The Obama Adminstration: Blaming Israel for the U.S. Fiasco in Afghanistan

How many times have we been told by both the extreme left and the extreme right that the United States waged both Gulf Wars against Iraq on Israel's behalf? Those who disseminate this perverse view would have us forget Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats against Saudi Arabia, which, had they gone unchallenged, would have brought American industry to a standstill.

In 2010 this canard has been "enhanced": Israel's refusal to make peace with the Palestinians is jeopardizing American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Let's leave that thought for a moment and examine another eye-opening, up close account from Afghanistan, written by Dexter Filkins and published on March 30 by The New York Times, entitled "Despite Doubt, Karzai Brother Retains Power":

"Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan, may maintain links with drug dealers and insurgents, as some American officials and Afghans believe. And he might have played a central role in last summer’s fraudulent presidential election, as Western diplomats charged.

But Mr. Karzai is also the brother of the Afghan president, Hamid. And after debating Ahmed Wali’s future for months — and with a huge military operation in the area looming — Afghan and American officials have decided that the president’s brother will be allowed to stay in place.

. . . .

Any decision about Ahmed Wali Karzai is complicated by his relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, which maintains a large presence in Kandahar. Current and former American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, say the agency has paid Ahmed Wali Karzai regularly for many years for performing a variety of services.

. . . .

But Western and Afghan officials say the president’s brother is engaged in many activities that buoy the insurgency and undermine the Afghan state. These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, strongly suggests that he enriches himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium.

. . . .

The official said that Ahmed Wali Karzai also laundered ill-gotten money for a host of figures in southern Afghanistan. “For a lot of people, including drug runners,” the Western official said.

Perhaps the most vivid example of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s reach came last August, when his brother sought re-election. According to Western diplomats in Kabul, he cut deals with insurgent groups to refrain from attacking polling stations, and then helped orchestrate a large-scale campaign of forging ballots on his brother’s behalf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31karzai.html?hp

In a nutshell, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. Excuse me, but why is the United States involved with this man? What is America possibly attempting to achieve on the ground in Afghanistan? Moreover, what does any of this primitive tribal confrontation have to do with distant Israel?

Fighting in Iraq subsequent to the Second Gulf War? We have seen a host of warring sects (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and "third parties" (al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria) attempt to exert their influence and direct the outcome of this chaos, but again, what does Israel have to do with it?

The past and current wars involving the various Arab countries and Iran have exacted an exponentially larger number of casualties than all of the combined Arab-Israeli conflicts. The enmity between Sunnis and Shiites (deemed heretics by the Sunnis) is a far greater threat to regional stability than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Why then are we now being told that Israel is the primary source of Middle East instability? Answer: Because this is indeed what the Obama administration believes.

Although the U.S. vice president's staff denies he made the comment, it has been reported that Biden alleged that Israel is jeopardizing U.S. troops:

“People who heard what Biden said [to Israeli officials behind closed doors] were stunned,” the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. “‘This is starting to get dangerous for us,’ Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘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.’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34300_Page2.html

Several days after the Biden imbroglio, the magazine Foreign Policy ran a story on its website saying that General Petraeus had sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

Next, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper asked David Axelrod twice whether “Israel’s intransigence on the housing issue put the lives of US troops at risk.” Axelrod said he wouldn’t put it in those terms, but given the opportunity, he refused to deny it.

General Petraeus, however, put the canard to rest. Speaking at St. Anselm College, he stated that the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations makes the situation for moderate Arab states "more challenging", but denied ever saying that the U.S.-Israel relationship places American soldiers at risk (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-israel-survive-obamas-reelection.html).

In short, although Obama and Hillary claim the U.S.-Israel relationship is "rock solid", it's not the case. Axelrod's evasive answer to Jake Tapper would lead anyone to believe that Israel is undermining the American effort in Afghanistan and jeopardizing the lives of U.S. soldiers.

But then what do you expect? Someone will ultimately need to be blamed for Obama's Afghan fiasco. Why not Israel?

Take the Middle East IQ Test: Are You Smarter Than Obama?

So you think you know a lot about the Middle East? Okay, today you're going to match wits with the patented, JG Caesarea, Middle East IQ Test in order to determine if you're smarter than President Obama. Ready for the first question? Here it comes:

What was the most significant event that transpired last week in the Middle East?

By any chance, was your initial thought: The announcement by the Jerusalem district planning commission to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem during U.S. Vice President Biden's visit to Israel? Sorry, but it's already a non-event, notwithstanding Ambassador Mike Oren's characterization of the occurrence as the biggest U.S./Israel crisis in the past 35 years. Had it not been for: 1) Netanyahu's failure to nip the problem in the bud (he obviously didn't take Leadership 101, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/leadership) and, 2) the decision of the boys from Chicago to milk this "crisis" for all it's worth in order to ring concessions from the Israelis, this non-event would have been yesterday's news. PR man Axelrod, however, sees Ramat Shlomo as an opportunity to squeeze the Israelis into being more amenable to Palestinian demands, but what Axelrod and friends still don't understand is that no matter what Israel is willing to concede, the graft-ridden Palestinian Authority is not ready to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

What else happened last week? On Saturday night, Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese Druze leader and head of the Progressive Socialist party, issued a formal apology to Syrian President Bashar Assad for past criticism of Bashar. Walid Jumblatt, whose father, Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt, was murdered by the Syrians in 1977 upon orders of Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad, and who for many years had been allied with Western-leaning politicians in Lebanon, is now suing for peace with the tyrannical Syrian regime:

"One of Syria’s harshest critics in Lebanon in the past, Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader MP Walid Jumblatt said Saturday his criticism of Syrian President Bashar Assad was 'improper' as he called for a new page in relations between the two countries.

