In the Mideast, the US is a helpless giant

Mideast: Obama’s failure will haunt the world… for decades  

 

by Eric Margolis

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel colluded to invade Egypt to overthrow its hugely popular nationalist leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

 Israel provoked border clashes and quickly captured the Sinai Peninsula. The British and French landed at Suez.

US President Dwight Eisenhower deemed the tripartite Suez aggression immoral and damaging to American interests in the Muslim world.   “Ike” angrily ordered the British, French and Israelis to get out of Egypt at once – or else. They got out.

Fast forward to 2010. President Barack Obama has been demanding Israel stop building illegal Jewish settlements around Jerusalem and on the West Bank. 

Obama rightly concluded the ongoing agony of Palestine has turned the Muslim world against the United States. It is also the primary cause of what Washington calls “terrorism.” I write about this extensively in my latest book, “American Raj.”

After the Suez invasion, Israel’s American partisans set about building an influence network that would ensure no American president could ever force Israel to do anything against its will. Over the next half century, the Israel lobby became the most powerful and feared lobby in America, dominating both the US Congress and media.

The lobby’s brilliant success was again confirmed last week as Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel’s rightist coalition, literally spit in Obama’s face, sneeringly rejecting the president’s pleas to create a viable Palestinian state. Vice President Joseph Biden was earlier humiliated on a trip to Israel to plead with Israel to stop building Jewish settlements.

The US Congress and rightwing media actually applauded the public humiliation of their president and vice president.

How the mighty have fallen. Obama has shown himself utterly without spine, and terrified of the Israel lobby at a time when his political fortunes are plummeting.   Unfortunately, this shameful spectacle was largely overshadowed by the WikiLeaks uproar.

The White House understands that America’s vital interests in the Mideast are being increasingly undermined by Netanyahu’s adamant refusal to allow a workable Palestinian state. He wants only apartheid-style Arab Bantustans.   Israel’s prime minister is also undermining the long-term security and well-being of his own people by refusing to make a decent, lasting peace with Palestinians.

A triumphant Netanyahu made clear Israel would retain all of Jerusalem, settlement blocks around it, water resources, key roads, the West Bank high ground and the Jordan River valley. In short, “useful Palestine.” The rest, waterless scrub and slums, might be left to the Arabs. Nothing was said about Israel’s illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights which has become, de facto, an annexation.

Even Obama’s astounding, shameful offer of a multi-billion dollar bribe to Israel of 20 F-35 warplanes and promises to veto any UN resolutions calling for a Palestinian state in exchange for a flimsy 90-day temporary settlement building freeze, was contemptuously rejected by Netanyahu. He knows the US Congress would give Israel the moon if asked. The US has already given Israel at least $114 billion in official aid since its creation in 1947, as well as tens of billions more in covert support.

What does Obama’s humiliation mean? His chances of being defeated in the next presidential election are growing. Obama’s arch-rival, the pro-Israeli Hillary Clinton, is positioning herself to take over the Democratic Party from Obama.    There are already rumbles in the Democratic Party of a primary challenge to Obama.

The US diplomatic, intelligence and military establishment has got the message, loud and clear: don’t mess with Israel. The last US president who tried to restrain Israel’s West Bank colonization, George H.W. Bush, failed to win re-election; his able secretary of state, James Baker, was slandered as an “anti-Semite.”

By caving in to Israel’s hard right over the West Bank, Obama sends a message of profound weakness to the rest of the world. He is signaling that Israel, not the White House, really makes America’s Mideast policy. Israel also increasingly influences antagonistic US policy towards Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea, and ever warmer relations with India, a key ally of Israel.

The humiliated Palestinian Authority is shown as a helpless puppet of the Americans and Israelis, as rival Hamas has long charged.   Its hapless leader, Mahmoud Abbas, should resign if he has a shred of pride left.   The pliant Abbas was put into power by the US and Israel after PLO chief Yasser Arafat’s convenient death that many Palestinians suspect was caused by poison. 

Obama’s defeat suggests Israel now has “carte blanche” to move ahead and attack Lebanon’s resistance movement Hizbullah, Syria, and eventually Iran.  

In fact, Israel now seems to have the power to plunge the US into war against Iran whenever it decides the time is right and the risk worthwhile. That’s a major reason why Netanyahu holds the whip hand over Obama. Thanks to George Bush’s reckless wars, US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are now in a sense hostages of Iran.

