Military Trying to Lead the Politicians to Water
It's a disquieting thing, when one sees four-star general officers thinking that they need to be more proactive and outgoing about their advice on foreign policy and national security issues. It's not that they aren't smart people and don't have good ideas - far from it. They can be very clear thinkers, if not a little impatient with the pace of Beltway politics. For instance, we discover that General David Petraeus is suggesting to the White House that Israel's politics are endangering US military personnel and the chances of their success in stabilizing the region.
On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."
Without getting into a heated political discussion about Israel's aggressive and untempered national security policies, I'll just note two things. First, for someone to notice that Israel's behavior over the last decade has been unhelpful is not exactly a relevation. It's something that I noted in 2005, and as a commenter notes, retired General Zinni also noted. The road to stabilize Iraq and the Middle East region in general runs through Jerusalem, and until Congress stops letting AIPAC write US foreign policy, it's not going to get fixed.
Second, there was Petraeus's suggestion that Israel be placed within US Central Command's area of responsibility instead of within US European Command, as it has been for decades. He feels, as do others, that this is the logical thing to do, so one can tackle the larger thorny issue of Israeli-Arab relations instead of just managing military issues within the Arab/Persian countries. He's absolutely wrong, if only because the Israeli-Arab issue is intensely political and not (currently) a military issue. Life and death are seldom logical, even as one requires logic to attain a desired goal. It's certainly not an issue that a military officer, even a four-star, can attempt to solve within the three-to-four year term that one has as a combatant commander. Military affairs are subordinate to political strategy, and Petraeus oversteps his authority by suggesting this approach.
And while we're on the subject, other general officers who feel that the US government ought to keep combat troops in Iraq past August for the sake of stability operations ought to be more cognizant of the political overtones of that suggestion. For a culture who worships Clausewitz, it's as if they don't quite get the concept of military operations being an extension of politics. Sometimes it appears that our military leaders' grasp of national strategy is lacking. But then again, I suppose one could say that about political leaders, also.
Israels politics have been a huge stumbling block to Mid-east stability and a threat to US service men and women for decades. And it really doesn't have to be this way. Their hard right nutcases are every bit as dangerous as our hard right nutcases. If the people both here and there would wake the f*** up and quite letting them into power maybe something productive would get done for a change.
...that Petraeus overstepped his authority here. I was stationed at CENTCOM for three years so I have a good sense of what our mission was and it was mostly about military relations. It would make sense that Israel fall under CENTCOM for that purpose, since they are in the region. This would not be a case of military trying to dictate foreign policy in any way. It would be a joint effort in conjunction with State.
Petraeus is paid to make his concerns known to the president and he went through his chain of command (appropriately) in this case as he should have. I don't see anything untoward here.
One of the things that a military to military connection means is getting a sometimes very different perspective on what a country's leadership is thinking that doesn't necessarily come through the same way in more traditional State Department channels.
Yep, Gen Petraeus has the responsibility to advise and inform the president - through the SecDef and CJCS - on issues within his AOR. All for that. He can talk to Congress after clearing his statement with OSD legislative affairs, and should honestly answer questions as asked. All for that. Mil-to-mil relations are very important. Got it.
But Petraeus shouldn't assume that addressing Israel's problems along with all the Arab nations is either a military mission or possible in the short term. Until Israel gets a little more cooperative and not as prickly with all of its neighbors, it's hard to identify the pros in this solution.
I was surprised to find that Israel and the occupied territories are NOT considered part of the Middle East by the military, but instead are considered part of Europe.
That's insane. It's good they realize it and want to change it.
But it's crazy that it takes someone from the military to explain to our civilian leaders that Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians is a key factor in the unrest in the Middle East, and as such endangers the lives of American troops serving there.
This is just appalling.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Reading the article and all the information available one realises that Petraeus is not only right bu practical. The question is why is Sigger trying to discredit Petraeus and his suggestion? Whoever came up with the idea that Israel is part of Europe? Is of Petraeus prime jobs not one of advice to the President?
My take from this article is that Sigger is acting as a 5th columnist for the state of Israel by disinforming us and creating a dissent among the liberals against a sensible and belated advice by Petraeus to the President. Remember the recent European journalist who confessed to having been spying for Israel over the past decades.
I am about as far from an Israeli mole as one could be. If you go to my own blog and do a blogsearch in the Google box on "Israel," you'll see that I've been very critical of its actions over the past few years.
No, i just want to ensure that the military leadership doesn't get in front of civilian policy making. It may be that our politicians are not developing the right diplomatic approach to the Israel-Palestine problem, but moving Israel to CENTCOM will only exasperate things by putting the military in a position to try to coordinate Arab-Israeli affairs. Not their job.
The political firestorm that is Arab-Israeli affairs is best handled diplomatically, and that's why Israel was put in with EUCOM, so that the US military could support the Arab nations (see Middle East oil, protection of) without worrying about Israel's contradictory and problematic positions.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
For the better part of a generation we have been at the behest of the Israelis for everything we give and say. AIPAC runs the show as it were.
Is it a surprise that Netanyahu is thumbing his nose at us? He has campaigned on the same attitude. The issue is the settlements - the are unlawful and have already usurped 90& of all Palestinian lands since the 67 borders.
