Leon Panetta Echos Obama's Anti-Israel Disinformation Campaign

Not every anti-Israel step the Obama administration takes is reflected by policy.  For every "start negotiations with the 1949 Armistice lines" there is disinformation, a falsification of history spewed out by the administration.  The latest example of this falsification of history was presented tonight by new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.



On his way to meetings with Israeli and Egyptian officials, Panetta warned that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.

In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.

"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."

Panetta followed up by saying Israel risks eroding its own security if it does not reach out to its neighbors.

"It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that's what's happening," he said.

If Panetta was interested in the truth rather than just spewing more Obama administration anti-Israel rhetoric he would have mentioned that it was the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks last October, even after Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu offered to indefinitely suspend building in Judea and Samaria Communities.

Or if the new Defense Secretary didn't want to look at facts a year old, maybe he could have mentioned that today Israel accepted the quartet's proposal to resume talks with the Palestinians but the Palestinians refused until Israel made concessions to stop adding to existing communities and agreed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines. In other words, give us everything we want and maybe we will talk.  The quartet invitation asked for neither concession.

The Obama administration continues to do whatever it can to demonize Israel, when the truth tells a different story, it is the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks and it is the Palestinian Authority who continues to reject returning to the table.  And why should they.  The United Nations may give them most of what they want without negotiating.

The Obama Administration’s “Mission Accomplished” Fallacy in the War on Terrorism

By Barry Rubin

Leon Panetta, leaving the CIA directorship post to become secretary of defense, and General David Petraeus, leaving the job of commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to become CIA chief, have just come close to declaring victory in the war against terrorism, though that’s a phrase the Obama Administration refuses to use.

Good news, says Panetta. Once the United States knocks off about 20 al-Qaida leaders currently in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa, that organization will be out of commission. And while the Taliban cannot be quickly wiped out, says Petraeus, it can be “neutralized” so that it won’t cause much trouble in future.

Oh, and Panetta said that the U.S. goal is to force the Taliban to negotiate a deal to allow for national conciliation in Afghanistan. Here’s my proposed headline: Obama Administration Says: Make Deal with September 11 Accomplices. How’s that sound? That’s what’s really going on, a deal with the terrorists and not their defeat.

Uh-oh. Let’s assume that they are correct. So the forces that carried out the September 11 attack will not matter any more. So the Obama administration won’t have to worry about Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood– which it seems to think are now moderate, democratic-oriented groups. Nor will it have to be much concerned about all those other revolutionary Islamist organizations out there. Perhaps it can then focus on what seems to be the White House’s main priority, the “War on Islamophobia.”

Presumably, without those defeated threats, Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria won’t be a problem for U.S. interests and security. Iraq and Afghanistan will be stable and friendly polities.

One can only think of the lines from the satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer:

“Once all the Germans/were warlike and mean/but that couldn’t happen again!/We taught them a lesson in 1918/and they have hardly bothered us since then!”

In other words, the Obama Administration will lull itself even more into a false sense of security as the revolutionary Islamists advance in their effort to overthrow all the region’s regimes, take over the Middle East, and expel Western influence.

But let’s not assume they are correct on the specifics. The most basic principle of counter-terrorism is that just because the leaders are killed (and despite efforts to assuage grievances) broad-based terrorists groups don’t disappear. Obviously, the administration wants to play off its successful killing of Osama bin Ladin to imply that a few more such operations will do the trick. But al-Qaida is a very decentralized group.

Local affiliates continue to exist especially in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Algeria. They aren’t going away so easily. I’ll bet that parallel, albeit non-member groups, will soon appear in Egypt and elsewhere. Preventing terrorist bombers from blowing up U.S. airliners and embassies is a worthwhile task, but that’s not the same thing as stopping terrorist groups–even if they momentarily aren’t using violence–from seizing control of countries and then using violence to intimidate opponents and launch attacks on neighbors.

The fact that Petraeus has become a national hero because of being right on Iraq should not obscure the fact that he was wrong on Afghanistan. Petraeus has long believed that the United States could defeat the Taliban, use civic projects to win Afghan hearts and minds, and to build Afghanistan into a stable democratic polity. The idea that the United States can depend on the Afghan government and military to hold off radical Islamists isn’t going to work. Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.

As for the Taliban it isn’t going to be “neutralized” in any real sense. It might just lay low and let the U.S. forces leave the country, then go into action again. Indeed, it has been revealed that the secret negotiations between the U.S. government and the Taliban seek to obtain precisely that outcome. Does anyone seriously believe–other than the Obama Administration–that the Taliban is going to live up to its commitments? Can one imagine “conciliation” in Afghanistan?

I want to be clear that I do not favor a continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. But a withdrawal must be accompanied by ensuring that local anti-Taliban forces keep up that battle in their own self-interest. Pressing them to make a deal with the Taliban, which can then use any such gains in trying to seize state power, is the worst possible policy. Remember that the United States is withdrawing from Iraq with a strategy of helping the Iraqi government defeat the al-Qaida allied terrorists there, not making a deal with the insurgents.

The underlying problem is that Panetta and Patraeus are articulating two of the many myths held by the Obama Administration: that revolutionary Islamist groups aren’t a threat unless they are trying to blow up American skyscrapers and that they can be moderated by killing a few terrorist leaders or making a deal with them.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com    

Iranian Troops Are Killing American's In Iraq-Where is the US Policy Response?

