TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
An Israeli tail wagging an American dog
By Amir Oren, Haaretz, Thu., March 18, 2010
Thirty-one years, half the lifetime of the State of Israel, have passed since Ezer Weizman rose from his chair in the defense minister's office, stretched his long legs and marched toward a map of the world hanging on the wall. Weizman squinted and pretended to be searching for a speck of dust in the huge wilderness. "America, China ... where's [the settlement] Elon Moreh? Ah, here it is!" he cried joyfully, like Stanley discovering Livingstone. He cocked his index finger and his thumb to simulate a rocket launcher, let go and reported: "Elon Moreh is gone!"
Weizman was mistaken. In the three decades that have passed, more than 100 settlements have gone up in the West Bank, and hundreds of thousands of people have inhabited them. But Weizman was also right: The illusion of establishing facts on the ground - as a means of implementing an Israeli move that does not take the great powers into account - is just that, an illusion. And it depends on changing circumstances, the most important of which is the level of American support.
When U.S. Army generals who are usually friendly toward Israel appear in Congress and criticize a diplomatic stalemate that is augmenting Arab anger and thwarting efforts in other vital parts of the region - the settlers can make light of it and reiterate their trust in Divine Providence. However, a defense minister, a chief of staff and, generally, a prime minister are not permitted to do so.
During those 31 years, Muslim regimes, armies, leaders and organizations from Tehran to Baghdad to Kabul and back have become the principal enemies of the United States. The Middle East, which used to be a side entrance to the central arena of the Cold War - Europe - has taken center stage.
In the updated edition of the story, Israel - formerly Uncle Sam's small and courageous niece, fighting a war of survival against Arab countries that refused to accept its existence, and which were supported by the Soviet Union militarily and politically - is now greedy for territories and refusing peace, at least as compared to the Palestinian people, which is prepared to coexist with it. When that is the narrative, Israel does not receive American support, and without it, with only minor effort, the 2002 Arab peace initiative could, for example, become a binding decision of the United Nations Security Council.
Fifteen months ago prime ministerial hopeful Benjamin Netanyahu and his group of chamberlains mocked the warning that the Israeli electorate was facing the alternative of "Obama or Bibi," and made a serious mistake by voting him in. The American dog is tired of being wagged by the Israeli tail. And the dog doesn't care if the tail is not its own master, or is also being wagged by the tip of the settlers' tail.
The Americans have national interests that sometimes contradict those of a specific group or sector: Not everything that North Dakota wants accords with the overall perspective, and the same is true of Florida, also known as Israel. There is only limited room for emotions.
Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, for which (and for its competitor, Boeing) presidents are willing to declare all-out war against European industries, sustained a series of stinging slaps in the face when it did not meet the agreed-upon date and budget for development of the F-35 fighter plane. The heads of the Pentagon themselves are not immune when they get in the way of American interests: Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, who charmed president George W. Bush for six years, was sent home when he became a burden instead of an asset.
Those are the rules of the game in America, one of whose important players is the armed forces. They are subordinate to two masters: the president, who commands them via the secretary of defense, and Congress, which provides budgets and approves, rejects or delays appointments. Last week, as the Netanyahu-Obama crisis was heating up, there were frequent reports regarding reservations about Israel on the part of the U.S. Army's top brass. The reports were true but not totally precise. There are no reservations about the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. There are definitely reservations about the policy of the Netanyahu government.
On the table
In the American system there is not much need for leaks. Almost everything is on the table - in lectures, media interviews and especially in hearings before the committees of the two houses of Congress. In recent weeks, as happens every March, all the most senior army officers appear before committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Their testimonies are carefully worded and approved by the responsible echelons so that there will be no slips of the tongue. There are also questions and answers, but the main part of the report is prepared in advance, is available to the public and is subjected to examination.
The three most important officers, from Israel's perspective, are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen; the commander of CENTCOM - Central Command, whose bailiwick includes Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, among others - Gen. David Petraeus; and the commander of NATO forces and EUCOM - the European Command - Adm. James Stavridis. They do not bring a uniform message, by dint of their differing responsibilities, but they are all very familiar to the IDF senior command. All of them, say their long-time acquaintances and interlocutors, are friendly and know what's going on. As we have said: They are friendly to the IDF and to Israel, but not necessarily to the Netanyahu government.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the most political appointment in the U.S. armed forces - a shock absorber, translator, mediator and compromiser between civilians who were elected (or appointed by elected officials) and the professionals in uniform. If it is very important to President Barack Obama, as the representative of the Democratic Party, including all its minorities and sectors, that gays serve openly in the army, it suddenly turns out that Adm. Mullen also sees the advantages of that. That being said, he must limit himself to expressing an opinion, but cannot force his viewpoint on his colleagues in the top military echelon, such as the commandant of the Marines.