We are simply on the wrong side of this issue. We certainly should pull all our funding and should have 15 years ago. This may have been settled had we done just that.
Zionism is dying. A two state solution draws near.
Finkelstein and the ending of Zionist influence
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=25876...
Finkelstein on Israel and Palestine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MON2HL02mec
Finkelstein PWNS Dershowitz
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1899...
When Norman spoke at Brandeis University (a seriously Jewish school) he got 4 standing ovations. When Dershowitz spoke 2/3 of the students walked out immediately.
After spending many months of my life in the Middle East, I am glad to see that someone is FINALLY saying what we Soldiers have known for years: Israeli policy is killing us. I'm not anti-Israel (by any stretch of the imagination), but the hard Right owns Likud and is the 2nd most destructive force against peace in the past 25 years (Yassar Arafat was the most destructive).
As long as Israel believes that we will come to the rescue - even when they flip us off - then the behavior will not change. It took Bill Clinton's restriction of aid to force Arafat and Rabin to the peace table. Maybe Mr. Obama should use a similar tactic.
As long as the Israeli Government continues it's slow program of genocide against the Palestinians and our Government continues an alliance (more like an allegiance) with them while enabling this activity with military and financial aide, there will never be 'progress in resolving the issue'. Our Government is good at pointing it's finger at say, Iran, while it turns a blind eye to Israel. How many decades has this been going on? Why is this suddenly an issue? It seems, as usual, there is more to this than is actually being released. Maybe a big wrench has been dropped into the machinery of the status quo and it's gotten someone really nervous. The Israeli Government should have been cut off militarily and financially years ago. To them, our country is something to be used to do their dirty work.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
easier! But what I want to know is how can we change it as long as we have a senate and congress filled with greedy cock suckers that only care about getting elected and raking in biig bucks? The republicans and most of the democrats have helped the corporations destroy the economy so why should they give a damn about doing the right thing?
They are just exactly like their buddies on wallstreet, they knew they were doing the wrong thing they knew it was going to cause great problems but they only wanted to make all the money they could. No matter how many have to pay for their criminal actions.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
Damn, I guess we are going to have to watch "Lockup" reruns rather than exciting video of brown people getting blown to bits.
If you want to see just how controlled our mainstream TV media is, just watch the (non) reaction to these comments and others by administration leaders. I wonder if Wolf "AIPAC" Blitzer is ever going to interview Petraus again? I think he has officially become a non-person in the Beltway.
The more I have learned about what Israel has been doing to the Palestenians with our help, the more horrified I have been. Building settlements on land (recently!) stolen from them is actually pretty mild behavior compared to the status quo.
that the stubbornness of Netanyahu's political base in Israel is not helping anyone. To me the debacle that happened when Biden went to Israel to try to help the peace process is a sign that the Israeli government is not working in good faith with us or the Palestinians. They want peace supposedly but want to continue treating the Palestinians they way they do. Are the Palestinians supposed to love the Israelis for pushing them into tiny boxes of land and then trying to move into the very boxes themselves? The Israeli government demanding that the Palestinians make *all* the concessions with none from their side is just not productive.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
"They want peace supposedly"
No, I believe they have shown they don't countless times for several decades.
The situation will not end until they all annihilate eachother. Petreaus and the military brass know this, and I think this current pushback against the far-right in israel is an attempt to stamp out Israel's goal of bombing Iran.
Don't the republican religious right folks need success in Israel so they can rapture their asses off ? The US should just kneel down to whatever the RRR wants and let them fly away. Hopefully with that sort of bipartisanship they can move it up to next week.
Always hoping.
OT but if you are goihng to be one of the Raptured ones and have a pet you might want to look at this..
http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
So maybe this is why Hilary Clinton was so forceful (Relative to diplomacy. I would have told them to get fucked.) about the new settlements that Israel announce while Biden was there trying to pull something together. Maybe there are a lot more people in the U.S. government who are more than a little tired of Israel's bullshit and bullying.
What Israel doesn't understand is , if they don't solve the Problem with the palastinions , they can't join the rest of the Middle East to throttle Iran. Bulldozing home in the name of God just don't cut it with the rest of the world.
the 2 biggest problems we have in the Middle
East are oil dependance and our unconditional love for those biggots.
I'm so sick and tired of people on the left citing the opposition, let alone the military, as authoritative. The whole point of the exercise is that the civilians control the military and we will tell them exactly what they can and can't do. Too bad, it no longer is this way, but that's because we let idiots like John McShame pretend that the generals should be in charge.
Sigger seems to be using a volatile and sensitive subject as a springboard to General Petreaus’ supposed breach of civil-military relations. A careful reading of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 highlights that the general is doing exactly what he is mandated to do; make recommendations to the chain of command that affect military operations. Goldwater-Nichols lays the responsibility of military advice at the feet of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (CJCS) and that was where the briefing was delivered, not the White House. If the CJCS chooses to inform the President, the Secretary of Defense, or any member of the National Security Council, then that is his decision, not the combatant commander’s. Once informed by the CJCS, the President needs to make a decision. He can either accept, reject, or modify the recommendation as he sees fit based on the political situation. But, he needs the information (including the military assessment of the situation) to make an informed decision, and that is what General Petreaus was trying accomplish.
Comments are closed on this entry