That’s what Thomas Friedman gave as the reason for our invasion of countries in the Middle East in his much ballyhooed interview with Charlie Rose several years ago.  (The clip above.)  It seems however that Friedman either forgot his bravado laced interview or considers it insignificant when writing his latest Mid East pronouncements, which appear here.   In this latest tripe Friedman passes for an editorial (can you believe he gets P-A-I-D for writing this stuff?!) Friedman talks about the “narrative” and describes it thusly

The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.

Friedman forgot to mention himself as one who promotes the “narrative”; even by his own accounts we invaded Muslim countries and killed scores of innocence not for any grand or noble political designs for us, Americans, or for them, the citizens of those countries, but rather we reaped all of that havoc ‘because we could’ and to get them to Suck. On. This. That mentality is what drove the pornographic rage that we’ve only seen snippets of that took place in Abu Ghraib.  (I’m sure all the citizens of Iraq, and some other Muslim countries too, have heard all of the stories our democracy has said we here in America aren’t eligible to hear or know about.)  Friedman mentions Abu Ghraib, but only in passing, in the midst of  extolling all the good things American soldiers did or are doing in Iraq as occupiers mind you of a country that initially was no threat to the vital interests of the US or her allies.  While chiding “jihadists” for ignoring the latter, Friedman did himself and his article a disservice but doing the same with the former.

As usual, Glen Greenwald does a pretty good job of dismantling the Friedman fantasy/hypocrisy.  Among his zingers to Friedman’s piece are lines like these

And note the morality on display here:  Hasan attacks soldiers on a military base of a country that has spent the last decade screaming to the world that “we’re at war!!,” and that’s a deranged and evil act, while Friedman cheers for an unprovoked war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and displaced millions more — all justified by sick power fantasies, lame Mafia dialogue and cravings more appropriate for a porno film than a civilized foreign policy — and he’s the arbiter of Western reason and sanity.

That’s only one of several well placed punches to Friedman’s devilishly childish arguments in his latest op-ed.  Steven Walt of the infamous Walt-Mearsheimer duo which brought the world the book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, and brought upon themselves an undeserved ignominy, weighed in on Friedman’s article as well with less than sterling results, in my opinion, because of his emphasis on “numbers” of casualties amassed to make the case for why “they” hate us. The comments section of his article is why his article lacks the strength of moral certainty to oppose Friedman’s op-ed.  Simply put people don’t care about the whys and wherefores these days and using that argument about why Muslims hate us without mentioning that we launched a war of aggression against them based on lies that our government made and upheld in order to invade and total decimate their culture, and that we continue to justify our occupation based on these debunked lies is disingenuous, in this writer’s estimation.   Walt is an academic so perhaps that’s why he relied so heavily on numbers in his “refutation” of Friedman’s article, but in so doing he let Friedman off the hook for his, Friedman’s, obscene insistence for war and his cheerleading for it when he knew ostensibly that he was lying.  If Walt had simply said that, any claim to legitimacy on the part of Friedman, would have been irrevocably lost.

Friedman is an apologist for wars of aggression and he wants the victims of such wars to engage him in semantic pedantry which is why he issues this weak call out  at the end of his article.   It’s a waste of time for him to issue it and even more a waste of time for others to answer it.  What Mr. Friedman needs to be reminded of is the importance of ‘the rule of law’, something he nor any of his supporters really had a handle on for the last 10 years. Friedman is the newspaper world’s hate radio pundits; not much substance and  a lot of hot air.  His bias and hatred for the people he generally writes about borders on the sophomoric, not at all worthy of the New York Times, or if you insist that it is, then both are not news that’s fit to be printed.  May I suggest citizenship journalism instead?

Bob Gates isn’t happy about the leaks that are fueling the public debate on Afghanistan. And according to the FT, they indicate a stark rift between key US officials:

One senior Nato official told the Financial Times: “I think it’s safe to say that Ambassador Eikenberry and Stanley McChrystal will not be exchanging Christmas cards this year.”

Some smart speculation here from Stephen Walt on the Eikenberry cables and where Obama’s at in the debate:

First, I think it’s a sign that deep down, Obama knows he has no good options. He’s figured out that the stakes aren’t as great as he may have once thought, that the commitment is potentially endless, that we have no local partner for the kind of centralized, “state-building” approach that remains at the heart of U.S. strategy, and that going all in will commit him to a war we won’t win. No wonder he keeps looking for an alternative.

And finally, confirmation from the White House that what the president is really looking for is a way out of Afghanistan.

Hoje os americanos celebram “Veterans Day”, feriado instituído pelo presidente Woodrow Wilson inicialmente em memória ao armistício que encerrou a Primeira Guerra, em 1919. (O mesmo motivo fez o governo francês transformar o dia de hoje em feriado nacional. Quem estiver em Paris verá bandeirolas tricolores em todos os ônibus.) Em 1954 os EUA decidiram aumentar o escopo e passaram a homenagear todos os veteranos no feriado.