Mullen is supposed to end his four-year term in September 2011. Recently, he explained his philosophy, which supports the use of military force not as a last resort, but as a first and even optimal means of demonstrating presence, shoring up diplomacy, providing deterrence and, if the need arises, launching a swift attack, because the immediacy of response also contributes to deterrence. The lessons Mullen has learned from his work in the Bush and Obama administrations is that there is a need for integrated diplomatic and military activity among the branches of the armed forces, organizations and nations. As opposed to the recommendation of one of his predecessors, Colin Powell, Mullen avers that the military "must not try to use force only in an overwhelming capacity, but in the proper capacity, and in a precise and principled manner."
He has also said that "the battlefield isn't necessarily a field anymore. It's in the minds of the people" - for example, in Afghanistan, but also at home, in America. "We will win, but we will do so only over time and only after near-constant reassessment and readjustment," Mullen has said. "Quite frankly, it will feel a lot less like a knockout punch and a lot more like recovering from a long illness."
Mullen comes from the navy, his predecessor Peter Pace from the Marines, and Pace's predecessor as joint chief chair, Gen. Richard Myers, from the air force. It will be natural for the next chairman to represent the ground forces, which contribute most of the soldiers (and suffer the most casualties) to Iraq and Afghanistan. The most prominent candidate, if he wants the job, will be Petraeus.
Israel, along with the West Bank and Gaza, is the only country in the Middle East that is in EUCOM instead of CENTCOM. In his recent congressional testimony, Stavridis waxed lyrical about relations with the IDF: Each year, there are more than 500 instances of security cooperation, and also eight maneuvers; every two years, there are bilateral conferences on issues of planning, logistics, training and operational integration. As for activity in Israel, he reported, the U.S. has 1,000 soldiers at risk in the radar installation in the Negev. Stavridis repeatedly said that the ties between the commanders and personnel of EUCOM and their counterparts in the IDF are strong, personal, direct. He noted that deploying the powerful U.S. radar on Israel Air Force bases in the Negev, in order to identify the launching of rockets, has brought about an impressive increase in the contacts of both commanders and activators. For Stavridis there are no Arabs; he dismissed the problems of Israel's relations with its neighbors with a laconic and noncommittal sentence.
Petraeus' concerns
What doesn't much bother Stavridis is a source of great concern to Petraeus, whose area of responsibility includes six sectors that affect one another: Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (although India belongs to PACOM, the Pacific Command), Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, "Egypt and the Levant," Central Asia. Petraeus is not pleased with the failure to include the areas bordering on Egypt and Jordan in CENTCOM, but it is not practical at present to separate them from Israel. Where, exactly, would the line be drawn? And which command would be responsible for East Jerusalem?
Petraeus' testimony in the Senate and House committees this week included firm statements decrying the lack of progress in solving Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians and the Syrians. The negative consequences of the ongoing lack of peace include the unwillingness of governments and populations in Arab countries to tighten cooperation with the Americans, the weakening of moderate regimes, and the increase in Iran's ability to undermine stability in the region. This it can do directly, if it is successful in acquiring nuclear weapons and also by the activity of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, and also indirectly, through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The diplomatic freeze, which Muslims see as stemming from America's preferring Israel to the Arabs, also fuels Al-Qaida's efforts at recruiting new members and carrying out terror attacks.
A brief examination indicates that Petraeus, who holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University, repeated the same words he used in his testimony last April. What was different was their place in his comments, having moved from the bottom of the list of leading threats to American interests in the region to the top of the list. The tone in which he delivered his remarks was also different: Eleven months ago, they were characterized by the hope that it was possible to energize the negotiations in the Israel-Palestinian and Jerusalem-Damascus channels, with the mediation of George Mitchell. That hope has now faded to despair.
Only one year separates the two congressional appearances by Petraeus - but it has been a wasted and foolish year for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and their government.
An Israeli tail wagging an American dog - Haaretz - Israel News
By Amir Oren, Haaretz, Thu., March 18, 2010
Thirty-one years, half the lifetime of the State of Israel, have passed since Ezer Weizman rose from his chair in the defense minister's office, stretched his long legs and marched toward a map of the world hanging on the wall. Weizman squinted and pretended to be searching for a speck of dust in the huge wilderness. "America, China ... where's [the settlement] Elon Moreh? Ah, here it is!" he cried joyfully, like Stanley discovering Livingstone. He cocked his index finger and his thumb to simulate a rocket launcher, let go and reported: "Elon Moreh is gone!"
Weizman was mistaken. In the three decades that have passed, more than 100 settlements have gone up in the West Bank, and hundreds of thousands of people have inhabited them. But Weizman was also right: The illusion of establishing facts on the ground - as a means of implementing an Israeli move that does not take the great powers into account - is just that, an illusion. And it depends on changing circumstances, the most important of which is the level of American support.
When U.S. Army generals who are usually friendly toward Israel appear in Congress and criticize a diplomatic stalemate that is augmenting Arab anger and thwarting efforts in other vital parts of the region - the settlers can make light of it and reiterate their trust in Divine Providence. However, a defense minister, a chief of staff and, generally, a prime minister are not permitted to do so.
During those 31 years, Muslim regimes, armies, leaders and organizations from Tehran to Baghdad to Kabul and back have become the principal enemies of the United States. The Middle East, which used to be a side entrance to the central arena of the Cold War - Europe - has taken center stage.
In the updated edition of the story, Israel - formerly Uncle Sam's small and courageous niece, fighting a war of survival against Arab countries that refused to accept its existence, and which were supported by the Soviet Union militarily and politically - is now greedy for territories and refusing peace, at least as compared to the Palestinian people, which is prepared to coexist with it. When that is the narrative, Israel does not receive American support, and without it, with only minor effort, the 2002 Arab peace initiative could, for example, become a binding decision of the United Nations Security Council.
Fifteen months ago prime ministerial hopeful Benjamin Netanyahu and his group of chamberlains mocked the warning that the Israeli electorate was facing the alternative of "Obama or Bibi," and made a serious mistake by voting him in. The American dog is tired of being wagged by the Israeli tail. And the dog doesn't care if the tail is not its own master, or is also being wagged by the tip of the settlers' tail.
The Americans have national interests that sometimes contradict those of a specific group or sector: Not everything that North Dakota wants accords with the overall perspective, and the same is true of Florida, also known as Israel. There is only limited room for emotions.
Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, for which (and for its competitor, Boeing) presidents are willing to declare all-out war against European industries, sustained a series of stinging slaps in the face when it did not meet the agreed-upon date and budget for development of the F-35 fighter plane. The heads of the Pentagon themselves are not immune when they get in the way of American interests: Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, who charmed president George W. Bush for six years, was sent home when he became a burden instead of an asset.
Those are the rules of the game in America, one of whose important players is the armed forces. They are subordinate to two masters: the president, who commands them via the secretary of defense, and Congress, which provides budgets and approves, rejects or delays appointments. Last week, as the Netanyahu-Obama crisis was heating up, there were frequent reports regarding reservations about Israel on the part of the U.S. Army's top brass. The reports were true but not totally precise. There are no reservations about the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. There are definitely reservations about the policy of the Netanyahu government.
On the table
In the American system there is not much need for leaks. Almost everything is on the table - in lectures, media interviews and especially in hearings before the committees of the two houses of Congress. In recent weeks, as happens every March, all the most senior army officers appear before committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Their testimonies are carefully worded and approved by the responsible echelons so that there will be no slips of the tongue. There are also questions and answers, but the main part of the report is prepared in advance, is available to the public and is subjected to examination.
The three most important officers, from Israel's perspective, are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen; the commander of CENTCOM - Central Command, whose bailiwick includes Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, among others - Gen. David Petraeus; and the commander of NATO forces and EUCOM - the European Command - Adm. James Stavridis. They do not bring a uniform message, by dint of their differing responsibilities, but they are all very familiar to the IDF senior command. All of them, say their long-time acquaintances and interlocutors, are friendly and know what's going on. As we have said: They are friendly to the IDF and to Israel, but not necessarily to the Netanyahu government.
