Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Who are you Colin Powell?

 

In 1991, the Chairman of the Joint C-o-S, Colin Powell, convinced President Bush #41 to abort the Gulf War, thus perpetuating the terror regime of Saddam Hussein. Consequently, the deterrence posture of the US was severely eroded, the anti-US wave of terror was drastically emboldened, climaxing on 9/11. Moreover, Saddam has evolved into a potential nuclear power, threatening US national security and requiring a US military effort, larger than the 1991 Gulf War.

 

In 2002, Secretary of State, Colin Powell, attempts to convince President Bush #43 to pressure Israel into a premature conclusion of its war on Palestinian terrorism, which would perpetuate the terror regime of the Palestinian Authority/PLO. Repeating, rather than avoiding, the Powell errors of 1991 would deal another blow to Israel’s power of deterrence.  It would expose Israel to a wave of a re-charged Palestinian terrorism, which would dwarf the murder of the 28 Israeli civilians during the March 27, 2002 Passover Massacre (proportionally, 850 Americans!) and the 750 Israelis killed since the signing of the Oslo Accords (proportionally, 22,500 Americans!).  Acceding to Powell’s pressure would undermine regional stability and would force Israel – in a few months – to launch a much costlier war on terrorism than the one currently conducted.

 

Secretary of State Powell is a key player in the Bush Administration, a decorated warrior.  But, he has not been perceived – by the Administration – as the luminary on issues of national and international security.  Powell has not been a dominant policy initiator, molder and executor as were Jim Baker, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.  He has not reflected authentically the views of the President (on international relations as well as on abortion) as did Madlyn Albright.  He has not shared the special personal chemistry with the President, as was the case with his predecessors and as has been the case with Condoleezza Rice.  While Kissinger and Baker overshadowed the Vice Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and Advisors on National Security, Powell is serving along with the most influential Vice President in the history of the US.  He serves side-by-side with an authoritative Secretary of Defense, who has risen in stature since 9/11, and with an Advisor on National Security who has been – since 1999 – President Bush’s mentor on international relations.  The limits to Secretary Powell’s clout in the Administration were initially apparent when the President appointed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, in spite of Powell’s explicit objection, and due to Cheney’s insistence. He also had to accept, grudgingly, the appointment of John Bolton as his own Undersecretary for International Security.

 

However, one should not underestimate the influence of Powell, who has persuaded President Bush to enhance his own involvement in the political process between Israel and the PLO, to enunciate “the vision of a Palestinian state,” and to agree to meet Arafat at the UN.  9/11 has precluded the Bush-Arafat meeting, but has not altered the direction of Powell’s policy, as was proclaimed during his November 19 speech at the University of Kentucky (“end of Israeli occupation”, “Palestinian state”, etc.  In order to comprehend Powell’s courting of Arafat, and his tireless efforts to save the skin of Arafat and the PLO/PA, in spite of their staggeringly criminal track record, one should examine Powell’s world view, as reflected in his attitude toward Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Contrary to the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, who believe that terrorists must be eliminated, Powell believes that terrorists could be integrated. Hence, he disputed the merit of the total obliteration of the Taliban, suggesting that the Taliban could join a coalition government in Afghanistan.  He attempted to delay the US bombing of Taliban positions, until a future political settlement is formulated.  And, he tried to prevent the takeover of Kabul by the Northern Front, lest there be negative repercussion upon the stability of the region.

 

In 1990, Powell dismissed much of the intelligence on Saddam’s offensive intentions against Kuwait. He opposed a show of force by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf, which could have deterred Saddam’s belligerence.  Following Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Powell objected to the war on Iraq, and played a key role in the premature ending of the war, lest it ostensibly exacerbate instability in the area.  His recommendation to lower the US profile in the war on Saddam, facilitated the massacre – by Saddam – of his Shi’ite and Kurdish opposition and the elimination of the CIA infrastructure in Iraq.  As a Secretary of State, Powell has attempted to reduce the scope of sanctions against Iraq and the inspection over the no-fly zone.  He has argued against the campaign to expose Saddam’s complicity with 9/11, and has lobbied against the expansion of the US war on terrorism into Iraq, since it would, supposedly, undermine US attempts to galvanize an Arab coalition against terrorism. 