Aproveitando a efeméride, Stephen Walt, professor de Harvard, deixou um memorável post em seu blog sobre a relação entre o Estado moderno e a guerra ainda nos dias de hoje:

It is revealing that we honor veterans of the armed forces but not other members of society who run similar risks and make similar sacrifices — rescue workers, firemen, police officers, etc. It reflects our awareness that we still live in an insecure world, and it echoes the origin of the modern state as an instrument for the conduct of organized violence. “War made the state, and the state made war,” wrote sociologist Charles Tilly, and we still look to national governments to provide protection against external dangers. Americans didn’t turn to Microsoft, Amnesty International or the Ford Foundation after 9/11, and while they may have gone to church, mosque or synagogue to find comfort, they looked to the federal government — and especially the national security establishment — to provide protection.

Is something going to give here? I have to wonder when peace process-optimist, Tom Friedman says it’s time for the Obama administration to bail on the Israelis and Palestinians for now.

Joe Klein says it’s time for the Obama administration to play some hard ball with the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu:

The Obama Administration may have to be a bit less “grandiose” in dealing with Netanyahu’s irredentist government. It should start by putting a hold on all economic and military aid to Israel; the aid should not be discontinued, just held, for a nice long review until the Netanyahu government comes to understand that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and that if you actually want peace, you don’t build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital.

But it’s not going to happen, says Stephen Walt. Because Congress won’t let it happen. Walt answers the question I put to a few Middle East experts for a radio story that ran on Monday. Here’s Walt:

The sun is now setting on the “two-state solution” — if it is not already well below the horizon — and pretty soon everyone will have to admit that they are sitting around in the dark and pretending they see daylight.

John Mearsheimer i Stephen Walt: Wpływ lobby izraelskiego na politykę USA

2006 Maj

Although his blog entry seems overly negative, Professor Stephen Walt makes a good point that the National Security Strategy documents mandated by Goldwater-Nichols haven’t resulted in something terribly useful to the presidency, Congress, or the public in general.

Consider timeliness. An administration is supposed to issue the strategy within 150 days of coming into office, and annually thereafter. Most never make the deadline and are lucky to get a security strategy published in the first term. A better system would be for an administration to issue a strategy once every four years and only after it has had a chance to put together its national security team. Issuance within 365 days makes more sense and would be more in line with actual practice. A national security review that names threats, proposes assumptions, and identifies opportunities is something that can be done on an annual basis and should feed the national strategy.

Now let’s look at content. Most strategies have been rhetorical documents with lists of goals lacking priority order, identification of advantages over adversaries, or practical considerations such as resources available. So, in their present form, they aren’t really strategies at all. A real national security strategy with unclassified and classified portions that provide selected assumptions, weigh resources, identify opportunities, and establish priorities would help most administration decision-makers stay on track. Officials below the principal-level who have rare encounters with the president or their own leadership would find such guidance helpful. Congress would find it more useful too, because it would provide better justification for legislation.

Professor Walt also suggests that strategies ought not be made public at all. A bit extreme, but there is good reason to have, at least, classified and unclassified versions. There are some actions our government may not want to broadcast. But that doesn’t mean that there should be no political guidance, or that subordinate officials should be kept in the dark. Going that far would exacerbate an existing vulnerability, that (outside of DoD) we don’t strategize or plan well. Doing away with a requirement for a national security strategy would enshrine that weakness.

Instead, the national security strategy needs to be less a square-filler and more of a document that provides analysis and guidance. Not long and ponderous, but sufficient to direct the national security bureaucracy to implement presidential policies according to resources we have, opportunities before us, and against dangers that we think may threaten. Since the primary purpose of our government is to protect its citizens and their way of life, blowing off writing a strategy—just because it hasn’t been done well in the past—would be a serious mistake.”

-Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson is a Distinguished Fellow with PNSR, leading the organization’s development of Strategy and Resource research and recommendations. Prior to Joining PNSR, Johnson was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs. His views are not necessarily representative of PNSR’s.

Para quem tem o estranho hábito de ler comunicados de Bin Laden, o último, divulgado no oitavo aniversário do 11 de Setembro, surpreendeu.

Nele, o chefe da Al-Qaeda novamente fala aos americanos médios – Osama muito raramente dirige a palavra ao presidente dos EUA, seja Bush ou Obama. Mas, em vez de ameaças ao “Povo americano” (é esse o vocativo usado), ele agora traz uma listinha de livros que supostamente andou lendo.

Corão? Escritos islâmicos? Manuais de guerrilha? Paulo Coelho? Nop. No início do discurso, Osama recomenda o relato do ex-agente da CIA John Perkins, em “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”.  Em seguida, sugere o livro do ex-presidente democrata Jimmy Carter, que acusa Israel de praticar uma segregação racial nos moldes do apartheid. E, por último, o incendiário “The Israel Lobby”, escrito pelos professores Stephen Walt (Harvard) e John Mearsheimer (Universidade de Chicago). É isso que Osama diz estar lendo nos cavernosos confins da fronteira afegã-paquistantesa.