Jumblatt’s harshest verbal attack against Assad came on February 14, 2007, in a speech marking former Premier Rafik Hariri’s assassination, calling the Syrian leader a 'snake' and a 'tyrant' and demanding revenge against him.

'These comments were improper, unfamiliar and unsuited to political ethics,' Jumblatt said in a live interview with Al-Jazeera satellite channel late Saturday.

. . . .

Jumblatt was a major figure of the March 14 alliance that led massive street protests to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon following Hariri’s assassination.

The Syrians pulled their army out of Lebanon in April 2005 ending nearly three decades of domination of their smaller neighbor. After the 2005 break with Damascus, Jumblatt became a staunch critic of Syria in Lebanon, calling for the overthrow of Assad’s regime and blaming Syria for the 1977 killing of his father."

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=112734

Jumblatt's overtures to Syria come on the heels of the December 2009 visit to Syria of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose father, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was assassinated in 2005 upon orders of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Following Obama's recent overtures to Damascus by way of appointment of a new ambassador to Syria, a post left vacant for five years following Rafik Hariri's assassination, both Saad Hariri and pragmatist Jumblatt now feel they have no choice other than to bow to a monster no longer to be kept in check by the U.S.

So what was the most significant piece of Middle East news last week? Yes, you're right, Jumblatt's apology to Assad, and indeed, you know more about the Middle East than Obama. What? I cheated and handed you the answer? I have news for you (something else that Obama and friends have yet to discover): As you should now know from the above, no one plays fair in the Middle East.

More patented, JG Caesarea, Middle East IQ Test questions to follow in the future.

Is Axelrod Nearing a Meltdown? The Interview that Should Never Have Been Given

If you haven't already done so, read "Message Maven Finds Fingers Pointing at Him", by Mark Leibovich of The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/us/politics/07axelrod.html?pagewanted=1&hp). Now let's dissect Leibovich's disturbing portrayal of Obama's closest aide:

- disheveled ("tie crooked", "mustard-stained sleeves);
- exhausted ["eyes droopy and looking more burdened than usual", "sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night)", “'I think he’s getting close to a burnout kind of thing'”];
- overweight and eating compulsively ["his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign)", "tearing into a five-inch corned beef sandwich on rye with a Flintstone-size turkey drumstick waiting on deck"];
- distanced from a troubled family ["separation from family (most back home in Chicago)", "his daughter’s long struggle with epilepsy, his father’s suicide and his wife’s bout with breast cancer"];
- miserable in his environment (“Typical Washington junk we have to deal with”, "has come to loathe what he calls 'the palace intrigue pathology of Washington'”, “'I know I’m not cut out for this town'”);
- intensely sensitive to criticism ("The president is deft at blocking out such noise [something I cannot do]"), "No one has taken the perceived failings of the administration more personally or shown the strain as plainly as Mr. Axelrod");
- infatuated with Obama (“'I love the guy,' he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice", "'He is very, very loyal, sometimes to a fault'”, "a swooning loyalist", "a ‘Moonie’”, “the guy who walks in front of the president with rose petals”);
- mired in a self-destructive mindset (“It’s just something you can’t do forever, or it will kill you”).

David Axelrod is plainly neither happy nor healthy, and we are witnessing a tragedy in the making, both personal and national.

A personal tragedy? Throughout the Leibovich article, we hear of failed messaging, with Axelrod cavalierly responding that he does "not give a flying fuck about what the peanut gallery thinks.” Axelrod obviously does, however, give a "flying fuck", yet this would-be tough guy needs to understand that he is not to blame for the Obama administration's failures. No one questions Axelrod's sincerity, but at issue now is performance, something, unlike messaging, which he cannot impact.

This is no longer a campaign. This is time to put up or shut up. Nothing has been accomplished - economy, health care or foreign relations - and it is fast becoming evident that nothing significant will be accomplished before the campaign for a second term begins. "Change" went out the window; it has proven illusory and false.

Axelrod was the messenger, and there is no need to shoot the messenger, or for the messenger to hold himself accountable. Axelrod is not to blame for anything beyond scripting the Obama campaign. The presidential liner, lacking navigation, is now adrift and headed for the bottom - by many accounts, second mate Rahm Emanuel is already running for the life rafts. Axelrod can now only look after the interests of his own family, and for failing to do so, he truly will be answerable.