 

Powell is a friend of UN Secretary General, Annan, and – unlike most Americans – he has been supportive of the UN.  While Cheney and Rumsfeld have supported unilateral US military actions against the threats of Islamic terrorism, ballistic missiles, Iraq and Iran, Powell has been a proponent of international and multi-lateral initiatives.  He has preferred the diplomatic, legal and financial weapon, rather the military weapon.  He has been attentive to the advise of Brent Scowcroft and Edward Djeredjian, who served President Bush #41 as the National Security Advisor and Assistant Secretary of State.  Both encouraged the courting of Saddam until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, and both opposed the 1991 Gulf War on Saddam.  Both were members of the “Arabist” contingency of the administration.

 

Powell’s appointments have shed light on his world view. His Special Advisor on the Mideast, General (ret.) Anthony Zini, argued against the 1991 Gulf War and cautions against a 2002 war on Saddam.  He has considered terrorism to be a diplomatic and a legal – more than a military – problem.  He has been a frequent visitor to Arab capitals, especially to Riad, and minimized until recently contacts with Israel and pro-Israel elements in the US.  Powell’s Under Secretary for Policy Planning is Richard Haas, who was the Mideast advisor of President Bush #41, and inflamed #41’s negative attitude toward Prime Minister Shamir.  Haas has pushed for a total withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 Lines, for the establishment of a Palestinian state, for the repartitioning of Jerusalem and for the dismantling of all Israeli settlements.  He has lobbied against a US war on Saddam, and has spoken up against the assistance to Saddam’s Iraqi opposition.  He has considered the Iranian regime to be a potentially constructive entity.  William Burns, known for his solid contacts with radical Arabs, has been Powell’s Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs.  And, Dan Kurtzer, an experienced diplomat, a warm and a committed Jew who has been soft on the PLO, adhering to Peace Now’s philosophy, was appointed by Powell to the post of Ambassador to Israel.

 

Powell has been known – in military and “Foggy Bottom” circles – to fully identify with his State Department bureaucracy.  He has provided a complete support to the bureaucracy of the Department of State, adopting much of its classic positions:  political engagement with radical states and organizations, opposition to the massive financing of ballistic missile defense, softening of the policy toward China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq and a full backing of the Oslo Process.  Powell has even embraced the lingo of Foggy Bottom: “confidence building measures” (code name for further Israeli territorial concessions), “cycle of violence” (moral equivalence between terrorists and victims), “freeze on settlements” (prejudging outcome of negotiations), “even-handedness” (between a democratic ally and the role-model of terrorism), etc.

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell has been a committed friend of the Jewish People. However, it is pertinent to recognize his proper role and weight in the Bush Administration, as well as his world view, in order to avoid euphoria or depression in reacting to his pronouncements and meetings with Arafat, a role-model of international terrorism and inter-Arab treachery, a serial violator of commitments, an abuser of human rights, an oppressor of Christians, a money counterfeiter and the corrupt ally of Iraq, Iran, Sudan and other terrorist entities.

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

Obama’s First year – The Writing Was on the Wall

I am not surprised by President Obama’s performance – since January 2009 – in face of unprecedented and simultaneous economic, social, national security challenges, domestically and internationally.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama, who was elected to the most difficult and complicated post – during a most unstable period internally and externally – in spite of his obvious lack of experience and superficial world view.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama’s policy toward the Jewish State and toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is a derivative of his world view that was fully displayed during the 2008 campaign.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama’s performance – the writing was on the wall for those who were ready to read it!

 

Obama was elected at the peak of an economic meltdown, the extent of which has not been determined. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, unemployment is around a 26 year record 10%, under-employment is 17%, the budget deficit is the worst since the end of WW2, hundreds of banks have collapsed, the real estate bubble burst, private consumption and investment have dipped beyond expectation, the social security and the medical insurance systems are severely threatened, taxes are rising and government’s involvement in the economy is expanding. Obama is increasingly identified and burdened with the economic crisis – which was not caused by him – and the steps taken to solve the crisis.

