WarSclerotic

Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq
By Dana Milbank September 16, 2014 Via Washington Post 

(First of all, let me be perfectly clear. In my humble opinion, this is NOT OUR FIGHT. Except for pursuing Bin Laden and hitting the Taliban for supporting him, it NEVER was our fight. If we must do something regarding ISIS, then push them back into Syria. Let ’em fight, muslim against muslim.

Instead, we have this open ended pseudo war with a sketchy mission. Actually, what we really have is one big false flag scenario with its sights set on Syria. Let’s not forget that not long ago the media was in a flurry over Russian air defense systems installed in Syria along with Russian bases and a deadly arsenal of chemical weapons that were never fully accounted for. Pretty dangerous place to be tip toeing around bombing here and bombing there in pursuit of an enemy scrurrying around like cockroaches. Collateral damage anyone?

Now we see that Obama has set another red line with Syria in a token attempt to prevent them from shooting down our Air Force while attacking that ‘existential threat’ called ISIS, or whatever the hell they call them this week. Really?? Do they think we just blew into town after falling off a watermelon truck?

Of course, the low information voter in the US is taking all this in without objection. Afterall, the mainstream media has been hammering away endlessly about the threat from ISIS for months now. As a result, the polls have shifted in favor of engagement and the war hawks are jumping on the war wagon like Mexicans on a boat preparing to cross the Rio Grande.

So I say to all you moms and dads out there. Give your kids a good hug before they march off to war once again. I hope like hell they return safely and you don’t get that horrible knock on the door by two members of our military.

Thatisall.-LS)

At Tuesday’s hearing, Graham practically pleaded with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to endorse the use of U.S. ground troops against the Islamic State. “Do you agree that somebody’s got to go in on the ground?” he asked. “Can you envision a coalition of Arab states that have the capabilities . . . without substantial U.S. military support?” Finally, the senator challenged the general: “If you think they can do it without us being on the ground, just say yes.”

“Yes,” said Dempsey.

This was evidently not the answer sought by Graham, who then asked if Dempsey would recommend U.S. ground troops in Syria “if nobody else will help us.” Dempsey, not quite as categorical as Obama, pledged that if circumstances change to merit U.S. ground forces, he’ll recommend that.

The sudden desire for a ground war is a bit suspect, both because many Republicans adopted this view only after Obama came around to their previous view and because many Republicans oppose even the modest funding Obama has requested to train Syrian fighters. (Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she opposed “giving even more money to the so-called vetted moderates who aren’t moderate at all.”)

It may be that Republicans embraced the boots-on-the-ground position because Obama rejected it. Whatever the cause, the militancy is spreading — even though polls indicate that while Americans favor military action against the Islamic State, they aren’t keen on ground troops.

House Speaker John Boehner, asked about Obama’s no-boots vow, replied: “I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do, or unwilling to do.”

Backbencher Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) was more blunt. He told the Associated Press that, rather than depending on “undependable” foreigners, he favors “all-out-war” waged by American forces.

As the House kicked off its debate Tuesday on training Syrian rebels, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) declared that Obama “was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he in fact may need later.”

Said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.): “We have made this decision not to have ground troops. We do not need another half-pregnant war in the Middle East. If it’s important enough to fight, it’s important enough to win.” Kingston added that war in the former Yugoslavia ended only after a U.S. decision “to commit ground troops.”

The little bit of war-weariness that was voiced on the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday came from Democrats, particularly Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

The Republicans were almost unanimous in wanting a broader war than Obama outlined. Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), called it “foolhardy” for Obama to rule out ground troops. “There was a collective sigh of relief at ISIS headquarters in Syria when they heard him say that,” Inhofe alleged, using an acronym for the terrorist group.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) said she didn’t see how the air strikes could work “without the assistance of our trained special operators on the ground.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.) said he didn’t think “five thousand trained in a year” would be sufficient. “I want us to win.”

And Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) offered his opinion that Iraqi troops would be “more emboldened and encouraged” if they had U.S. troops embedded with them.

Dempsey suggested that Jordanian or Emirati forces might do that job.

“Well, if we all had horses, we’d take a ride,” snapped Sessions. “We don’t have that.”

Ah, but we do. The Republican Party has quickly assembled a veritable cavalry brigade of warhorses.

Messy realities.

