The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Had not seen this included in the other discussions of the Biden/Netanyahu flap.

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."

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

[uPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.

Israel didn't. When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.

[uPDATE 2--from Mark Perry: A senior military officer told Foreign Policy by email that one minor detail in my report, "The Petraeus Briefing" was incorrect: a request from General Petraeus for the Palestinian occupied territories (but, as I made clear, not Israel itself), be brought within CENTCOM's region of operation was sent to JCS Chairman Mullen - and not directly to the White House. My information was based on conversations with CENTCOM officials, who believed they were giving me correct information. It is significant that the correction was made, not because it is an important detail, but because it is was inconsequential to the overall narrative. In effect, the U.S. military has clearly said there was nothing in this report that could be denied.]

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

I was with you up to the italics. I don't think Joe Biden, (or the US Government) really cares that much about Palestinian rights, or they would have intervened a long time ago in a meaningful way. The US is only interested in stability in an unstable region.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I was with you up to the italics. I don't think Joe Biden, (or the US Government) really cares that much about Palestinian rights, or they would have intervened a long time ago in a meaningful way. The US is only interested in stability in an unstable region.

I don't think they care much about Palestinian rights either.

But that's not at all the point Petraeus is making. He's saying that the lack of progress toward a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a negative effect on American military efforts and American interests in the Middle East and East Asia.

As Petraeus testified before Congress today:

“Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

Or as Biden said to Netanyahu:

“What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

[Danno 1,228]

Pat also wrote a firecracker of a piece on this subject...... sure to anger some.

Israel Sandbags Its U.S. Poodle

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Actually, Joe set himself up. From the moment he set foot on Israeli soil, our vice president was in full pander mode.

First, he headed to Yad Vashem memorial, where he put on a yarmulke and declared Israel "a central bolt in our existence."

"For world Jewry," Joe went on, presumably including 5 million Americans, "Israel is the heart. ... Israel is the light. ... Israel is the hope."

Meeting Shimon Peres the next day, Joe confessed that when he first visited at age 29, "Israel captured my heart."

In Peres' guestbook, he wrote, "The bond between our two nations has been and remains unshakeable."

He then told Peres and the world, "There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."

As Peres spoke, Biden took notes. When Peres called him "a friend," Joe gushed, "It's good to be home."

Even at AIPAC, they must have been gagging.

Walking around the corner to Prime Minister Netanyahu's office, Joe called him by his nickname, "Bibi," declared him a "real" friend and said the U.S. relationship with Israel "has been and will continue to be the centerpiece of our policy."

Then the sandbag hit.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced construction of 1,600 new apartment units in Arab East Jerusalem. Stunned and humiliated, Biden issued a statement saying he "condemned" the decision.

He then retaliated by coming late to dinner at Bibi's house.

Netanyahu has apologized for the timing, but they are going ahead with the apartments. What are the Americans going to do about it? At this point, nothing but bluster.

Indeed, a day later, at Tel Aviv University, Joe was back at it: "[T]he U.S. has no better friend ... than Israel."

On his departure for Jordan, Ha'aretz reported that Israel plans to build 50,000 new homes in East Jerusalem over the next few years.

Biden may feel he was played for a fool, and Americans may feel jilted, but we got what grovelers deserve. And if we wish to understand why the Arabs who once respected us now seem contemptuous of us, consider that battered-spouse response to a public slap across the face.

Consider also the most remarkable statement of Biden's first 24 hours.

"Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel."

Biden is saying we are a more effective force for Mideast peace in a region where Arabs outnumber Israelis 50 to one if everyone knows we sing from the same song sheet as Israel and have no policy independent of Israel's.

How can America be seen as an honest broker between Arabs and Israelis if there is "no space" between America and Israel?

Even with the closest ally in our history, Britain in World War II, there was space between Winston Churchill and FDR on where to invade—North Africa, Italy, France, the Balkans?—whether to beat Stalin to Berlin, Prague and Vienna, who should be supreme allied commander, even whether the British Empire should survive.