Since the US has become a helpless giant, it’s up to the rest of the world to end the suffering in Palestine.   Brazil and Argentina have taken an important step forward by recognizing a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. The 2002 Saudi peace plan still offers all parties concerned the fairest, most practical road to peace. 

The UN General Assembly should again endorse this plan and call for more pressure on Israel. Israel’s own pro-peace movement badly needs to hear support from abroad.

But Netanyahu and his fellow rightwing zealots are determined to hold on to every inch of the West Bank and Golan. Some far rightists want to further expand Israel’s borders. In fact, Netanyahu’s Likud Party has been reluctant to define Israel’s permanent borders.

Israel’s refusal to compromise over Palestine is at the heart of its increasingly dangerous confrontation with Iran.   If Israel would conclude a peace deal with authentic Palestinians – not the current Palestinian Authority puppets  – the confrontation with Iran would likely end.  

Obama’s shameful failure in the Mideast will haunt the world for decades.  

Source:  Eric Margolis, Title Image: The Straits Times

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

WHY OBAMA HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING WAR IN THE NUCLEAR-ARMED POWDER KEG OF PAKISTAN

 

A Pakistan-made Ghauri missile, which has a range of 1,500 kilometers (940 miles) and can be fitted with a nuclear warhead, is displayed in Islamabad, Pakistan. Obama’s policy of escalating war in nuclear akistan is  eerily reminiscent of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s disastrous decision to widen the Vietnam War into Cambodia in 1969. The Obama administration has already begun to escalate the fighting in Pakistan, a policy that could make even the Nixon-Kissinger destruction of Cambodia seem like a pleasant memory. Source: AP/B.K.Bangash

 

  

by Fred Branfman

The U.S. has even less control over events in Pakistan than it does in Afghanistan -- Obama's really playing with fire here.

[Under Vice President Joe] Biden’s approach … American forces would concentrate on eliminating the Qaeda leadership, primarily in Pakistan, using Special Operations forces, Predator missile strikes and other surgical tactics. --The New York Times, Sept. 30, 2009

Biden has argued against increasing the number of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan. … --The Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2009

 ----

Statesmen must be judged by the consequences of their actions. Whatever Nixon and Kissinger intended for Cambodia, their efforts created catastrophe.  -- William Shawcross, “Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia” (2002), Page 396 (Emphasis added.)

I think you’re closer to the World War II generals than you are to the Vietnam ones.” Dwight Eisenhower was the obvious model. “You may not realize it, but you have more influence than any other military leader in this country right now. More than the Joint Chiefs. You can make a case for you not staying, because there’s no job after this that will compare to it.” The implied suggestion was politics — Bob Woodward quoting Gen. Jack Keane mentoring his protégé, Gen. David Petraeus, in “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008” (2009) (Emphasis added.)

The Oct. 7 Wall Street Journal reports that President Barack Obama is reading Gordon Goldstein’s “Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam,” a warning against heeding inevitable military requests for more troops. But however valuable Goldstein’s book might be, William Shawcross’ book “Sideshow: Nixon, Kissinger and the Destruction of Cambodia” is far more relevant and significant. For no matter how much Gen. David Petraeus, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other hawks disagree with the Biden doves on troop increases, both sides reportedly concur on the importance of going after Taliban and al-Qaida “sanctuaries” in Pakistan, a policy eerily reminiscent of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s disastrous decision to widen the Vietnam War into Cambodia in 1969. The Obama administration has already begun to escalate the fighting in Pakistan, a policy that could make even the Nixon-Kissinger destruction of Cambodia seem like a pleasant memory.

If U.S. military leaders are right that they cannot prevail in Afghanistan without escalating into Pakistan, this is the strongest possible argument for withdrawing from Afghanistan. For nothing, not even Taliban rule in Kabul, could justify allowing the tiny Afghan tail to wag a giant, nuclear-armed Pakistani dog whose stability is clearly America’s very top priority in the region.

Further instability in Pakistan would only benefit al-Qaida, which has already made deep inroads into Pakistan and is unlikely to return to Afghanistan even if the U.S. withdraws from there. Former N.Y. Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer is right: “It should be engraved on the minds of every American diplomat: Do nothing that will further destabilize Pakistan” (from the “Rethink Afghanistan” video).

Irving Kristol’s recent death reminded us of his phrase “the law of unintended consequences,” referring to neoconservative attacks on well-meaning liberal domestic policies. Both neo- and garden-variety conservatives, however, have never been willing to apply this same “law” to their far greater international disasters. There is no record, for example, of Kristol’s son Bill or his fellow conservatives acknowledging the blow to U.S. interests and the enormous human suffering—including over 1 million Iraqis dead, wounded or made homeless—caused by the neoconservative-engineered invasion of Iraq.