Ira Sharkansky

It’s been a week since the great speech, and there has been little beyond solemn statements of support, along with reservations about doing anything concrete. 

The President boasted of a multi-nation coalition. In one statement it was claimed that 40 nations had signed on, with no American boots on the ground.

So far there are no boots headed for the ground.

The coalition may now be down to 10 or a dozen, depending on who is talking, but with little more than talking involved. Several Muslim countries have offered their support, but without troops. Turkey has forbid that American planes use NATO facilities in Turkey for their missions.

Among the nastiness of various comments are

coalition of the uncertain
coalition of the unwilling to be identified by name
coalition of the willing and unable
lackluster coalition of the willing
how willing is Obama’s coalition?

It could have been predicted by all perhaps except the Secretary of State, noted for his ponderous platitudes that have produced a minimum of results here or throughout the Middle East.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has weighed in with another blessing of Islam. Perhaps we should be forgive him, bothered as he must have been by the threat of Scotland’s secession along with the ugliness of his countryman’s beheading.

“They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters,”

On the same day I had been on the fringe of a conversation between Muslim friends, which they conducted in Hebrew for my benefit.

One said that violence has been inherent in the history of Islam. Another said that Sunnis have generally been more peaceful than Shiites, but that there were too many factions within Islam for him to comprehend.

Arabic speaking Israeli commentators, supposedly experts of the subject, speak about a multitude of groups whose names they do not know for sure, competing for headlines, recruits, money and body counts across Syria and Iraq, as well as in the Sinai and various other spots across Africa and the Middle East.

The rest of us should admit that we cannot comprehend the continued blather of Cameron, Obama, and others about Islam being a religion of peace.

Sure, they do not want to ignite the millions of Muslims already among their voters, or the billion Muslims worldwide. At the same time, a simple standard of intellectual honesty suggests that they should avoid fibbing about the obvious. Cameron’s speech writers could have crafted something that condemned murder without that nonsense about a religion of peace.

The more honest among us should admit that none of the religions is without the blemish of violence in its history, doctrines, or the current practices by some of those claiming to be faithful. However, those saying that they are the most faithful of Muslims are now the most violent, brutal, or barbaric individuals operating under the umbrella of a religion.

We should not envy the task of Obama, Cameron, and whoever might join them, perhaps determined by whose citizens find themselves the center of a filmed beheading.

The coalition mentioned includes European countries with competing economic interests in the Middle East, and Muslim countries competing on a variety of theocratic and political issues.

Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia are potential allies of the US with military assets to oppose ISIS and other extremists, but each have strong reservations about cooperating with one another or with the United States.

Those intent on understanding Turkey must reckon with its concern for Kurds, as well as whatever may happen right over its borders with Iraq and Syria. The Turks are most likely assessing the prospects, including the chance of American bungling.

Figuring out who to aid in Syria is its own set of mysteries, given the record of the Assad regime as well as the multitude of groups claiming to fight Assad and/or one another.

Obama’s promise of keeping American boots off the ground in Syria and Iraq may already be crumbling.

According to General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward . . . I believe that will prove true. If it fails to be true and there are threats to the U.S., then of course, I would go back to the president and make the recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”

With no Muslim countries sending their boots to the American led coalition, one can imaging the tensions within the Obama White House with competing assessments and pressures about what is good for the President and for his country. The President followed Demsey’s comment with his own affirmation of not sending troops, but we have learned never to say never.

On another front, President Obama has announced plans to send 3,000 military personnel to Liberia to fight the spread of Ebola.

The mission is to construct and staff care centers and supply medical kits meant to protect from, or cure Ebola..

One can hope that Obama’s advisers have done the analysis that weighs the benefits of this action to the President and the United States, against the prospect of easing the passage of Ebola to the United States.

The director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota has said that it is difficult to care for Ebola patients without becoming infected, and there is no proof that the kits being sent will work.

There is no shortage of messiness closer to home.

A Palestinian, UN, Israeli agreement on construction materials for Gaza, without a commitment to de-militarize the area, but with UN supervision to assure that they will be used for civilian purposes.

Israeli officials say that the move is meant to dampen the prospect of suffering among Gazans that would work to provoke further violence against Israel.

A missile landed in an Israeli field late on Tuesday, followed by Hamas claims of good intentions and the arrest of the perpetrators.

