Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

It’s worse than you thought: pro-Israel influence on US policy

Well, while you're not sure,, i don't have a clue .. i know that
much .. lol .. the first below added some insight for me .. :)

Ali Abunimah
The Electronic Intifada
15 March 2004


Website of The Hartford Courant.
http://www.ctnow.com/about/custom/thc/

In the early weeks of the invasion of Iraq, when the US thrust toward Baghdad appeared to be meeting more resistance than expected, an awful row broke out in Washington over the role of pro-Israel groups and individuals in dragging the country to war. Increasing media examination of the roles of key neoconservative figures associated with Likudnik groups gave rise to a backlash that sought to tar anyone who dared raise questions with anti-Semitism.

Laurence Cohen, a columnist for the Hartford Courant, rejected criticism of key Iraq hawks Richard Perle, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others, claiming, “It took about four seconds for this clustering to stir anti-Semitic rumblings to the effect that these crafty, secretive Jews had come together in the Rose Garden to chant special prayers that transformed George W. Bush,


US President George
W. Bush (SD photo)

Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld into anti-Iraqi warriors, prepared to sacrifice American lives in a subtle defense of Israel.” (13 April 2003) Such claims were echoed by many pro-Israeli figures, such as Rabbi Marvin Hier, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center who claimed, “It has now become en vogue to blame the war on Iraq on Jews.” (Washington Post, 15 March 2003)

Ironically, the only times such vicious anti-Semitic caricatures appeared in the US mainstream media were when commentators like Cohen introduced them. The effect was to give the entirely false illusion that such characterizations were rampant, and to seize on a few, rare and misplaced comments about Jewish officials to silence a legitimate debate about the role of pro-Israeli activists.


Karen Kwiatkowski

Now, a new firsthand account of life in the US Defense Department shows just how pro-Israeli groups exerted their influence from within the government. Karen Kwiatkowski retired as a lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force after two decades of distinguished service. Her last posting was at the Near East South Asia (NESA) directorate at the Pentagon.

In a lengthy article in the online journal Salon.com, Kwiatkowski writes, “From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.” The “seizure of the reins of US Middle East policy,” Kwiatkowski recounts, “was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia Policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.”


Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (left) and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern South Asian Affairs and Special Plans William Luti brief reporters on policy and intelligence during a Pentagon press conference on June 4, 2003. (DoD/Helene C. Stikkel)

All this happened under the watch of Bill Luti, the deputy secretary of defense for NESA, and went up and down the chain of command.

Some of the specific incidents Kwiatkowski recalls are illustrative: “Longtime office director Joe McMillan was reassigned to the National Defense University. The director’s job in the time of transition was to help bring the newly appointed deputy assistant secretary up to speed, ensure office continuity, act as a resource relating to regional histories and policies … Removing such a critical continuity factor was not only unusual but also seemed like willful handicapping.”

Kwiatkowski said “the expertise on Mideast policy was not only being removed, but was also being exchanged for that from various agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.” The main agenda of all these organizations is advocating closer US-Israel ties. She saw the “replacement of the civilian head of the Israel, Lebanon and Syria desk office with a young political appointee from the Washington Institute, David Schenker. Word was that the former experienced civilian desk officer tended to be evenhanded toward the policies of Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon of Israel, but there were complaints and he was gone.” As the personnel changed, so did the atmosphere; Kwiatkowski recalls that a “career civil servant rather unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I’d better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians.”


Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of
U.S. Central Command. (DoD photo)

In an official meeting at which Kwiatkowski was present, Luti openly called Marine General, former Chief of Central Command, and Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni, a “traitor” for having reservations about the march to war, and open contempt and calls for Secretary of State Colin Powell to resign were common. What she observed until her voluntary early retirement was nothing less than a full-scale assault on the intelligence and policymaking apparatus of the United States. She witnessed intelligence and careful analysis being replaced with propaganda, falsehoods and


Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell (SD photo)

manipulation and fed to the Congress and the Executive Office of the President. This “fear peddling” was, Kwiatkowski writes, “designed to take Congress and the country into a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses.”

What prompted Kwiatkowski to speak out is the “swiftness of the neoconservatives casting of blame,” for the failures in Iraq, “on the intelligence community and away from themselves.” She is indignant that, “we are told by our president and neoconservative mouthpieces that our sons and daughters, husbands and wives are in Iraq fighting for freedom, for liberty, for justice and American values. This cost is not borne by the children of Wolfowitz,


Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz. (DoD photo)

Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush’s daughters do not pay this price.” Many Americans and observers in the Middle East hope that if Bush is defeated in the November election, it will lead to a reversal of course in US policy. But realistically, a President John Kerry would not pressure Israel any more than Bill Clinton did, and in the post-September 11, 2001, environment, probably less. And Kerry, despite his misgivings about the Iraq war, talks of staying until the “job is done.”