Israel keeps its own interests foremost in mind, and when these dictate actions inimical to U.S. interests, Israel acts unilaterally. David Ben-Gurion did not seek Dwight Eisenhower's permission to attack Egypt in collusion with the French and British in 1956, enraging Ike.

Israel did not consult JFK on whether it could steal enriched uranium link from the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania for its atom bomb program.

Israel did not consult us on whether it could attack the USS Liberty in the Six-Day War, or suborn Jonathan Pollard to loot our security secrets, or transfer our weapons technology to China. They went ahead and did it, knowing the Americans would swallow hard and take it.

Ehud Olmert did not consult President-elect Obama on whether to launch a war on Gaza and kill 1,400 Palestinians. Nor did Netanyahu consult us before Mossad took down the Hamas minister in Dubai.

What Netanyahu and Yishai are telling Obama with their decision to keep building on occupied land is, "When it comes to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we decide, not you."

And if Netanyahu has jolted Joe and others out of their romantic reveries about Israel, good. At least now we no longer see as through a glass darkly.

Israeli and U.S. interests often run parallel, but they are not the same. Israel is concerned with a neighborhood. We are concerned with a world of 300 million Arabs and a billion Muslims. Our policies cannot be the same.

If they are, we will end up with all of Israel's enemies, who are legion, and only Israel's friends, who are few.

And if our policy and Israel's are one and the same, the Arab perception will be what it is today—that America cannot stand up to Israel, even when her national interests command it.

Joe's performance before he got the wet mitten across the face only underscored the point: The mighty superpower is a poodle of Israel.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Pat also wrote a firecracker of a piece on this subject...... sure to anger some.

Israel Sandbags Its U.S. Poodle

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Netanyahu has apologized for the timing, but they are going ahead with the apartments. What are the Americans going to do about it? At this point, nothing but bluster.

They could consider witholding the 2.5 billion dollar military aid package that we send to Israel every year.

Israel keeps its own interests foremost in mind, and when these dictate actions inimical to U.S. interests, Israel acts unilaterally. David Ben-Gurion did not seek Dwight Eisenhower's permission to attack Egypt in collusion with the French and British in 1956, enraging Ike.

Israel did not consult JFK on whether it could steal enriched uranium link from the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania for its atom bomb program.

Israel did not consult us on whether it could attack the USS Liberty in the Six-Day War, or suborn Jonathan Pollard to loot our security secrets, or transfer our weapons technology to China. They went ahead and did it, knowing the Americans would swallow hard and take it.

Ehud Olmert did not consult President-elect Obama on whether to launch a war on Gaza and kill 1,400 Palestinians. Nor did Netanyahu consult us before Mossad took down the Hamas minister in Dubai.

What Netanyahu and Yishai are telling Obama with their decision to keep building on occupied land is, "When it comes to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we decide, not you."

And if Netanyahu has jolted Joe and others out of their romantic reveries about Israel, good. At least now we no longer see as through a glass darkly.

It pains me to agree with either Danno or Pat Buchanan, but on this subject I do. Israel has always done what was in its own interest. We can call them our closest ally til we are blue in the face, but that will not change anything. It is naive to expect a nation to act against its own interest.

[Danno 1,228]

They could consider witholding the 2.5 billion dollar military aid package that we send to Israel every year.

It pains me to agree with either Danno or Pat Buchanan, but on this subject I do. Israel has always done what was in its own interest. We can call them our closest ally til we are blue in the face, but that will not change anything. It is naive to expect a nation to act against its own interest.

What exactly are we getting for those 2.5 billion dollars?

Seriously is we are really "friends and partners", what do we receive back?

[SMOKE 1,426]

What exactly are we getting for those 2.5 billion dollars?

Seriously is we are really "friends and partners", what do we receive back?

a place to park equipment in the region

[scandal 951]

They used to call it "Linkage".

The concept that the Israel/Palestine dispute should be thought of as linked to the geopolitical issues of the greater Middle East as a whole. This was back in the early 90s, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, when the Bush Administration pushed the idea that one of the dividends of the "new world order" that resulted with the bloody nose they had given Saddam by pushing him out of Kuwait was a comprehensive regional peace agreement. Thus was born the Oslo process, the historic meeting of Arafat and Rabin in 1993 with Bill Clinton. Other regional powers, particularly Syria, were leaned on heavily to participate as well. The results were mixed, at best. Actually just about everyone, on all sides, thinks today that the Oslo process was a failure and led directly to the violence of the Second Intifada, the ongoing crackdowns in the territories, and the 2006 Lebanon War.

I never understood Linkage. I didn't understand it then, and I don't really understand it when Petraeus and others say such things now.

The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is tragic and should be resolved equitably. I am a proponent of that. Both sides have legitimate grievances, both should be accommodated. Both will need to make difficult compromises.

Their dispute influences others in the region, and is influenced by them. That's a natural consequence of being "in the region". But that's a far cry from saying that it's a dominant factor in the other troubles plaguing the Middle East.

Let's say for a moment Israel and Palestine did not exist. Take them out of the equation. Do the mullahs in Iran moderate their stance? Do the Saudis become more moderate? Do India and Pakistan stand down on Kashmir? Do Syria and Lebanon resolve their longstanding tensions? Do Kurds and Arabs resolve their disputes in northern Iraq? Do Sunnis and Shiites reconcile in Iraq? Do Turks and Kurds and Armenians overcome their historic animosity? Do Muslims throughout the region accept Christian Arabs and desist from persecuting them?

In short - the Middle East is a troubled region, and would be troubled without Israel being an excuse. America would continue to have vital interests there - due to oil if nothing else. And so America would find itself dealing with difficult regimes and anti-Western populations in any event. Israel is an excuse that the despots and the Arab media like to point to for all that is wrong in their own countries. It's a nice deflection and it works well to pacify their local populations. However it's simply not true.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

They used to call it "Linkage".

The concept that the Israel/Palestine dispute should be thought of as linked to the geopolitical issues of the greater Middle East as a whole. This was back in the early 90s, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, when the Bush Administration pushed the idea that one of the dividends of the "new world order" that resulted with the bloody nose they had given Saddam by pushing him out of Kuwait was a comprehensive regional peace agreement. Thus was born the Oslo process, the historic meeting of Arafat and Rabin in 1993 with Bill Clinton. Other regional powers, particularly Syria, were leaned on heavily to participate as well. The results were mixed, at best. Actually just about everyone, on all sides, thinks today that the Oslo process was a failure and led directly to the violence of the Second Intifada, the ongoing crackdowns in the territories, and the 2006 Lebanon War.

I never understood Linkage. I didn't understand it then, and I don't really understand it when Petraeus and others say such things now.

The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is tragic and should be resolved equitably. I am a proponent of that. Both sides have legitimate grievances, both should be accommodated. Both will need to make difficult compromises.

Their dispute influences others in the region, and is influenced by them. That's a natural consequence of being "in the region". But that's a far cry from saying that it's a dominant factor in the other troubles plaguing the Middle East.

Let's say for a moment Israel and Palestine did not exist. Take them out of the equation. Do the mullahs in Iran moderate their stance? Do the Saudis become more moderate? Do India and Pakistan stand down on Kashmir? Do Syria and Lebanon resolve their longstanding tensions? Do Kurds and Arabs resolve their disputes in northern Iraq? Do Sunnis and Shiites reconcile in Iraq? Do Turks and Kurds and Armenians overcome their historic animosity? Do Muslims throughout the region accept Christian Arabs and desist from persecuting them?

In short - the Middle East is a troubled region, and would be troubled without Israel being an excuse. America would continue to have vital interests there - due to oil if nothing else. And so America would find itself dealing with difficult regimes and anti-Western populations in any event. Israel is an excuse that the despots and the Arab media like to point to for all that is wrong in their own countries. It's a nice deflection and it works well to pacify their local populations. However it's simply not true.

Petraeus is saying that the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undermining American military efforts and American interests in the region.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They used to call it "Linkage".

The concept that the Israel/Palestine dispute should be thought of as linked to the geopolitical issues of the greater Middle East as a whole. This was back in the early 90s, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, when the Bush Administration pushed the idea that one of the dividends of the "new world order" that resulted with the bloody nose they had given Saddam by pushing him out of Kuwait was a comprehensive regional peace agreement. Thus was born the Oslo process, the historic meeting of Arafat and Rabin in 1993 with Bill Clinton. Other regional powers, particularly Syria, were leaned on heavily to participate as well. The results were mixed, at best. Actually just about everyone, on all sides, thinks today that the Oslo process was a failure and led directly to the violence of the Second Intifada, the ongoing crackdowns in the territories, and the 2006 Lebanon War.

I never understood Linkage. I didn't understand it then, and I don't really understand it when Petraeus and others say such things now.

The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is tragic and should be resolved equitably. I am a proponent of that. Both sides have legitimate grievances, both should be accommodated. Both will need to make difficult compromises.

Their dispute influences others in the region, and is influenced by them. That's a natural consequence of being "in the region". But that's a far cry from saying that it's a dominant factor in the other troubles plaguing the Middle East.

Let's say for a moment Israel and Palestine did not exist. Take them out of the equation. Do the mullahs in Iran moderate their stance? Do the Saudis become more moderate? Do India and Pakistan stand down on Kashmir? Do Syria and Lebanon resolve their longstanding tensions? Do Kurds and Arabs resolve their disputes in northern Iraq? Do Sunnis and Shiites reconcile in Iraq? Do Turks and Kurds and Armenians overcome their historic animosity? Do Muslims throughout the region accept Christian Arabs and desist from persecuting them?

In short - the Middle East is a troubled region, and would be troubled without Israel being an excuse. America would continue to have vital interests there - due to oil if nothing else. And so America would find itself dealing with difficult regimes and anti-Western populations in any event. Israel is an excuse that the despots and the Arab media like to point to for all that is wrong in their own countries. It's a nice deflection and it works well to pacify their local populations. However it's simply not true.

How stable was the middle east prior to World War 1? (I see WWI as the turning point for the decline, 30 years before Israel)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How stable was the middle east prior to World War 1? (I see WWI as the turning point for the decline, 30 years before Israel)

It would be hard to ascribe "stability" to anything other than the dominance of the Turkish Army in the region. I don't think you suggesting that we should reestablish the Ottoman Empire.

Edited March 16, 2010 by ##########

[scandal 951]

Petraeus is saying that the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undermining American military efforts and American interests in the region.

Thank you. I can read. I believe I addressed this. The impact I can see of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on US efforts in the region is an indirect one, at best. It's an excuse used by despotic regimes and hostile forces (hostile to the US - al Quaida, Taliban, etc.) to incite anti-US passions. If the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was removed from the equation, those despotic regimes and hostile forces would simply find other ways to prop themselves up and justify their hostility. It's what they do.

[scandal 951]

How stable was the middle east prior to World War 1? (I see WWI as the turning point for the decline, 30 years before Israel)

How far back do you want to go? Mamalukes? Crusaders? Byzantines? Romans? Judeans? Philistines? Canaanites? Stability has never been a hallmark. Keep in mind that Israel sits at the geographic crossroads of the trading routes to the three continents of the Ancient world: Europe, Asia, Africa. There are strategic regions for military exploits there time and again.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well after say the 1300s to 1920's you don't see to many uprisings under the ottoman empire (exclude the Balkans).

Obviously the Ottoman Empire had some serious black marks on the scale of Nazi Germany but it shows you that the only way the Middle East can be at "peace" is under the hands of a single brutal empire.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Sousuke

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thank you. I can read.

Is this your first WOM run-in? Her past battles with mawilson are legendary. He emerged victorious and she went into exile. It appears she is now returning, albeit on a limited basis.