One measure of Gaza’s misery appears in the 15 migrants drowned on their way from Egypt to Italy. According to a report by Aljazeera, they were among the 10,000 Palestinians who have fled Gaza via tunnels under the Egyptian border.

We can couple our mourning for 15 dead Palestinians with the concern for still-functioning tunnels to Egypt, and worries about what flows in them to Gaza with munitions from Iran or Libya.

Assuming the UN will monitor the use of construction materials in Gaza is equivalent to declaring that Islam is a religion of peace.

In case no one noticed, UN personnel allowed their schools in Gaza to be used for storing weapons and fighters, as well as launching missiles toward Israel. And UN troops are the ones recently seen going to safety in Israel from their posts in Syria.

How Peace Negotiator Martin Indyk Cashed a Big, Fat $14.8 Million Check From Qatar, and No One Noticed – Tablet Magazine.

One Middle Eastern nation does indeed pay to influence U.S. foreign policy. Hint: It’s not Israel.

Martin Indyk and John Kerry, 2013. (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

The New York Times recently published a long investigative report by Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams, and Nicholas Confessore on how foreign countries buy political influence through Washington think tanks. Judging from Twitter and other leading journalistic indicators, the paper’s original reporting appears to have gone almost entirely unread by human beings anywhere on the planet. In part, that’s because the Times’ editors decided to gift their big investigative scoop with the dry-as-dust title “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,” which sounds like the headline for an article in a D.C. version of The Onion. There is also the fact that the first 10 paragraphs of the Times piece are devoted to that highly controversial global actor, Norway, and its attempts to purchase the favors of The Center for Global Development, which I confess I’d never heard of before, although I live in Washington and attend think-tank events once or twice a week.

Except, buried deep in the Times’ epic snoozer was a world-class scoop related to one of the world’s biggest and most controversial stories—something so startling, and frankly so grotesque, that I have to bring it up again here: Martin Indyk, the man who ran John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, whose failure in turn set off this summer’s bloody Gaza War, cashed a $14.8 million check from Qatar. Yes, you heard that right: In his capacity as vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the prestigious Brookings Institution, Martin Indyk took an enormous sum of money from a foreign government that, in addition to its well-documented role as a funder of Sunni terror outfits throughout the Middle East, is the main patron of Hamas—which happens to be the mortal enemy of both the State of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.

But far from trumpeting its big scoop, the Times seems to have missed it entirely, even allowing Indyk to opine that the best way for foreign governments to shape policy is “scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria.” Really? It is pretty hard to imagine what the words “independent” and “objective” mean coming from a man who while going from Brookings to public service and back to Brookings again pocketed $14.8 million in Qatari cash. At least the Times might have asked Indyk a few follow-up questions, like: Did he cash the check from Qatar before signing on to lead the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians? Did the check clear while he was in Jerusalem, or Ramallah? Or did the Qatari money land in the Brookings account only after Indyk gave interviews and speeches blaming the Israelis for his failure? We’ll never know now. But whichever way it happened looks pretty awful.

Or maybe the editors decided that it was all on the level, and the money influenced neither Indyk’s government work on the peace process nor Brookings’ analysis of the Middle East. Or maybe journalists just don’t think it’s worth making a big fuss out of obvious conflicts of interest that may affect American foreign policy. Maybe Qatar’s $14.8 million doesn’t affect Brookings’ research projects or what the think tank’s scholars tell the media, including the New York Times, about subjects like Qatar, Hamas, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other related areas in which Qatar has key interests at stake. Maybe the think tank’s vaunted objectivity, and Indyk’s personal integrity and his pride in his career as a public servant, trump the large piles of vulgar Qatari natural gas money that keep the lights on and furnish the offices of Brookings scholars and pay their cell-phone bills and foreign travel.

But people in the Middle East may be a little less blasé about this kind of behavior than we are. Officials in the Netanyahu government, likely including the prime minister himself, say they’ll never trust Indyk again, in part due to the article by Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea in which an unnamed U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the talks, believed to be Indyk, blamed Israel for the failure of the peace talks. Certainly Jerusalem has good reason to be wary of an American diplomat who is also, or intermittently, a highly paid employee of Qatar’s ruling family. Among other things, Qatar hosts Hamas’ political chief Khaled Meshaal, the man calling the shots in Hamas’ war against the Jewish state. Moreover, Doha is currently Hamas’ chief financial backer—which means that while Qatar isn’t itself launching missiles on Israeli towns, Hamas wouldn’t be able to do so without Qatari cash.