But that doesn’t mean there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Hussein Ibish, communications director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee explains that, “under President Kerry, the neoconservative influence on US foreign policy would almost certainly be greatly diminished for the simple reason that almost all the prominent neoconservatives have aligned themselves with the Republican Party.”

US policy would likely revert to what it was under Clinton, with some adjustments for the post-September 11 environment. But in the current circumstances, restoring the professional policymaking and intelligence apparatus of the US would be a huge improvement. Above all, it would neutralize the forces that are quietly still pushing for a march from Baghdad to Damascus in a second Bush term.

Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada. This article first appeared in The Daily Star.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/its-worse-you-thought-pro-israel-influence-us-policy/5020

Does that one suggest the Likuds did push for war with Iraq? Seems that way to me.

============

Likudnik Paranoia

By Joe Klein | @JoeKleinTIME | January 19, 2012 | 68

Uh-oh, there’s another wave of attacks–both here and in Israel–on those of us who support Israel, but not in the mindless, aggressive way that neoconservatives do and not at the expense of America’s national interests. Over there, Bibi Netanyahu has proclaimed the New York Times and Haaretz the “biggest” enemies of Israel. Over here, my old buddy Abe Foxman and assorted other declaimers of anti-semites and anti-semitism have added the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to their blacklist for using a term I’ve used in the past, “Israel Firster.” What we have here is a problem of conflation.

Over there, Bibi Netanyahu conflates the best interests of Israel with the best interests of Bibi Netanyahu. Over here, we have a small but noisy group of people who conflate the American national interest with what they (mistakenly) perceive to be Israel’s national interest.

Let me make two points:

1. The U.S. and Israel are allies, and I’m sure we always will be. But our national interests and priorities don’t always coincide. Iran is certainly a high priority for Israel–less so for its nuclear program than for the fact that Iran is arming far more immediate threats to Israel’s security, Hizballah and Hamas. Iran is less of a national security threat to the United States. It does sponsor terrorism, which makes the regime our enemy; it may well be trying to produce a nuclear weapon, which isn’t good news, either–although the Iranians are not crazy and would only want a bomb as a deterrent against neighbors like Israel and Pakistan who have nukes. Iran is certainly less of a threat to our national security than Pakistan, which already has 100 nuclear weapons, an unstable government and a military with a history of Islamist coups (and has been funding Taliban factions that are killing American troops in Afghanistan). And a pre-emptive war with Iran would be an unnecessary disaster, although I do not underestimate the possibility that such a war may take place if Iran crosses some bright line and initiates it.

It seems to me that more than a few of those Americans who are pushing for war with Iran place Israel’s national defense priorities above own own–not just neoconservatives, but evangelical Rapturians and politicians like Newt Gingrich (funded by Sheldon Adelson–a classic Israel Firster, in that, by all reports, the only issue that motivates his largesse is a Likudnik view of Israel), and Rick Santorum, who has actually said that he wants to bomb Iran. They’re dangerously wrong; they have an inalienable right to be foolish; they even have the right to place Israel’s national security concerns first. But such people go disgracefully overboard when they designate those of us who disagree with them as “anti-Semites.”

Which brings me to my second point: I remember when the Anti-Defamation League had better things to do–during the civil rights movement; and during the period when Jews were discriminated against in college admissions, housing and a whole host of other areas. The ADL was an iconic institution back then; I considered Abe Foxman a hero. He is not anymore. He wantonly accuses people like David Petraeus, and me–and institutions like the Center for American Program and Media Matters–of anti-Semitism. He has debased a very important currency.

I’m not carrying water for CAP or Media Matters. I’ve disagreed with both in the past and both have criticized things I’ve written (although neither accused me of being a bigot). Calling them anti-semitic is absurd, though. Calling David Petraeus anti-semitic because he implied that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories made life more dangerous for U.S. troops in the region–well beyond absurd, since he was implying an obvious truth.

And I must say that being called an anti-semite by these people is surreal. Elliott Abrams launched a gross attack on me in the Weekly Standard based on a misinterpretation of something I wrote. I clarified that misinterpretation here. But Abrams never acknowledged that he had gotten it wrong. This is the sort of neoconservative thuggery that has become too familiar to those of us who disagree with these self-appointed defenders of Israel (or their perverse fantasy of Israel).

Israel is in perilous place right now, more isolated than it has been in years. The Arab Spring has pretty much ended the cold peace with Egypt. It has ended the stable standoff with Syria. The alliance with Turkey is over, too. Hamas still lobs rockets from Gaza; Hizballah has grown even stronger–and better armed by the Iranians–since the 2oo6 war. I support Israel’s right to defend itself against such threats. But I don’t support everything Israel does, certainly not its expansion of illegal settlements on the West Bank, certainly not the increasing influence of religious zealots who want to impinge on the rights of secular Israelis.

Those are the real threats to Israel’s existence–not the New York Times, Haaretz, CAP, Media Matters, Tom Friedman or me. The attempts to turn us into “enemies of Israel” are paranoid, demagogic and obnoxious.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/19/likudnik-paranoia/