position that it will not force Israel into a position but that it will also not have sham negotiations. Instead, the U.S. will focus on keeping the two-state solution alive and make the conversation about settlements and not eroding existent conditions. The important content agreement is a ceasefire being signed between Hamas in Gaza and Israel (which has occurred since the event). Finally, Levy thinks the US-Israel relationship needs a healthy dose of instrumentalism. The U.S. should realize that the price of slippage is too high. It is bad for the US’s image, its alliance building, and is a gift to its adversaries. From the Israeli side, it should realize that American hegemony is on the decline and Israel has a fundamental interest in permanent borders while American power is such that it can achieve that.

The final speech was delivered by Aaron David Miller, former Middle East negotiator in the State Department, on the American perspective. He had six points. First, no conflict-ending solution is possible in the short-term. Second, there is the possibility of some kind of agreement that will advance the goal for peace and make the situation better. It will not be a comprehensive nor implementable piece of paper but is necessary. Third, a cease-fire in Gaza will be a respite but a road to nowhere because of the crisis in Palestinian politics of a fractured polity. Harmonizing the divisions is the only chance for a realistic agreement. No Palestinian leader can commit the public to conflict-ending issues without legitimacy and no Israeli Prime Minister can make existential concessions to a partner who does not have the monopoly on the forces of violence within its community. Fourth, Israeli and Syrian negotiations are welcome but limited because the reason behind the negotiations have more to do with domestic politics and to maintain quiet on the northern border. Neither side is willing, however, to pay the price needed for an agreement. Furthermore, the U.S. is indispensible to marshal support and broker the gaps but has not been interested in peace. Five, the U.S. acts like a modern-day Gulliver wandering as a superpower while tying itself down. The eight years of Bush has been, for Miller, a “galactic stumbling” in Middle East policy. Sixth and finally, the next President needs a sober assessment of history and reality before going off on adventures in peace-making or transformative diplomacy. Another Clinton-esque late-in-the-day attempt to bridge divides will be catastrophic. An agreement on the cheap is impossible to sell for both Israelis and Palestinians. Miller’s last criticism was of U.S.-Israel relations. Miller supports the “special relationship” with Israel and considers supporting states with similar values an important part of U.S. strategy. Yet, one should not make this an exclusive relationship preventing the U.S. from approaching other actors and being a constant yes-man to bad Israeli policies.

-Kailash Srinivasan, Research Intern for The Century Foundation

Foreign Policy Follies

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/13/2008 - 12:15pm

While one political party offers a bold, coherent, and failed vision for foreign policy, the other has proffered an inchoate and incoherent response that falls far short of a strategy. Matthew Yglesias -- a known "ringleader-of-sorts for the D.C. blogging community" -- suggests looking past both parties to offer a set of tried-and-true approaches for renewed internationalism and U.S. engagement with the world.

Beyond the Torture Debate

Communications — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/06/2008 - 3:30pm

On May 6th the American Strategy Program hosted an event with Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colon Powell. Mr. Sands was in DC to testify to the House Judiciary Committee about the findings in his new book, Torture Team, which examines the legal implications of the Bush administration’s policy of torture. Col. Wilkerson was on hand for commentary on the subject. The event was moderated by Patrick Doherty, deputy director of the American Strategy program.

Mr. Doherty began the event by declaring the legalization of torture, “a dark and dismal period in American history.” After a brief introduction, Mr. Sands paraphrased his book, which is the story of a single memo, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, authorizing the use of coercive interrogation techniques on Guantanamo detainees. Mr. Sands offered his expertise in international and human rights law to this topic. He stated that “a conscious decision was made to put aside the Geneva Convention” by Rumsfeld and the administration’s legal team, which violated international law. Mr. Sands shared the sense of deep concern abroad that American leadership violated international law and attempted to cover up this violation with legal documents. Mr. Sands then expressed his optimism that America was capable of self-correcting, would find out the truth and require accountability at the highest levels. His recent experience at the House Judiciary Committee confirmed that America was concerned with justice and returning to its core values.

Col. Wilkerson agreed with Mr. Sands claim that a crime was committed, there was a cover up, and that there will be accountability. He opined that there was a need to demilitarize U.S. foreign presence abroad by balancing military personnel with diplomatic. Col Wilkerson also expressed concern about the international view of America at present; “The rest of the world judges us not by what we say, but what we do, and what we’ve been doing has not been good.”

-Faith Smith, American Strategy Intern

The 'W' Generation: How the World's Youth See America

Communications — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
03/28/2008 - 12:15pm

For the past year, twenty-something Washington Post reporter Amar Bakshi has traveled across the globe talking to ordinary people of his generation -- farmers, rebels, rappers, laborers -- whose primary experience of the United States has been with George W. Bush at the helm.

