http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/04/as-iraqs-protests-grow-so-do-calls-for-maliki-to-resign/
Fueling those calls are thousands of Sunni protesters in Western Iraq, who are condemning Maliki for his consolidation of power and his persecution of Sunni Arabs, including members of his own “grand coalition.”
Diskin slammed Netanyahu in an interview, saying that he had become “unreliable” and was too obsessed with starting a war with Iran. He insisted Netanyahu had squandered several chances for peace with the Palestinians because he was over-focused on starting a war.
As Iraq’s Protests Grow, So Do Calls for Maliki to Resign
Iraqiya Leaders Urge Early Elections
by Jason Ditz, January 04, 2013
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s second term in office came as a result of a US-ordered compromise government after his party came in second place in the 2010 elections. It wasn’t expected to last at the time, and indeed the calls for Maliki’s resignation and early elections to be scheduled have grown dramatically.
Fueling those calls are thousands of Sunni protesters in Western Iraq, who are condemning Maliki for his consolidation of power and his persecution of Sunni Arabs, including members of his own “grand coalition.”
But the chorus is also including much of the Iraqiya Party, the secular bloc which most of the Sunni politicians belong to, and both Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq say that the current government has run its course and needs to be dissolved.
Iraqiya actually has more seats than Maliki’s State of Law Party, and could likely muster the votes to discuss early elections without any help. Both the Iraqi National Alliance, run by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Kurdistan Alliance blocs would likely support such a move as well.
The biggest roadblock is Maliki’s centralization itself, as he had made himself not only Prime Minister, but Defense Minister, Chief of Army Staff, Interior Minister, Security Affairs Minister, and head of the national police force. This has given him direct control of materially the entire Iraqi military, and he has shown a willingness to use it to get what he wants. Though Iraq’s Constitution clearly makes early elections a possibility, Maliki’s own designs on unfettered power could make it difficult to translate that into a real vote.
and...
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-true-legacy-of-bushs-war-in-iraq-breeding-generations-of-al-qaeda/
The True Legacy of Bush’s War in Iraq: Breeding Generations of Al-Qaeda
John Glaser, January 04, 2013
In the US foreign policy community, one major legacy of George W. Bush’s war in Iraq is that it gave Iraq to the Shiites and thus to Iran. There is some focus on the fact that the administration lied the country into war, and almost none on the fact that this led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and unimaginable suffering for millions of Iraqis. Among the “foreign policy community,” the geo-political legacy is that the war was a gift to Iran, which no longer faces a neighboring nemesis and is exponentially better positioned for the regional dominance it seeks.
That is true, and it was a massive strategic blunder for policymakers in Washington aiming to maintain regional hegemony over the Middle East. But a better illustration of the war’s legacy is what is going on in Syria right now: al-Qaeda jihadists, bred in the wake of the American invasion and who flooded to Iraq to fight the Crusaders, are now an actual entity that has flooded over the border into Syria to fight the next holy war. The fact that the Syrian rebels are largely made up of extremists is one of the major factors persuading Washington not to intervene militarily.
Al-Qaeda in Syria (formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq) is preventing what would probably be a par for the course humanitarian intervention against the Assad regime and making the prospect of terrorist rebels sacking Damascus and rising to political power a dangerous reality. That should be considered by the elite foreign policy community to be at least as big a geo-strategic loss as Iran’s new regional stature.
The huge spectacle and sheer enormity of the terror of 9/11 has helped reinforce an illusion about al-Qaeda at that time. Despite what the greatest terrorist attack on US soil in American history would seem to indicate, they were a small group, marginalized everywhere they went. They were a small group of extremists peculiarly obsessed with US military troops in Saudi Arabia. They used Israel-Palestine, resentment towards US-supported dictators and the sanctions-enabled genocide in Iraq to excite the Muslim masses to their cause, but nobody rose up like they’d hoped.
And then Iraq happened. The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on Trends in Global Terrorism said that the Iraq war was “breeding deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” The former head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center Robert Grenier said the war “has convinced many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam and is attacking Muslims, and they have become jihadists as a result of their experience in Iraq.”
Bush’s maniacal foreign policy gave global appeal to al-Qaeda’s militant anti-US brand. And now the US is faced with several independent off-shoots that draw inspiration from the comparatively small original clan. There is al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, many of whose members fought the rebel war in Libya and were themselves veteran jihadis in Iraq. Groups in Syria like Jabhat al-Nusra, which the US State Department last month officially designated a Global Terrorist organization, identifying the group as an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which according to Washington has coordinated at least a few attempted attacks on the US.
