Institute for the Study of War
US think tank
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is an American advocacy think tank founded in 2007 by military historian Kimberly Kagan and headquartered in Washington, D.C. ISW has provided analysis of modern armed conflicts and foreign affairs, including the Gaza war, Syrian civil war, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the 2026 Iran war and the Russo-Ukrainian war. ISW's political stance has been described as ″hawkish″ and neoconservative. Major contributors to its funding include leading military contractors.
Political stance and influence
The political stance of ISW has been described as "hawkish" by journalists at Politico, Time, Wired, Vox and The Guardian, while writers for NPR described its position as "sometimes hawkish". ISW has been described as neoconservative by writers for Business Day, The Nation, Arab Studies Quarterly, Strategic Studies Quarterly, The Hankyoreh and Foreign Policy. James A. Russell, writing in the journal Small Wars & Insurgencies, described the think tank as neoconservative and right wing, comparing the organization to The Heritage Foundation and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Washington Post has described the group as favoring an "aggressive foreign policy". Writing for The Intercept, journalist Robert Wright described the think tank as "ultra-hawkish" and its objectivity as "dubious".
ISW criticized both the Obama and first Trump administration policies on the Syrian conflict, advocating a more hawkish approach. In 2013, Kagan called for arms and equipment to be supplied to "moderate" rebels, with the hope that a state "friendly to the United States [would emerge] in the wake of Assad." In 2017, ISW analyst Christopher Kozak praised president Donald Trump for the Shayrat missile strike but advocated further attacks, stating that "deterrence is a persistent condition, not a one hour strike package." In 2018, ISW analyst Jennifer Cafarella published an article calling for the use of offensive military force against the Assad government.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Institute for the Study of War” is uS think tank. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Institute, Study and think, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “uS think tank” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6039802. VIAF identifies the subject as 127078368. The Library of Congress control number is no2010002934. 2 of 4 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2007, 2026, 2013 and 2017.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Institute for the Study of War”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Institute for the Study of War primary sources, Institute for the Study of War archive and Institute research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Institute for the Study of War”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Institute for the Study of War” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.