Are we heading toward a failed state?

Bankruptcy of ideas

by Ayaz Amir

The crisis we face is more serious than we think. It is not just about fuel prices, sugar, inflation in general, or the breakdown of law and order. If it was only this there would still be hope. What we are facing is a bankruptcy of ideas, a governing class – covering the political and military spectrum – that can't ask the right questions and therefore is in no position to get the right answers. President Obama has had his comeuppance in the midterm congressional elections. He looks chastened and a bit beaten. The American electorate had a choice and it has exercised it. But what if there was such a moment in Pakistan? What choice would we have? What would be the alternatives on offer? None, because there would be none to begin with. Just more of the same, the past recycled to represent the future. This is a greater crisis than anything on the economic horizon. Every wakeup call in the morning, when you scan the newspapers, is an invitation to cynicism. The president is who he is. There's no point in wasting one's breath on a quantity not just known but so familiar as to have passed beyond the frontiers of contempt. About the prime minister the less said the better. The historian of the future will wonder at our unerring eye for mediocrity in the matter of our higher appointments. What more is there to say? The army chief meets too many ambassadors and has a waistline in danger of becoming an embarrassment if he is not careful. Some things don't look good in uniform. As a rule, stout commanders-in-chief are a product of the complacency setting in as a result of merited or unmerited extensions. The later Zia and the later Musharraf, squeezing uneasily into their uniforms: horror stories in their own way. The only commanding general who wore his waistline well was Yahya Khan – there was something about the man – but then his problems were different. Or rather his problems were too big for him. He did not sow the circumstances of East Pakistani separatism. But Providence decreed that he should be around when the whirlwind struck.

OBAMA'S WAR ON TERROR SETTING NUCLEAR-ARMED PAKISTAN ON FIRE [Page 4 of 4]

Members of the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron from Indian Springs, Nev., perform pre-flight checks on the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle prior to a mission, in this 2001 file photo shot at an undisclosed location. US drones like this one are being used in bombing raids over the North Waziristan tribal area in Pakistan. Reuters/U.S. Air Force/Handout/File

by Fred Branfman

Insurgent forces have been following classic guerrilla tactics in the AfPak theater – moving north and making unprecedented gains throughout northern Afghanistan when Petraeus attacked them in the south.

If Petraeus’ all-out push to attack North Waziristan were to succeed, therefore, the jihadists would have only one direction in which to move: east into Pakistan's major cities where they have already established strong and growing networks, launched increasing attacks, and are safe from not only drone strikes but Pakistani military interference: "'The who's who of extremism is present in Karachi," said Faisal Ali Subzwari, a Sindh government minister. ‘There are many areas where police and (paramilitary) Rangers cannot even dare to enter. It is a safe haven for those who want a hiding place,'" McClatchy has also reported.

The more Petraeus succeeds in Afghanistan, in short, the more he will lose in Pakistan. And the more he loses in Pakistan the more the U.S. will move into the realm of the unthinkable.

Woodward reports that during Obama’s March 2009 review, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked review coordinator Bruce Riedel whether he had looked for a "silver bullet" to try and force the Pakistani military to go after Taliban sanctuaries. Reidel said, “they had looked at the extreme option of invading Pakistan, and, of course, immediately dismissed it.

Invading a country that possessed dozens of nuclear weapons would be something beyond madness. Everyone agreed."

If it is "beyond madness" to invade Pakistan, why is it any more rational to allow General Petraeus to continue policies that may well make an unthinkable invasion the only alternative to allowing its nuclear weapons to fall into hostile hands? Were President Obama to rein in or fire Petraeus it could indeed jeopardize his 2012 reelection. But he owes it to his nation to try, before it is too late.
Concluded.

Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Previous

Fred Branfman, the editor of “Voices From the Plain of Jars: Life Under an Air War” (Harper & Row, 1972), exposed the U.S. secret air war while living in Laos from 1967 to 1971.

Source: Alternet Title Images: Page 1, 2, 3 & 4 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

OBAMA'S WAR ON TERROR SETTING NUCLEAR-ARMED PAKISTAN ON FIRE [Page 3 of 4]

·      

·      

Since the Pakistani military and government have been unable to secure Swat, an integral part of Pakistan, they will obviously be even less successful in remote North Waziristan. And what is even worse is that if U.S. and Pakistani attacks there were successful, it would only geometrically increase jihadist activity in Pakistan proper.

by Fred Branfman

• • 
    
  • 
    
  
  

  With the exception of preventing a Middle East conflagration, U.S. foreign policy thus clearly has no higher priority than seeking to stabilize an increasingly fragile and combustible Pakistan.