 

Obama prefers to be preoccupied with domestic challenges, which will determine the future of the USA and of his presidency.  However, as expected, he is sucked into the lava of Islamic terrorism and religious, territorial, tribal, ideological and power struggles throughout the globe.  While Obama extends his hand to rogue regimes, Islamic terrorism stretches its hand into the US mainland, exacerbating a sense of insecurity and reawakening the question: “When – and not if – will the second shoe fall?!” Islamic terrorism has intensified its operational, political, financial, ideological and logistical involvement in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, the USA, Latin America and Australia.

 

Pakistan persists in its double-role of the most critical base of Islamic terrorism on one hand and counter-terrorism on the other hand.  In fact, Islamabad could be taken over by terrorists along with its nuclear arsenal.  India’s restraint in the face of Islamic terrorism may be suspended, reigniting the endemic conflict with Pakistan.  The US war in Afghanistan could be Vietnamized and the war in Iraq is far from a conclusion. The possible evacuation of US troops from these two arenas could add fuel, not water, to the fire, further destabilizing the region and the globe. 

 

Syria has provided safe haven for anti-US Iraqi terrorists. Iran supports and incites Persian Gulf and global terrorism, while upgrading its ballistic and nuclear capabilities, which would agitate the Gulf, the Middle East, the US, Europe and the entire world. Nuclear North Korea has been a source of unexpected threats.  Russia and China have never hidden their imperial aspirations, which have gravely concerned their neighbors in East Europe and Asia.  Mexico is facing a lethal challenge from drug cartels, which have expanded their internal wars into Texas, Arizona and California.  Venezuela and Cuba collaborate with enemies and rivals of the USA, who may thus gain access to Washington’s backyard.  And, that’s an incomplete list of external challenges preoccupying Obama.

 

President Obama is facing these challenges with a world view, which was enunciated during the 2008 campaign and in three major speeches at Cairo University (June 4, 2009), the UN General Assembly (September 23, 2009) and West Point Military Academy (December 1, 2009).

 

In contrast with the US ethos, Obama does not believe in the moral, economic and military exceptionalism of the US or in the destiny of the US to lead the battle of Western democracies against rogue regimes. He views the US as a power-in-retreat, which abused its dominance.  Therefore, he systematically apologizes to Muslims, in particular, and Third World societies in general, investigates the conduct of CIA agents in their war against terrorists and is closing down the Gitmo detention camp.  He does not define the world as an arena of confrontation between free societies and terror organizations and states, but as a platform of engagement between rivals who must comprehend that covenants and accords are preferable to wars and that their common ground exceeds that which separates them.

 

Obama is convinced that military force does not solve conflicts and that the era of military balance is over.  Therefore, he cuts the budget of military R&D and missile defense, does not replenish military inventories consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not expand US armed forces despite expanding threats and initiates agreements to reduce the arms race, even when this advances Russian interests.

 

Obama’s Administration refrains from using the terms “international terrorism,” “Islamic terrorism,” (because “Islam is part of America…”) or “Jihadist terrorism” (because “Jihad means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal…”).  According to Obama, there are no terrorists, only “extremists,” “man-made disasters” and “isolated cases” such as Al-Qaeda and Taliban.  Terrorism is considered a challenge for law-enforcement officials rather than for military personnel.  Moreover, terrorism constitutes, to an extent, a Third World reaction to abuse and lack of respect by the Western World.  Therefore, terrorists benefit from the rights of civil law offenders.  And, when there is no moral clarity, there is hardly battle field clarity.

