Very, Very Interesting

Spencer Ackerman:

This is the sort of message that if you summarized it from the topline — “important military figure hears from Arab leaders that entrenched Israeli-Palestinian conflict damages U.S. credibility” — would be thoroughly uncontroversial. It’s the sort of thing that everyone in the foreign policy community knows, accepts and seethes at when the alleged-friends-of-Israel try to make it beyond the pale of discussion. So don’t be surprised that Gen. David Petraeus would brief Adm. Mike Mullen, as Foreign Policy reports that he did in December, about “a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.”

Yeah, I think I’d file that one under “No shit, Sherlock.”

What’s more noteworthy is that Petraeus would consider it a military problem — and his military problem. For background: Central Command, which Petraeus helms, is responsible for all U.S. military forces in and security relationships with the Middle East and South Asia. Except for Israel. European Command (which is dual-hatted with the NATO military command) has the Israel portfolio. That’s for a variety of diplomatic sensibilities, all of which reduce to “it’s not worth the headache of getting Central Command embroiled in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Petraeus apparently wanted the headache. Put differently, according to Foreign Policy, he recognized that it doesn’t make any sense for the senior U.S. military commander with responsibilities for the Middle East not to be involved in the number-one security problem in the Middle East. And so — I should mention I can’t vouch for this report’s accuracy; but wow — Petraeus recommended giving Central Command responsibility for the West Bank and Gaza. In the real world, that’s a sensible recommendation. In the world refracted through the prism of a conflict that makes everyone who encounters it more than a little irrational, it was never ever going to be adopted, because it opens the door for American military involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a taboo subject (until it isn’t). And so it wasn’t.

Go read the rest.

3 thoughts on “Very, Very Interesting

  1. Crapovsky! In todays world the Palestinians are not as important as they used to be. They were offered a great deal by Olmert and declined, as usual. The Arabs are shaking in their boots due to the Iranians.

    Although Nateyahou is a short sighted idiot, American soldiers are affected by Muslim war with themselves and not by the plight of the Palestinian as sad as it is.

  2. Yeah, I work FMS (Foreign Military Sales) and the Israel program is worked out of the European branch, not the ME branch. The Israeli Foreign Liaison Officer (FLO) mingles with the FLOs of the Dutch and German programs… Back when some FLOs were located onbase (all are now located off base), it was only the FLOs of the European branch allowed… the “Arabs” were kept off base… Then somebody attached to the Israeli FLO got caught going through the trash… Got ’em all moved off…

    Funny dat!


  3. I agree that the Saudis, Kuwait, the UAE, etc. are more concerned with Iran than Israel and are coming around to seeing Israel as a country with a common enemy… They’re all buying lots of toys, but because of “The Persians” not Israel…

    Iran is just freakin’ good for business!

    And it is in America’s best interest to whip up the Iranian Fear Factor…

    If you want a sensible explanation over everybody’s panic over the possibility of Iranian nukes… that’s it!

    Good. For. Business.

    Weapons systems is the one industry America hasn’t outsourced overseas…

Comments are closed.