• After destabilizing Pakistan at Centcom, however, Petraeus has made things even worse since becoming Afghan commander in June of this year. The NY Times reported:
•     Petraeus, has been pulling out all the stops (including) pressing the Central Intelligence Agency to ramp up Predator and Reaper drone operations in Pakistan. He has also, through the not-so-veiled threat of cross-border ground operations, put pressure on the Pakistani Army to pursue militants in the tribal areas even as the army has continued to struggle with relief from the catastrophic floods this summer

•  Nothing symbolizes Petraeus' misplaced priorities more than the report in the same story that
• Petraeus has also, through the not-so-veiled threat of cross-border ground operations, put pressure on the Pakistani Army to pursue militants in the tribal areas even as the army has continued to struggle with relief from the catastrophic floods this summer.

• Yes. Petraeus has pushed the Pakistani army to stop helping the millions of its own desperate people facing starvation, homelessness and disease so as to fight America's war in Afghanistan.

•  He is doing so through threats and bribes. On October 22 news agencies reported that the Obama administration offered $2.3 billion to the Pakistani military to attack tribal areas but also, according to the Wall Street Journal, “threatened that current cash payments to Pakistan could be reduced if things don’t improve in … North Waziristan.

• The same article also reported that Petraeus is pushing the Pakistani government to accept more clandestine U.S. military personnel in Pakistan – key to understanding Petraeus' recklessness. Knowing he cannot shore up a Karzai government he privately calls a "criminal syndicate" according to Woodward, he has instead turned to mass assassination. ABC News recently reported: "Petraeus said the number of counterterrorism, or precision special forces-type raids in Afghanistan, is three to four times as many as were conducted at the height of the surge in Iraq." David Ignatius, a strong admirer of “warrior-statesman” Petraeus, recently reported that the general is executing

•   ...a strategy whose biggest successes have come from hard-nosed counterterrorist tactics -- the midnight raid, kick-down-the-door ferocity of the Joint Special Operations Command ... According to one Special Forces operative, a recent review of operations Petraeus requested showed that 90 percent of the operational success in Afghanistan has come from 5 percent of the forces -- primarily those secret JSOC teams.

•   Petraeus is clearly pushing for Pakistani permission to increase clandestine U.S. Special Forces and U.S.-directed local assassination operations in Pakistan territory. Yet the Wall Street Journal once again makes clear that what Petraeus wants for Afghanistan threatens to destabilize Pakista

•  U.S. military forces on the ground remain a red line for Islamabad. A senior Pakistani official said if the Pakistan public became aware of U.S. military forces conducting combat operations on Pakistani territory, it would wipe out popular support for fighting the militants in the tribal areas

•  Petraeus has clearly badly bungled in Pakistan, not only destabilizing its government but raising anti-American hatred to unprecedented heights. Newsweek recently reported, "In July, only 17 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of America, a number that's no doubt dropped since then.

• The conflict between Petraeus and rationality in Pakistan will eventually reach its peak in coming months over his all-out attempts to pressure the Pakistani military into attacking North Waziristan, Pakistan's far northwest. Since the Pakistani military and government have been unable to secure Swat, an integral part of Pakistan, they will obviously be even less successful in remote North Waziristan. And what is even worse is that if U.S. and Pakistani attacks there were successful, it would only geometrically increase jihadist activity in Pakistan proper.

   Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

OBAMA'S WAR ON TERROR SETTING NUCLEAR-ARMED PAKISTAN ON FIRE [Page 2 of 4]

by Fred Branfman

While U.S. assassination has undoubtedly killed a handful of genuine insurgent leaders -- 18 of the 1659 Pakistanis murdered since 2006 according to the far right-wing Long War Journal, it has created far more jihadists who are cooperating far more and are far more motivated to do far more damage in a far greater area of Pakistan. And beyond. The "Times Square Bomber" who almost killed many Americans described how he was motivated by his anger toward the U.S. government for its routine murder of Pakistanis by drones. Foreign Policy reports that total suicide attacks worldwide have risen sixfold since 2004, and that “over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops."