Now, President Obama’s so-called “counter-terrorism” policies have been equally counterproductive. His surge in Afghanistan, his relentless secret drone war inPakistan and Yemen, his shortsighted intervention in Libya, and his limited backing ofSyrian rebels have all contributed to the bolstering of al-Qaead groups.
But there is not enough emphasis on Bush’s contributions here, specifically the extent to which the Iraq war contributed. That legacy is not just the strategic blunder of an unnecessary war that failed to yield sufficient geo-political gains. It is one of creating an entirely new and larger generation of al-Qaeda terrorists.
Israel election could be a tighter race than expected.......
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/04/israeli-ex-spy-chief-netanyahu-too-focused-on-iran-war-for-leadership-position/
Israeli Ex-Spy Chief: Netanyahu Too Focused on Iran War for Leadership Position
Insists Netanyahu 'Squandered' Chances for Peace With Palestinians
by Jason Ditz, January 04, 2013
With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu already coming under attack from several angles in the final weeks of campaign season, former Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, an oft-vocal critic of Netanyahu’s has stepped up to blast him on his foreign policy.
Diskin slammed Netanyahu in an interview, saying that he had become “unreliable” and was too obsessed with starting a war with Iran. He insisted Netanyahu had squandered several chances for peace with the Palestinians because he was over-focused on starting a war.
“There is a crisis of leadership here, a crisis of values and total contempt for the public,” Diskin said, adding that “people will think I’m exaggerating, but I’m telling you: from up close it looks even worse.”
Diskin was one of several former security officials who spoke out against the calls for war earlier in 2012, an effort which at the time had Likud officials discussing a new law to muzzle former security officials from speaking against upcoming wars the current government seeks to start.
and more evidence Likud is in some degree of trouble....
http://www.debka.com/article/22660/Likud-loses-ground-over-Netanyahu%E2%80%99s-fuzzy-security-messages
Likud loses ground over Netanyahu’s fuzzy security messages
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis January 5, 2013, 11:33 AM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Israeli elections 
Iran nuclear Hizballah chemical weapons Gaza operation Binyamin Netanyahu Barack Obama
Iran nuclear Hizballah chemical weapons Gaza operation Binyamin Netanyahu Barack Obama
Netanyahyu challenged by Tzipi Livni, Shelly Yacimovitch
Likud’s chief asset, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, may also be said to be its chief liability. While unchallenged as preferred prime minister in every opinion poll 17 days before Israel’s general election, his party – the joint Likud-Yisrael Beitenu ticket – is on a downward slide (34) from its first 47-seat rating.
Netanyahu’s secretiveness and ambiguity on security and peace, issues which in the last reckoning determine the outcome of Israeli elections and fate of its politicians, are leaving his party unarmed against savage opposition tactics and dividing his own camp.
While keeping his undoubted achievements in these fields under his hat, his mistakes and shortcomings are hard to miss.
Five months ago, Netanyahu was perceived as suddenly backing off plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program, after declaring for years that a nuclear-armed Iran was the most dangerous threat facing Israel. What happened was that on Sept. 5, he abruptly closed a meeting of the security-diplomatic cabinet on Iran without explanation, except for throwing in their faces that no forum competent to make policy on Iran was safe from press leaks.
For most of the country, Netanyahu lost points by failing to go through with this long-held resolve. His cartoon presentation of Israel’s “red lines” at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 27 did not change that perception. He spoke of postponing until “late spring or early summer” an action vital to Israel’s security - apparently in deference to Washington and out of consideration for Barack Obama’s campaign for reelection.
Then, after months of silence, on Thursday Jan. 3, the prime minister stood up before a gathering of Israel’s envoys in world capitals to inform them, “Iran is still our No. 1 threat. I have set out our red line and Iran has not yet crossed it. Our commitment was and is to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Those words had the same ring as sentiments heard from the US president. Common to both is their distance from the facts.
In recent months, Iran has developed a strategy for sidestepping “red lines” on quantities of 20-percent enriched uranium by periodically announcing the suspension of the process or the diversion of stocks to “medical research.”This strategy passed unchallenged although it should have been for four reasons:
While keeping his undoubted achievements in these fields under his hat, his mistakes and shortcomings are hard to miss.
Five months ago, Netanyahu was perceived as suddenly backing off plans to attack Iran’s nuclear program, after declaring for years that a nuclear-armed Iran was the most dangerous threat facing Israel. What happened was that on Sept. 5, he abruptly closed a meeting of the security-diplomatic cabinet on Iran without explanation, except for throwing in their faces that no forum competent to make policy on Iran was safe from press leaks.
For most of the country, Netanyahu lost points by failing to go through with this long-held resolve. His cartoon presentation of Israel’s “red lines” at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 27 did not change that perception. He spoke of postponing until “late spring or early summer” an action vital to Israel’s security - apparently in deference to Washington and out of consideration for Barack Obama’s campaign for reelection.
Then, after months of silence, on Thursday Jan. 3, the prime minister stood up before a gathering of Israel’s envoys in world capitals to inform them, “Iran is still our No. 1 threat. I have set out our red line and Iran has not yet crossed it. Our commitment was and is to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Those words had the same ring as sentiments heard from the US president. Common to both is their distance from the facts.
In recent months, Iran has developed a strategy for sidestepping “red lines” on quantities of 20-percent enriched uranium by periodically announcing the suspension of the process or the diversion of stocks to “medical research.”This strategy passed unchallenged although it should have been for four reasons:
1. The amounts of fissile material claimed by Tehran are unverifiable by Israeli or Western intelligence - or even the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
2. The interminable wrangling between Iran and the world powers over amounts of medium-grade enriched uranium deemed sufficient for a bomb is no longer relevant because Tehran's consent to “negotiations” with world powers has bought Iran time to acquire the knowhow for assembling nuclear weapons and making them operational. A few kilos of enriched uranium lacking here or there are easily obtainable, either by domestic production or foreign acquisitions. Netanyahu’s graphic red lines, effective at the time, have been overtaken by events.
3. And his five-month silence has persuaded Iran’s rulers that they no longer need fear an Israeli military strike on their nuclear sites.
4. Iran has used those months free of international harassment and Israeli thunder for giant steps toward developing plutonium-based weapons. Netanyahu’s boast that he placed the Iranian nuclear menace at the forefront of the world's platform has had its downside: As the preamble to lay the ground for a proactive military policy, it was effective; however the gap between rhetoric and inaction has harmed Israel’s credibility and damaged its strategic deterrence.
2. The interminable wrangling between Iran and the world powers over amounts of medium-grade enriched uranium deemed sufficient for a bomb is no longer relevant because Tehran's consent to “negotiations” with world powers has bought Iran time to acquire the knowhow for assembling nuclear weapons and making them operational. A few kilos of enriched uranium lacking here or there are easily obtainable, either by domestic production or foreign acquisitions. Netanyahu’s graphic red lines, effective at the time, have been overtaken by events.
3. And his five-month silence has persuaded Iran’s rulers that they no longer need fear an Israeli military strike on their nuclear sites.
4. Iran has used those months free of international harassment and Israeli thunder for giant steps toward developing plutonium-based weapons. Netanyahu’s boast that he placed the Iranian nuclear menace at the forefront of the world's platform has had its downside: As the preamble to lay the ground for a proactive military policy, it was effective; however the gap between rhetoric and inaction has harmed Israel’s credibility and damaged its strategic deterrence.
The same credibility gap is marked on the question of Syria’s chemical weapons and Hizballah. Prime Minister Netanyahu, his ministers and diplomats, have repeatedly pledged Israel would take steps to prevent unconventional weapons reaching terrorist hands, including the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah often declares his rockets can reach every corner of Israel - “from Kiryat Shemone to Eilat!”
A year ago, in January 2012, a number of Western and Arab sources confirmed that Syrian ruler Bashar Assad had transferred a portion of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hizballah strongholds in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley and Hizballah units had trained in their use.
Last month, the Defense Ministry’s political coordinator, Amos Gilad, firmly asserted that Syria’s chemical weapons were “under control.” But this did not amount to a denial that those unconventional weapons had come under the joint logistical control of Iran, Syria and Hizballah.
It is possible that Netanyahu has opted in some to degree to follow Obama’s lead on security matters with regard to Iran, Syria and Hizballah and Hamas. Even then, he needs to do a better job of offering consistency to the Israeli voter. Instead, he offers silence or, at best, hazy, general messages that perplex the voter and keeps his own party in turmoil.