What he found was eye-opening. Having just returned to the U.S. this month, Amar will offer some new perspectives on the texture of pro- and anti-Americanism at the local level.

Amar C. Bakshi is currently reporting for the online editions of The Washington Post and Newsweek, traveling around the world looking at how America impacts ordinary lives in a dozen countries. Before launching How the World Sees America, Amar worked with David Ignatius, Hal Straus, and Fareed Zakaria as the first editor of PostGlobal, an international affairs forum. His daily text and video dispatches from England, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, the Philippines, Korea, Venezuela and Mexico can be found at www.washingtonpost.com/america.

Iran's Election: What the Polling Says

Communications — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
03/14/2008 - 9:30am

When the Iranian people vote for their parliamentary representatives on Friday, March 14, the results may be surprising. But will the rising dissatisfaction with the government and an increased desire for compromise with the United States translate into change?

The New America Foundation's American Strategy Program along with Terror Free Tomorrow, a leading non-partisan public opinion research organization, will discuss the full results of TFT's most recent poll of Iranian public attitudes.

For more information see Robin Wright's coverage of the TFT polling in The Washington Post.

How Far Will America's Subprime Virus Infect Europe?

Communications — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:15:00 -0500

A New America Event
02/26/2008 - 12:15pm

The New America Foundation welcomed Steffen Kampeter from the Budget Committee of Germany’s Bundestag for a discussion of the far-reaching effects of the American sub-prime mortgage crisis and the subsequent breakdown of financial markets. Patrick Doherty, Deputy Director of the American Strategy Program, moderated the session.

Herr Kampeter briefed attendees on the general state of economic affairs in Germany and throughout the European Union, along with the European reaction to the sub-prime crisis. He stated that in spite of slowing trends in growth, stability remains a strong feature of most European economies. However, as financial markets feel the strain of the credit fallout, Europeans are now witnessing several rescue scenarios come into play, particularly in Germany & the UK, and even in financially savvy Switzerland, as major firms face possible collapse. While the crisis continues to run its course, questions of accountability and regulation are brought to bear against open markets and competition.

Kampeter stressed that while the real market has not yet felt the full force of the blow, the problem-solving endeavor to minimize the negative spillover effects must take place as an international effort, focused to sustain liquidity to markets and to restore trust in the financial system. No single nation can fully remedy the problem on its own. In the debate over increased regulation, Kampeter asserted that a combination of internal self-regulative measures along with regulatory legislation should be enacted. He also cautioned that immediate action is not necessarily helpful, diplomatically affirming the critical stance of the EU against the Fed bailout in the US. His most notable criticism came against the American legal situation which allows the proffering of credit to unworthy borrowers, maintaining that the German housing market, while less profitable, is much more stable due to more strict lending requirements.

- Andrew Bolden

New America in New York Times Online | 'For Cuba Experts, Castro Presents Opportunity for Change'

Communications — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:57:00 -0500

New America in the News:

For Cuba Experts, Castro Presents Opportunity for Change (New York Times blog/The Lede)

...While some experts saw change already afoot, others on a conference call convened today by the New America Foundation were fiercely critical of Washington’s refusal to end its economic embargo of Cuba, including strict travel restrictions.

“Our policy from Cuba is a relic from the Cold War,” Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was on the call, told reporters. “And quite frankly, it’s an embarrassment.” Others described the policy as “stupid,” the product of an “enormous Cold War hangover” retained by an administration saddled with a “tin ear” for Cuba policy.

Mr. McGovern announced on the call that more than 100 members of Congress had signed a letter urging the administration to “thoroughly review” its Cuba policy. Sarah Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas applauded that step, but then said of the letter-signers, “They should act more boldly.”

Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell who has become a strong critic of President Bush, said, “It’s probably going to take a new president.” (In the United States, that is.) more

Martyrs Without Borders

Communications — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:30:00 -0500

A New America Event
11/30/2007 - 12:30pm

The rate of suicide attacks in the Iraqi insurgency has surpassed the number of suicide operations by all previous insurgent groups combined, including those by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and Hamas in Israel. Many of the suicide bombers are foreign volunteers--they come from neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, and from as far away as North Africa and Europe. What motivates these foreign fighters to make this journey of death? Dr. Mohammed Hafez, author of Suicide Bombers in Iraq, will answer this and other vexing questions by examining the varied factions that comprise the Iraqi insurgency, the ideology and theology of martyrdom, and the prospects for a new generation of global jihadists forged in the crucible of Iraq.