Petraeus and the Obama team make the mistake of measuring progress by body counts. Woodward reports that “(Rahm) Emanuel showed an intense interest in the drone strikes and called CIA Director Leon Panetta regularly with one question: ‘Who did we get today?’” Our credulous media reports the latest CIA leak on “high level insurgents” killed but don’t ask how many are left.

ABC News reported October 15, “citing success with counterterrorism operations, Petraeus said 300 Taliban leaders had been captured or killed in the last 90 days.” But Petraeus has forgotten the basic lesson of Vietnam: it’s not how many “insurgents” you kill but how many you create.

The American people are not told an obvious fact: U.S. policy is creating many more insurgents than it is killing among the giant pool of 41 million Pashtuns on both sides of the border, 28 million in Pakistan, whose culture includes a major focus on revenge.

Knowledgeable observers of Pakistan are now worried as never before. Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan's best-known analyst, has warned that Pakistan is facing "a gradual meltdown, with the army and the political elite unable to challenge the rising power of the Pakistani Taliban or protect the civilian population. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has written that "as someone who has visited Pakistan often over the past year, I worry that the country is nearing .. a moment when the multiple pressures overwhelm the government's ability to cope and Pakistan borders on becoming a failed state.”

To fully grasp how reckless and myopic Petraeus has been, it is important to first understand the array of crises the country now faces:

·         Economic collapse. The New York Times has reported that "Pakistan's Army Chief, General Kiyani, last month reportedly warned President Asif Ali Zardari that the country is on the verge of economic collapse." Its Finance Minister has stated that the economy is "heading toward the abyss" and the government may be unable to pay its employees in two months. Pakistan also has $55 billion in foreign debt it couldn’t service even before the summer floods, which will add $43 billion more debt, according to an estimate by the Prime Minister. Inflation is expected to be as high as 20 percent next year.

·         Massive flood damage. The Los Angeles Times reported that "agriculture accounts for 43% of the country's jobs, but a fifth of Pakistan's irrigation infrastructure, livestock and crops have been destroyed."

·         A corrupt and incompetent government and ruling class. The corrupt and feudal Pakistani ruling class is also incompetent, as shown by its inability to help 20 million of the country’s citizens displaced by the floods. The Economist reported that "international donors ... are frustrated by the government's inability to put forward any sort of post-flood reconstruction plan. Nor has the government taken the chance to push through economic reforms that, as the floods have made clear, are urgently needed."

·         A parasitical, brutal and ineffective military. The military, Pakistan's real rulers, enrich themselves by running giant commercial enterprises and increasing military spending while millions of Pakistanis go hungry. As Ahmed Rashid has reported, "this year's $38 billion budget has seen a 30 percent increase in military expenditures from last year. This clearly leaves little money for health and education." They also have no interest or experience in conducting counter-insurgency. When forced by America last year to attack the Swat Valley and southern Waziristan, they conducted mass attack from the air, stuck to the roads, generated 1.5 million refugees, lost 2,500 soldiers, could not hold on to the areas they captured, and committed numerous crimes of war.

·         The NY Times reported that "the Pakistani military relies more and more on American-supplied F-16 fighter jets and Cobra helicopter gunships to bomb militants in areas of treacherous terrain, increasing civilian casualties, according to reporters and Pakistani officials in the tribal areas."

·         Widespread anarchy and violence. Writing of Karachi, Pakistan's largest city with 18 million people, and its major port and financial center, Rashid reported that "Karachi is in the grip of heavily armed mafias and criminal gangs … Ethnic violence and is translated into interparty political assassinations; party workers of all groups are being targeted." In Balochistan Province, he writes, "there is another civil war going on between Baloch separatists and the army. The insurgents launch ambushes and assassinations, and lay land mines every day (and) the army in turn has brutalized Baloch society."

·         Growing Al Qaeda and Jihadist strength in Pakistan’s heartland. The most serious unintended consequence of Petraeus' tactics has been the growing strength of jihadist forces in Pakistan's Punjabi heartland, as the NY Times reported on June 2: "A senior Pakistani official declared in a surprising public admission that extremist groups were entrenched in the southern portion of the nation's most populous province (Punjab), underscoring the growing threats to the state.”

·         Nuclear confrontation with India. Pakistan is engaged in a dangerous nuclear arms race with India, as the Wall Street Journal reported: "Pakistan currently has about 70 to 90 nuclear warheads, and India has between 60 and 80, according to estimates published by the Federation of American Scientists." It deploys 400,000 troops against India and funds insurgent groups in India's Muslim-majority Kashmir, a constant flashpoint.

Page 2, 3, 4, Next