By Barry Rubin

Let’s pretend we are living in a sane and normal era with a sane and normal U.S. government. In that context, read the following paragraph from the Wall Street Journal and then let’s think out loud about it.

“The top U.S. military officer accused Iran…of shipping new supplies of deadly weapons to its militia allies in Iraq, in what he described as Tehran’s bid to take credit for forcing American troops to go home….`Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups which are killing our troops,’ said Adm[iral] Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. `There is no question they are shipping high-tech weapons in there…that are killing our people. And the forensics prove that.’”

Let’s begin with an abstract approach. The government of Country A is sending weapons to forces attacking Country B. Country B is in fact pulling out of territory and doesn’t want a war. Nevertheless, Country A is escalating its aggression so it can claim the withdrawal as a great victory. Why? Because the government of Country A doesn’t want peace; it wants to destroy Country B and hates it so passionately that no conciliation is possible.

Wow, this is so familiar! Where else in the Middle East have I heard about this pattern?

Back to the Iraq case. What does the United States do about the fact that it has proof of a war being waged against it by Iran? I’m not proposing the United States go to war with Iran at all. That would be a mistake, no question about it. But how about a few time-tested activities like these:

–The United States stages some covert operations to discomfit Iran’s regime? Some economic sabotage, a few oil fields or factories have…problems. The message is: If you want this to stop, don’t attack us. You escalate; we escalate.

–The U.S. government tells all of its allies, trading partners, and anyone it can influence that sanctions against Iran of all types are going to go to the absolute maximum and that Washington will tolerate no breaches, including from China, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

–The U.S. ambassador to the UN goes to the General Assembly (as Ambassador Adlai Stevenson did over the Cuban missile crisis) and presents the evidence of Iran’s terrorism in Iraq and aid to al-Qaida, demanding strong action.

–The U.S. government tells the Turkish regime to stop cooperating with Iran. Will the Turkish government get angry and claim that its sovereignty and dignity have been violated? Yep. And then, if the costs are high enough, it might back down in some material ways.

–The president of the United States goes on television and says, “My fellow Americans….” to lay out the case against Iran, including the “forensics.” He explains that even though America does not want a conflict that one is being forced on it by its enemies. And then he lists Iran’s allies in this anti-American effort: Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah. He will tell the American people what U.S. intelligence has known for years: that Iran is sheltering al-Qaida leaders and letting them use its territory as a safe haven from which to organize attacks against Americans.

–And in line with that presentation, the United States tells Israel that it supports stronger sanctions on the Gaza Strip; refuses to recognize or give aid to a Hizballah (Syria, Iran)-dominated government in Lebanon (which has just officially taken office); gives strong support to the Lebanese opposition; breaks relations with Syria and does everything possible in terms of sanctions against that government while supporting the democratic elements in the opposition.

I suspect that not one thing on this list will happen. The problem is with the specific government now in place in the White House, not the fact that it is a Democratic Party president or a supposedly liberal president. In the background is the dominant ideology nowadays in the United States which throws out the window all of the traditional attitudes and tools used by previous presidents–realpolitik, deterrence, power politics, supporting your friends, and punishing your enemies.

One might call it a combination of proud-to-be-weak, America-is-too-evil-to-be-a-world-leader, old-fashioned appeasement, and left-wing “neo-conservatism.”

A government that will not protect the soldiers it has sent into danger by acting against those who would kill them does not deserve to lead those troops. Admiral Mullen knows it (his statement above sounds like a plea for help from Congress and the American people) and so does the recently resigned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and so does everyone who works at the Pentagon and serves in the U.S. armed forces. But they cannot speak publicly because they are serving. That’s the real “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy.”

Go back and read that paragraph about what Mullen said. Revolutionary Islamism, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others are at war with the United States. America needs a president who recognizes that fact and will do something about it.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Defense Sec. Gates SMACKS Big Mouth White House For Divulging Details of Bin Laden Operation

In a not so thinly-veiled swipe at the President and his closest advisers in the White House, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lashed out at "people" who have released operational details of the Navy Seal action two weeks ago that lead to the death of terrorist kingpin, Osama bin Laden.

Gates talked about how details of the raid leaked out even though everyone had promised to keep details a secret.

"Frankly a week ago Sunday, in the (White House) situation room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden," he said.

"That all fell apart on Monday, the next day."

The role of the more than 20 SEALs who carried out the helicopter assault on bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan was first publicly confirmed by CIA Director Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the days after the raid.Gates was speaking at a town hall of Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C..

The issue with the leaks was the safety of the Navy Seals and their families. Gates said threats against U.S. troops have increased since bin Laden’s death.

As a result, there has been a “consistent and effective effort,” he said, to protect the identities of the team – widely reported to be the Navy’s SEAL Team Six.

“I would tell you that when I met with the team last Thursday, they expressed a concern about that, and particularly with respect to their families,” Gates said.

Gates added that the military was looking at measures to pump up the security around them.Were one to check the record, they would find that most of the discussion regarding operational details have not been coming from the State Department, or Defense Department but from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Remember the multiple-versions of the operation provided by Press Secretary Jay Carney that needed to be corrected so many times, that he finally had to issue a step by step guide to the operation in writing.

Gates was indicating that the POTUS' desire to release all the details may have placed the Seals and their families in danger.

The White House not only released the details, but then with the help of his friends in the media, rubbed al Qaeda's nose in the dirt.

This President who emphasized that we did not need to "spike the football" regarding the death of bin Laden, has been going against his own policy, doing one heck of an end zone dance.