The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the most political appointment in the U.S. armed forces - a shock absorber, translator, mediator and compromiser between civilians who were elected (or appointed by elected officials) and the professionals in uniform. If it is very important to President Barack Obama, as the representative of the Democratic Party, including all its minorities and sectors, that gays serve openly in the army, it suddenly turns out that Adm. Mullen also sees the advantages of that. That being said, he must limit himself to expressing an opinion, but cannot force his viewpoint on his colleagues in the top military echelon, such as the commandant of the Marines.
Mullen is supposed to end his four-year term in September 2011. Recently, he explained his philosophy, which supports the use of military force not as a last resort, but as a first and even optimal means of demonstrating presence, shoring up diplomacy, providing deterrence and, if the need arises, launching a swift attack, because the immediacy of response also contributes to deterrence. The lessons Mullen has learned from his work in the Bush and Obama administrations is that there is a need for integrated diplomatic and military activity among the branches of the armed forces, organizations and nations. As opposed to the recommendation of one of his predecessors, Colin Powell, Mullen avers that the military "must not try to use force only in an overwhelming capacity, but in the proper capacity, and in a precise and principled manner."
He has also said that "the battlefield isn't necessarily a field anymore. It's in the minds of the people" - for example, in Afghanistan, but also at home, in America. "We will win, but we will do so only over time and only after near-constant reassessment and readjustment," Mullen has said. "Quite frankly, it will feel a lot less like a knockout punch and a lot more like recovering from a long illness."
Mullen comes from the navy, his predecessor Peter Pace from the Marines, and Pace's predecessor as joint chief chair, Gen. Richard Myers, from the air force. It will be natural for the next chairman to represent the ground forces, which contribute most of the soldiers (and suffer the most casualties) to Iraq and Afghanistan. The most prominent candidate, if he wants the job, will be Petraeus.
Israel, along with the West Bank and Gaza, is the only country in the Middle East that is in EUCOM instead of CENTCOM. In his recent congressional testimony, Stavridis waxed lyrical about relations with the IDF: Each year, there are more than 500 instances of security cooperation, and also eight maneuvers; every two years, there are bilateral conferences on issues of planning, logistics, training and operational integration. As for activity in Israel, he reported, the U.S. has 1,000 soldiers at risk in the radar installation in the Negev. Stavridis repeatedly said that the ties between the commanders and personnel of EUCOM and their counterparts in the IDF are strong, personal, direct. He noted that deploying the powerful U.S. radar on Israel Air Force bases in the Negev, in order to identify the launching of rockets, has brought about an impressive increase in the contacts of both commanders and activators. For Stavridis there are no Arabs; he dismissed the problems of Israel's relations with its neighbors with a laconic and noncommittal sentence.
Petraeus' concerns
What doesn't much bother Stavridis is a source of great concern to Petraeus, whose area of responsibility includes six sectors that affect one another: Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (although India belongs to PACOM, the Pacific Command), Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, "Egypt and the Levant," Central Asia. Petraeus is not pleased with the failure to include the areas bordering on Egypt and Jordan in CENTCOM, but it is not practical at present to separate them from Israel. Where, exactly, would the line be drawn? And which command would be responsible for East Jerusalem?
Petraeus' testimony in the Senate and House committees this week included firm statements decrying the lack of progress in solving Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians and the Syrians. The negative consequences of the ongoing lack of peace include the unwillingness of governments and populations in Arab countries to tighten cooperation with the Americans, the weakening of moderate regimes, and the increase in Iran's ability to undermine stability in the region. This it can do directly, if it is successful in acquiring nuclear weapons and also by the activity of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, and also indirectly, through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. The diplomatic freeze, which Muslims see as stemming from America's preferring Israel to the Arabs, also fuels Al-Qaida's efforts at recruiting new members and carrying out terror attacks.
A brief examination indicates that Petraeus, who holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University, repeated the same words he used in his testimony last April. What was different was their place in his comments, having moved from the bottom of the list of leading threats to American interests in the region to the top of the list. The tone in which he delivered his remarks was also different: Eleven months ago, they were characterized by the hope that it was possible to energize the negotiations in the Israel-Palestinian and Jerusalem-Damascus channels, with the mediation of George Mitchell. That hope has now faded to despair.
Only one year separates the two congressional appearances by Petraeus - but it has been a wasted and foolish year for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and their government.
An Israeli tail wagging an American dog - Haaretz - Israel News