Of course, Hamas, which Qatar proudly sponsors, is a problem not just for Israel but also the Palestinian Authority. Which means that both sides in the negotiations that Indyk was supposed to oversee had good reason to distrust an American envoy who worked for the sponsor of their mutual enemy. In retrospect, it’s pretty hard to see how either side could have trusted Indyk at all—or why the administration imagined he would make a good go-between in the first place.

Indeed, the notion that Indyk himself was personally responsible for the failure of peace talks is hardly far-fetched in a Middle East wilderness of conspiracy theories. After all, who benefits with an Israeli-PA stalemate? Why, the Islamist movement funded by the Arab emirate whose name starts with the letter “Q” and, according to the New York Times, is Brookings’ biggest donor.

There are lots of other questions that also seem worth asking, in light of this smelly revelation—like why in the midst of Operation Protective Edge this summer did Kerry seek to broker a Qatari- (and Turkish-) sponsored truce that would necessarily come at the expense of U.S. allies, Israel, and the PA, as well as Egypt, while benefiting Hamas, Qatar, and Turkey? Maybe it was just Kerry looking to stay active. Or maybe Indyk whispered something in his former boss’ ear—from his office at Brookings, which is paid for by Qatar.

It’s not clear why Indyk and Brookings seem to be getting a free pass from journalists—or why Qatar does. Yes, as host of the 2022 World Cup and owner of two famous European soccer teams (Barcelona and Paris St. Germain), Doha projects a fair amount of soft power—in Europe, but not America. Sure, Doha hosts U.S. Central Command at Al Udeid air base, but it also hosts Al Jazeera, the world’s most famous anti-American satellite news network. The Saudis hate Doha, as does Egypt and virtually all of America’s Sunni Arab allies. That’s in part because Qataris back not only Hamas, but other Muslim Brotherhood chapters around the region and Islamist movements that threaten the rule of the U.S.’s traditional partners and pride themselves on vehement anti-Americanism.

Which is why, of course, Qatar wisely chose to go over the heads of the American public and appeal to the policy elite—a strategy that began in 2007, when Qatar and Brookings struck a deal to open a branch of the Washington-based organization in Doha. Since then, the relationship has obviously progressed, to the point where it can appear, to suspicious-minded people, like Qatar actually bought and paid for John Kerry’s point man in the Middle East, the same way they paid for the plane that flew U.N. Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon around the region during this summer’s Gaza war.

Indeed, the Doha-Brookings love affair has gotten so hot that it may have pushed aside the previous major benefactor of Brookings’ Middle East program, Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban. The inventor of the Power Rangers will still fund the annual Saban forum, but in the spring Brookings took his name off of what was formerly the Haim Saban Center for Middle East Policy, so that now it’s just Center for Middle East Policy. Maybe the Qatari Center For Middle East Policy didn’t sound objective enough.

Another fact buried deep inside the Times piece is that Israel—the country usually portrayed as the octopus whose tentacles control all foreign policy debate in America—ranks exactly 56th in foreign donations to Washington think tanks. The Israeli government isn’t writing checks or buying dinner because—it doesn’t have to. The curious paradox is that a country that has the widespread support of rich and poor Americans alike—from big urban Jewish donors to tens of millions of heartland Christian voters—is accused of somehow improperly influencing American policy. While a country like Qatar, whose behavior is routinely so vile, and so openly anti-American, that it has no choice but to buy influence—and perhaps individual policymakers—gets off scot free among the opinion-shapers.

It turns out that, in a certain light, critics of U.S. foreign policy like Andrew Sullivan, John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt were correct: The national interest is vulnerable to the grubby machinations of D.C. insiders—lobbyists, think tank chiefs, and policymakers who cash in on their past and future government posts. But the culprits aren’t who the curator of “The Dish” and the authors of The Israel Lobby say they are. In fact, they got it backwards. And don’t expect others like Martin Indyk to correct the mistake, for they have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the problem with America’s Middle East policy is the pro-Israel lobby. In Indyk’s case, we now know exactly how big that interest is.