Dr. Mohammed Hafez earned a Ph.D. in international relations from the London School of Economics and has received major research grants from the United States Institute of Peace and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation. He is the author of Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom (2007); Manufacturing Human Bombs: The Making of Palestinian Suicide Bombers (2006); and Why Muslims Rebel: Repression and Resistance in the Islamic World (2003). He regularly appears on the Jim Lehrer News Hour and National Public Radio. Next year, he will join the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, as an associate professor of national security affairs.

Tilting Toward Annapolis: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East

Communications — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:00:00 -0500

A New America Event
11/13/2007 - 3:00pm

On November 13, Patrick Doherty and the American Strategy Program hosted the Hon. Gary Hart and Daniel Levy in the third of a series of briefings on the run-up to the upcoming Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, MD. Gary Hart represented Colorado in the United States Senate from 1975 to 1987, where he served on the Armed Services Committee and specialized in nuclear arms control, among many other topics. Sen. Hart is a distinguished fellow at the New America Foundation, and the author of sixteen books, plus one forthcoming entitled “Under the Eagle’s Wing: a National Security Strategy for the United States: 2009.” He is also the chairman of the Council for a Livable World and an endowed professor at the University of Colorado-Denver. Daniel Levy is the director of the Middle East Policy Initiative at New America and publisher of www.ProspectsForPeace.com. He has been intensively involved with Israeli/Palestinian negotiations for many years.

Sen. Hart opened by vehemently questioning the unspoken assumption that there is unlimited time to reach a final settlement between Israel and Palestine. “The amount of time to play a broker’s role is finite,” Sen. Hart said of the United States’ position in negotiations. He noted the Bush administration has neglected the situation for seven years and is lucky that there have been no major conflagrations or massive destabilization in Israel/Palestine conditions.

After recounting some of his time in Jordan, Egypt and Israel in the 1980s, Sen. Hart observed, “This situation of neglect is exacerbated by the war currently going on in Iraq.” Sen. Hart also expressed his concern over growing uncertainty in Iran’s nuclear program. The combination of little time, the Iraq war, and the potential for a regional conflict make it “difficult if not impossible to make any real progress at Annapolis,” Sen. Hart predicted.

The senator also pointed out several other factors that contribute to his belief that Annapolis will not be particularly productive: the American public’s decreasing patience for resolving the situation and the growing appeal of a more isolationist position with respect to Israel and Palestine; the erosion of U.S. moral authority in the world; and U.S. dependence on oil in the Persian Gulf. Sen. Hart worried that the loss to American standing worldwide is non-recoverable, even after President Bush is no longer in office; people could view the United States as “the great hypocrite of the world,” he stated.

Sen. Hart encouraged economic cooperation between Israel and Palestine in the hopes that increased communication and transportation between the regions will allow younger generations of Israelis and Palestinians to work together to move past old feuds.

Daniel Levy then thanked Sen. Hart for reminding everyone of the ‘big picture,’ which can get lost in day-to-day negotiations and details. Mr. Levy shared Sen. Hart’s concern that seven years of neglect by the Bush administration has done little to stabilize the region or protect American or Israeli interests. He hoped that negotiations will not be “spooked” by domestic Israeli politics this time around and warned that Annapolis could play a negative role in moving negotiations forward because it could “feed into domestic frustration” of a why-bother sentiment. “You can’t fix anything in the region now unless you fix everything,” Mr. Levy concluded, with his belief that the U.S. needs to engage Syria, Iran, and Hamas in negotiations.

Patrick Doherty moderated the following question and answer session, and the panel discussed the efficacy of American mediation given decreased standing in the world, the possibility of another party acting as peace broker, and the next administration’s agenda in the Middle East.

-Katherine Tiedemann, Research Associate for the Fellows Program

National Journal Features American Strategy New Hire Patrick Doherty

Communications — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:54:00 -0400

New America in the News:

The New America Foundation has hired a deputy director for its foreign-policy program and is turning its sights on Cuba. Patrick Doherty, who was communications director at the Center for National Policy, led by former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., will join Director Steven Clemons at NAF's American Strategy Program next month. "I am much more of a policy guy at heart than a communications guy," says Doherty, who has a master's degree in security studies from Tufts University's Fletcher School. Among other projects, Doherty will help the think tank grow its U.S.-Cuba policy initiative, aimed at forging a stronger relationship between the two countries.

Doherty, 37, has shaped his career around conflict resolution and peace-building in places that have historically lacked both. He spent a decade working with organizations, including Catholic Relief Services, on post-conflict reconstruction in the Middle East, Africa, and the Balkans. Hailing from Buffalo, N.Y., and Cincinnati, Doherty graduated from American University in the early 1990s. He says that watching the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall as a college student sparked his interest in the field.

Doherty's experience as a blogger fits well with New America Foundation's vision of communicating ideas more rapidly and to a wider audience -- qualities that Washington think tanks aren't generally known for. ...

For the complete article, please visit The National Journal website.