 

Obama considers the UN as the quarterback of international relations and the bureaucracy of Foggy Bottom as the luminaries of foreign policy.  He aspires to move closer to the European state of mind and world view, while the world is in a dire need of a US Marshall and not for a European cop. Hence, Obama aims at minimizing unilateral initiatives and maximizing military, legal, political and environmental multilateralism.  He has joined the vehemently anti-US and anti-Israel UN Council on Human Rights, which was boycotted by Bush. Furthermore, he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who headed the Council on Human Rights and led the racist anti-US and anti-Israel UN “Durban Conference.” 

 

Obama’s attitude toward the Jewish State has been a by-product of his aforementioned world view, of his non Judeo-Christian background and of his inner circle associates and friends at Harvard University and in Chicago, who have been critical and hostile toward Israel.  The principles of “moral equivalence” and “evenhandedness” have underlined his policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He does not regard Israel as a strategic, let alone unique, ally and is hardly a supporter of US joint defense and commercial projects with Israel. He does not rush to defend Israel at the UN and views the Jewish State as part of the exploiting Western World and the Arabs as part of the exploited Third World. 

 

Obama has adopted the sophisticated line of Arab propaganda, claiming that the moral foundation of Israel is the Holocaust, which resulted in ushering Jews to a newly acquired home, while uprooting Palestinians from their own home. He perceives the Palestinian issue as the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the root cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism and the chief trigger of Middle East turbulence.  His prescription for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949/67 Lines, the uprooting of Jewish communities in the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, the repartitioning of Jerusalem, the negotiation of the return of the 1948 Arab refugees to the pre-1967 Israel and the exchange of land.  President Obama is intent on clipping the wings of the Jewish State morally, strategically and territorially.  However, that is not a top priority for him.  He would not confront Israel’s friends on Capitol Hill and in the public if they are mobilized against his prescription. Does Obama have the power to overcome such a pro-Israel alliance and impose a solution on Israel?

 

Voters in the US elected Obama to office, in spite of his lack of experience domestically and globally.  Instead of reading the writing on the wall, US voters entertained the delusion that an “attractive cover” meant an “instructive book.”  However, Obama’s conduct since January 2009 has led to the collapse of his attractive image.  For example, a majority of Americans oppose higher taxes, an expanded budget deficit and bigger government, which have become Obama’s trade mark.  60% of the US public believes that the US is moving in the wrong direction.  Support for Obama has declined from 65% in January 2009, to less than 50% in January 2010 – the steepest presidential decline since 1975. 

 

From a consensus-builder candidate in 2008 he has emerged as a controversy-promoting president in 2009. From a moderate candidate he has transformed into a liberal president, while only 20% of the American public consider themselves to be Liberals.  From a coattail candidate, who received the Independent vote and swept Democrats to a major victory in both congressional chambers, he has become an anchor-chained president, who has distanced Independents from the Democratic Party, has energized the Angry White Vote and could drag Democrats to defeat in November 2010.  The Democratic failure in November 2009 and public opinion polls for the spring primaries and for the November 2010 election, suggest a major Republican tailwind.  As a result, a number of prominent Democratic legislators have announced retirement.  Therefore, as we approach the November 2010 election, and as legislators are growing more attentive to their constituents, moderate and conservative Democratic legislators are distancing themselves from President Obama.

 

While Obama is perceived as a President who strays away from the American consensus, Israel benefits from a consensus support.  “Joe Six Pack” and “Lunch Pail Mabel,” conservative and liberal America, Jews and Christians, Republicans and Democrats do not view Israel as a classic foreign policy issue, but as an internal Judeo-Christian American issue, which is bonded with the USA through shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.  Israel is largely regarded as a peace-seeking democratic militarily-able ally, surrounded by enemies who reject American values. US public opinion polls position Israel as the fourth or fifth most favorite ally with 66%-70% support, compared with the Palestinian Authority, which is at the bottom of the list along with Iran and North Korea. The key factor of support for the idea of a Jewish State – since the 17th century – has been the US public and its representatives on Capitol Hill.  Most initiatives enhancing the US-Israel relationship originated in Congress, many times following a struggle against an opposing Administration.  President Obama’s world view suggests that such struggles could be intensified during the next few years. 

 

The writing is on the wall!    

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb