I Am Not Sure Yet How To View This.

I mean new think-tank headed by Andrew Bacevich--The Quincy Institute. From the get go one is startled by the names of couple of contributors to what is defined as responsible statecraft institute--George Soros' name definitely makes one to pause. Yet, one has to keep in mind that ideas behind this new think-tank set it in a complete opposition to a majority of the present US think-tanks whose main purpose is justification of disastrous US foreign policy and military adventurism. So, Quincy Institute's intro does make sense:

The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible conception of U.S. interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind. Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself. Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the United States had earned.

Attacks by the most vile Neo-cons, such as low-life Bill Kristol, against this new think-tank also make total sense--the whole idea that somebody other than them (Neo-cons) will have a platform when discussing issues of war and peace terrifies them, especially when such a platform is headed by a cadre US Army senior officer with operational experience, especially knowing what a personal tragedy this officer went through when losing his son, US Army young officer in a criminal military adventure in Iraq. Bacevich's voice does matter in this case. 

Larison's comment on this new endeavor is good:

The name of the Quincy Institute for this new effort to promote a foreign policy of peace and restraint is well-chosen. As we are coming up on the bicentennial of John Quincy Adams’ famous July 4th speech in a couple years, we do well to remember what he said to his fellow countrymen. This passage in particular should be repeated as often as possible:

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

It took a long time, but Adams’ warning came to pass. We did enlist under other banners than our own, and we did involve ourselves in the wars of interest and intrigue, and the maxims of our policy have changed to force. There are many that want to make sure that our foreign policy remains this way, and the Quincy Institute offers Americans the hope that it does not have to be that way forever.

Remarkably, the only sensible discussion on America's real and legitimate national interests is possible only within the framework which Quincy Institute wants to establish. At this stage one is only hopeful that establishment of this institute is not one step too few, too late.