A United States tragedy? This is Obama's closest adviser. He has no business exposing his weaknesses to the press. His sister should never have been allowed to comment on his obsession with the president. At stake is the viability of and respect commanded by the United States presidency. Obama is already perceived throughout the world as indecisive and incapable of leading. You don't like Washington, David Axelrod? You're right, it's cold, cruel, unforgiving and not meant for everyone. It's also no place for presidential aides who cannot maintain their physical and emotional demeanor. As long as you choose to remain Obama's number one aide, no self-pity, please. Do your job, maintain the dignity of the presidency, or get out now.

Motivation to Fight: Present in Iraq, Absent in Afghanistan

In "Afghanistan's Army", The New York Times editorial board today observes:

"Afghan soldiers get about $100 a month, a third of what some local warlords pay fighters, a major reason for desertion.

. . . .

Afghans won’t dare to turn against the Taliban until they know that they can trust their government to protect them rather than abuse them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05sat1.html?hp

Indeed, this is a very cogent argument why Obama's "surge" is destined for failure. In essence, the editorial board is acknowledging that in Afghanistan, fealty at least temporarily can be purchased by the highest bidder, and Afghans have no motivation to fight. Simply ensure that Afghans receive their paychecks and all will be well? Surely The Times editorial board jests. Israeli soldiers are paid little more than the amount paid to Afghan government forces, but they don't desert.

A pity that The Times editorial board is not taking the time to read their lead online item: "Similarities to Iraq Surge Plan Mask Risks in Afghanistan", written by David E. Sanger. According to this article:

"The Iraq surge worked in large part because there was powerful support in Anbar Province from the so-called Awakening, the movement by local Sunni tribes who rose up against extremists who were killing people, forcibly marrying local women and cutting off the hands of men who smoked in public. In Iraq, American officials believed that most leaders of a vigorous opposition, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, were foreigners.

The United States remains hopeful that it can capitalize on Afghan militias that have taken up arms against the Taliban in local areas, but a series of intelligence reports supplied to Mr. Obama since September found no evidence in Afghanistan of anything on the scale of the Iraqi Awakening movement. What’s more, in Afghanistan the extremists, the Taliban, are natives.

'They are part of the furniture in Afghanistan; they have always been there,' one of Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism experts said, explaining why Mr. Obama’s goal is simply to degrade the Taliban’s power, not to defeat the group. In Iraq, the aim was to defeat the insurgents, a goal that has been largely achieved."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/05policy.html?hp

Come again? Am I actually reading in The Times that Bush succeeded in Iraq and that Obama, who opposed Bush's Iraqi surge while a U.S. senator, is mimicking the strategy?

But more to the point, the problem in Afghanistan boils down to motivation. Whereas Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds reject outside oppression and interference, Afghans see little difference between the Taliban and the country's various warlords, all home grown. The only foreigners, i.e. infidels, in Afghanistan today are the U.S. and NATO forces.

Repackage Karzai's image in less than a year and a half? Absolutely. Send David Axelrod and Anita Dunn to Kabul with the message of "Change"; I am certain the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmen and Qizilbash - particularly the Qizilbash - will be extremely receptive.

No Way to Treat Family

President Obama met with 15 U.S. Jewish leaders on Monday to allay concerns over heavy-handed treatment of Israel and informed the leaders of these organizations that Israel would need "to engage in serious self-reflection".

Unbeknownst to Obama, the one thing not lacking among Israelis, who literally labor every day under an existential threat, is "self-reflection".

After his Cairo speech, how difficult would it have been for Obama, playing the role of honest broker, to address Israelis from Jerusalem? Although he would have courteous U.S. Jewish leaders believe that the current tension between the U.S. and Israel amounts to a "family" squabble, his shunning of Israel - a second foreign policy debacle following failure to bring unrest in Iran before the UN Security Council - was not lost on a savvy Israeli electorate. Trust has dissipated. The frigid reception awaiting Obama, Rahm and Axelrod in Israel, should the trio ever visit, will leave them nonplused.

From Activist to Ostrich: Is There No Middle Ground?

It's early morning, and I have yet to see whether The Times will censor my comment submitted in response to Gail Collins' July 3 op-ed, entitled "Sarah's Straight Talk". After eight years of feast, both Collins and Dowd face a minimum of four years of famine, as they vainly attempt to revive Palin and Cheney from the irrelevant.

What about "straight talk" from Gail? Is a six-month grace period insufficient? Isn't it time to acknowledge that those who voted for "Obama the Activist", an image fostered by the teleprompter magic of Axelrod & Co., have in fact been given "Obama the Ostrich"?

My comment:

"And there is no sign, Purdum reported, that Palin has made any attempt to bone up on the issues so that next time around, she could run as a candidate who actually had some grasp of the intricacies of foreign and domestic policy."

Palin is not "going against the flow" or "swimming against the current". She's "dead in the water", i.e. harmless, destined to be chum for late night television jokes and New York Times op-ed barbs for many years to come. Her blind cave fish grasp of the intricacies of foreign and domestic policy? Who cares?

Forgive me, however, if I ask: Has the president's "grasp of the intricacies" served the U.S. any better vis-a-vis health care reform, gay rights, economic revival and the courageous Iranian students who took to Tehran's streets and were left to their fate by the Obama administration?

From activist to ostrich: Is there no middle ground?