On the one hand, he incurred popular resentment for keeping 50,000 army reservists hanging around for nothing in the November anti-terror Gaza operation. But on the other, his government and party are not cashing in on the credit for the weeks of total calm on the Gaza front since Nov. 21 – the first time Hamas has honored a ceasefire in a decade.Neither is he coming clean on the three additional advantages gained by working with Obama and his collaborators, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, to negotiate that ceasefire. They could give his party's election campaign a badly needed shot in the arm.
A year ago, in January 2012, a number of Western and Arab sources confirmed that Syrian ruler Bashar Assad had transferred a portion of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hizballah strongholds in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley and Hizballah units had trained in their use.
Last month, the Defense Ministry’s political coordinator, Amos Gilad, firmly asserted that Syria’s chemical weapons were “under control.” But this did not amount to a denial that those unconventional weapons had come under the joint logistical control of Iran, Syria and Hizballah.
It is possible that Netanyahu has opted in some to degree to follow Obama’s lead on security matters with regard to Iran, Syria and Hizballah and Hamas. Even then, he needs to do a better job of offering consistency to the Israeli voter. Instead, he offers silence or, at best, hazy, general messages that perplex the voter and keeps his own party in turmoil.
On the one hand, he incurred popular resentment for keeping 50,000 army reservists hanging around for nothing in the November anti-terror Gaza operation. But on the other, his government and party are not cashing in on the credit for the weeks of total calm on the Gaza front since Nov. 21 – the first time Hamas has honored a ceasefire in a decade.Neither is he coming clean on the three additional advantages gained by working with Obama and his collaborators, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, to negotiate that ceasefire. They could give his party's election campaign a badly needed shot in the arm.
One is the improvement in relations with Turkey’s Erdogan government after years of acrimony. It came out of Israel’s consent to support the US president's venture to combine those three nations - plus the Palestinian Hamas - into a new pro-American Sunni Muslim axis. Netanyahu agreed to modify Israel's attitude on Hamas in a gamble for the prizes of rapprochement with Ankara and the stabilization of ties with Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt.
Reading this map, the Palestinian Authority, under its Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, is stirring up unrest on the West Bank as a reminder to Washington and Jerusalem of his existence.
Although when he met the ambassadors in Jerusalem, Netanyahu spoke of the danger of Hamas seizing control of the West Bank like the Gaza Strip in 2007, this was contradicted by his decision to step back from vanquishing Hamas in the November operation. And last week, he opened the Gaza crossing points to supplies of building materials for the first time in six years as well as cash.
The prime minister has a long way to go to bring his right-of-center party around to a policy that embraces Hamas – even though it would help stave off opposition accusations that Israel is diplomatically isolated. Although he has invested considerable effort in thawing the iced-over peace process with the Palestinians, he is constrained from placing this squarely on the party platform because it would not gain a consensus.
All the opinion polls, show that, contrary to left-of-center opposition rhetoric, a majority of Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas, as partners for negotiations or for peaceful coexistence. Neither do most Israelis subscribe to the international condemnation of Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening Jerusalem and the settlement blocs on the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.
The Israeli voter tends to judge every step taken by the government in terms of his and his family's personal and financial security.
By keeping the voter in the dark, he is hurting the electoral prospects of hiss Likud-Israel Beitenu as a party. And by aligning too closely with Obama on Iran and the Middle East, he is causing the more extreme factions of his party to cross the lines to the religious nationalist Habayit Hayehudi and its new leader, Naftali Bennett. There, they find a clearly-articulated platform calling for independent Israeli stances on the core issues of security, peace with the Palestinians, borders and Jewish settlements.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the left-of-center opposition parties accuse Netanyahu and Lieberman of extreme right-wing pro-war policies that threaten the country with disaster. Their campaign is turning increasingly savage and personalized rather than issue-oriented. Even though the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance is declining in the Polls (down ten seats to 34 in the 120-member Knesset since November), its rivals are battering their heads against the solid support Binyamin Netanyahu enjoys (43+ percent) as favorite for prime minister.The contrast between the declining popularity of Netanyahu’s party and his leadership rating is striking.
All the opinion polls, show that, contrary to left-of-center opposition rhetoric, a majority of Israelis don't trust the Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas, as partners for negotiations or for peaceful coexistence. Neither do most Israelis subscribe to the international condemnation of Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening Jerusalem and the settlement blocs on the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.
The Israeli voter tends to judge every step taken by the government in terms of his and his family's personal and financial security.
By keeping the voter in the dark, he is hurting the electoral prospects of hiss Likud-Israel Beitenu as a party. And by aligning too closely with Obama on Iran and the Middle East, he is causing the more extreme factions of his party to cross the lines to the religious nationalist Habayit Hayehudi and its new leader, Naftali Bennett. There, they find a clearly-articulated platform calling for independent Israeli stances on the core issues of security, peace with the Palestinians, borders and Jewish settlements.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the left-of-center opposition parties accuse Netanyahu and Lieberman of extreme right-wing pro-war policies that threaten the country with disaster. Their campaign is turning increasingly savage and personalized rather than issue-oriented. Even though the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance is declining in the Polls (down ten seats to 34 in the 120-member Knesset since November), its rivals are battering their heads against the solid support Binyamin Netanyahu enjoys (43+ percent) as favorite for prime minister.The contrast between the declining popularity of Netanyahu’s party and his leadership rating is striking.
The Likud bloc is followed by Shelly Yacimovitch’s Labor (16 seats), Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi (14), ultra-religious Shas and the new Yesh Atid (Future) – 11 each; Hatenua founded by former foreign minister Tzipi Livni come next with 10 seats.
Friday night, Jan. 4, Livni publicly exhorted Labor and Future leaders to join forces for building a front to prevent Netanyahu from forming the next government after the Jan. 22 election. Pundits estimate that if Hatnua, Labor and Future leaders do manage to forge a common platform, they can count on around 40 Knesset seats compared with the right-of-center bloc’s 51. However, the multiplicity of Israeli parties means that no single grouping has ever achieved a parliamentary majority without coalition partners. This situation makes for extreme mobility between the various blocs when the time comes to build a government.
Friday night, Jan. 4, Livni publicly exhorted Labor and Future leaders to join forces for building a front to prevent Netanyahu from forming the next government after the Jan. 22 election. Pundits estimate that if Hatnua, Labor and Future leaders do manage to forge a common platform, they can count on around 40 Knesset seats compared with the right-of-center bloc’s 51. However, the multiplicity of Israeli parties means that no single grouping has ever achieved a parliamentary majority without coalition partners. This situation makes for extreme mobility between the various blocs when the time comes to build a government.
and Netanyahu and Likud face problems with influence in DC as Obama seems determined to challenge Israel and its US Lobby by appointing Hagel at Defense....
http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2013/01/04/major-test-for-israel-lobby-as-obama-leans-to-hagel-for-pentagon/
Major Test for Israel Lobby As Obama Leans to Hagel for Pentagon
by Jim Lobe, January 05, 2013
WASHINGTON, Jan 5 2013 (IPS) - With President Barack Obama reportedly primed to nominate former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon early next week, the powerful Israel lobby, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), faces a major dilemma.
If it mounts a vigorous campaign to fight Hagel’s confirmation by the Senate, it could put at serious risk its relations with the president, who is about to be inaugurated for another four-year term.
Worse, if it loses such a campaign, the aura of near-invincibility that it has assiduously cultivated over the past 30 years – and which has translated into virtually unanimous votes on resolutions in both houses of Congress in support of Israeli policies from the Occupied West Bank to Iran – will suffer a serious blow.
Yet, if it acquiesces in Hagel’s confirmation, it will result in the placement in a critical foreign policy post of a man who prides himself on his independence.
Hagel has expressed strong scepticism about – if not opposition to – war with Iran, and, despite a record of strong support for Israel’s defence needs, has not hesitated to publicly criticise both the Israeli government and its supporters here for pursuing actions that have, in his view, harmed Washington’s strategic interests in the Middle East.
“Hagel’s nomination presents AIPAC and other like-minded groups with a tough choice,” said Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and co-author of the 2007 “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” “They may not like his reasonable approach toward Iran and his willingness to speak the truth about certain Israeli policies, but he’s a decorated war hero who is hardly hostile to Israel.”
That Hagel will indeed be nominated has not been officially confirmed, and two possible alternatives – Deputy Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and former Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Michele Flournoy – have reportedly been fully vetted for the post. Both have served under the Obama and Clinton administrations and are considered accomplished technocrats who, however, lack Hagel’s political experience and stature.
But a number of highly placed sources and well-connected journalists have reported over the past 24 hours that the former Nebraska senator, who has co-chaired Obama’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board since 2009, remains the president’s preferred candidate despite a furious three-week campaign led by neo-conservatives, such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), to pre-empt his nomination.
Among other charges, Kristol, who also heads the far-right Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), Rubin, and other foes have accused Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, with anti-Semitism and hostility toward the Jewish state.
They have also tried to enlist – with some initial success that has subsequently dissipated – the gay community in their campaign by citing, among other things, his scepticism over easing the prohibition of gay enlistment in the military and his opposition to the nomination of an openly gay ambassador in the 1990s.
Hagel subsequently apologised, and both the ambassador and most LGBT organisations have accepted his apology.
While the neo-conservatives, whose political views are close to those of the ruling Likud Party and, in some cases, the settler movement, have led the anti-Hagel drive, the involvement of the more-cautious Israel lobby – which includes AIPAC and other major national Jewish organisations, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC) – not to mention numerous Christian Zionist groups, such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) – has been more discreet.
Early on, the long-time head of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, for example, called Hagel’s views on Israel “disturbing” but said his group would not necessarily oppose the nomination.
AIPAC itself has not commented on Hagel, although its former spokesman, Josh Block, who now heads The Israel Project (TIP) but remains close to AIPAC, has been among the most active participants in the campaign.
Despite also enlisting the support of the Washington Post’s editorial page, which also expressed concern over Hagel’s generally non-interventionist positions and support for cutting the defence budget, the no-holds-barred nature of the neo-conservative campaign has spurred a backlash.
It is particularly visible among Republicans who hail from the more-moderate, internationalist wing of the party most closely identified with Dwight Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush.
There is also resistance from retired senior military, intelligence, and foreign service officers who share a “realist” foreign policy perspective and oppose the kind of adventurism favoured by neo-conservatives, including Kristol, who led the charge into Iraq 10 years ago and are now beating the drums for war with Iran.
For example, four former national security advisers, including Brent Scowcroft (Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter), Gen. James Jones (Obama), and a former Reagan defence secretary, Frank Carlucci, as well as several former chiefs of the U.S. Central Command (CentCom) have signed letters in support of Hagel.
Many observers close to the Pentagon believe that Hagel’s views, particularly regarding the folly of attacking Iran and the damage inflicted by Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian lands on Washington’s strategic position in the Middle East, reflect those of much of the serving military brass.
Four former U.S. ambassadors to Israel have also backed his nomination, as has most recently Ryan Crocker, who was widely praised by neo-conservatives during his tenure as ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan and who has also served as Washington’s top envoy to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, and Pakistan.
The sharpness of the neo-conservative campaign – particularly its allegations that Hagel is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel – has evoked charges of McCarthyism from his defenders, adding to the discomfort of the Israel lobby’s main organisations. Even CUFI, sometimes described as more Zionist than the Jewish organisations, disassociated itself from some of the charges.
Thus far, only three Republican senators have said they will oppose Hagel if he is nominated, while several others who have traditionally been close to the lobby, including Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, have voiced strong reservations but refrained from committing themselves. Some Democrats have also quietly expressed concern.
But most observers believe that, if nominated, Hagel, who also heads the influential Atlantic Council think tank, will be confirmed by a solid – if not overwhelming – majority of senators. That makes the lobby’s position even more delicate.
During his two terms as senator, Hagel, a consistent conservative on social and domestic issues, was personally popular with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
“Americans are sick and tired of the smear tactics that Hagel’s main opponents have used, and going all-out against him would reveal that AIPAC cares more about Israel than it does about U.S. interests,” Walt told IPS. “Plus, why spend political capital on a former senator whose colleagues on the Hill are going to confirm him anyway?”
AIPAC and like-minded groups will no doubt be influenced by the views of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose right-wing coalition is favoured to win elections later this month.
The major U.S. Jewish organisations and AIPAC have historically given great weight to the policy preferences of Israel’s elected leadership, even as they have privately urged them to take a different course.
But for Netanyahu, who has been sharply criticised by retired senior officials of Israel’s national-security establishment for allegedly endangering the Jewish state’s strategic ties with the U.S. by repeatedly defying Obama, the stakes are also high.
If he is seen as backing any effort to defeat Hagel’s anticipated nomination, his ties with the White House – already tenuous given his scarcely veiled support for Mitt Romney in the November presidential campaign – will likely only worsen.
No comments:
Post a Comment