Ele explica o por quê da divulgação da lista de Best Sellers da Al-Qaeda:

After reading the suggested books, you will know the truth and you will be severely shocked at the magnitude of deception that has been practiced against you.

Osama entende que, nos EUA, a timoneira é a opinião pública.

Claro que, para um intelectual americano, estar na bibliografia e notas de rodapé de Bin Laden não pega bem. Constrangido, Walt tentou contornar a situação com um post em seu blog (excelente, diga-se). Ele se defende dizendo que não é o único americano a denunciar o lobby pró-Israel em Washington. Portanto, se não fosse ele, Osama teria citado outra pessoa e o conteúdo do discurso continuaria o mesmo. Ainda assim, rivais de Walt na torre de marfim aproveitaram a oportunidade para dar mais uma bordoada. E a disputa na blogosfera continua.

Outra coisa curiosa do discurso de Osama é a centralidade da questão palestina. Quem – novamente – tem o hábito de acompanhar as teses de Bin Laden deve se lembrar que, nos comunicados pós-11/9, a referência a Israel existia, mas era quase marginal. Antes dos ataques às Torres Gêmeas, ainda, era praticamente nula. Osama falava muito da presença americana na Arábia Saudita, o solo sagrado do Islã, da opressão exercida pelos autocratas árabes no Oriente Médio. Aventurava-se apenas às vezes por terrenos como a condição de muçulmanos nos Bálcãs, na Rússia e nos territórios palestinos. Isso agora mudou. Oito anos após o 11/9, com Obama eleito, a retirada americana do Iraque avançando e o Afeganistão em frangalhos, Bin Laden centrou o foco em Israel.

Episode #25 : the CIA abuse story. It’s a good one.

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 27. August 2009

Professor Stephen Walt kommentiert Dr. Neve Gordons kürzlich formulierten Boykottaufruf gegen Israel. Am Ende der Lobrede auf den Professor der Ben Gurion University schreibt Walt:

Ich sollte hinzufügen, dass ich “Boykott, Kapitalabzug und Sanktionsbestrebungen nicht unterstütze. Zum Teil, weil ich mich selbst bei vergleichsweise milden Formen kollektiver Bestrafung unwohl fühle, und zum anderen, weil ich mir, wie Gordon auch, Sorgen wegen der Doppelmoral mache (d.h., wenn man denkt, es sei okay, Israel zu boykottieren, warum nicht auch China, Burma [Myanmar] oder  weitere Länder?). Und besonders misstrauisch bin ich bei Versuchen, den akademischen Austausch einzuschränken, weil ich alles ablehne, was die Meinungsfreiheit oder den freien Gedankenaustausch behindert. Aber ich respektiere Gordons Motive und sein Gastkommentar hat mich nicht überrascht: Was, wenn er recht hat und dies tatsächlich der einzige Weg ist, eine Zweistatenlösung zu bekommen? Gelehrte sollten die Menschen zum Nachdenken bringen, stimmt’s?

Stephen Pollard kann seinen Ekel kaum verbergen:

Nun, nachdem er Jahre damit verbracht hat, Gift und Galle zu versprühen und überkommenen Lügen über ein manipulierendes, konspiratives Israel, das die amerikanische Außenpolitik steuere, einen akademischen Anstrich zu verpassen, erwähnt er beiläufig, dass er den Geist, den er selbst aus der Flasche gelassen hat, nicht wirklich unterstütze.

Chuzpe ist noch freundlich formuliert. Mir fielen auch andere Formulierungen dafür ein.

Atmen Walt oder Gordon genügend Sauerstoff in der dünnen Luft ihrer Elfenbeintürme?

Okay, my heading is definitely sensationalist, but over at Stephen Walt’s FP blog, he has two recent posts that should really get people questioning the blinders that go hand in hand with committing oneself to a particular IR theory.

Last Friday, he wondered about the international implications of the messy healthcare debate going on in the U.S. this August.  Walt wrote, “When I see some of these folks in action, even a realist like me begins to question the validity of the ‘rational actor’ assumption.”  Whenever a realist talks that way, it grabs my attention.   And he’s right, but then of course, that’s why I’m not a committed realist and why I am a fan of behavioral economics and any discipline embracing advances in psychology. 

But then Tuesday,  Walt really stirred up a debate by questioning the “safe haven” argument for the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan.  He made a number of points, but one in particular relied on the assumption that the Taliban, if it were to regain control of the country or a significant portion of it, would act rationally.  Essentially, Taliban leaders would be unlikely to provide extensive refuge to al-Qaeda because they would be assured of military defeat, just like after 9/11. 

On FP’s new AfPak channel, two scholars– Peter Berg and Paul Cruickshank– quickly pounced on Walt’s post.  It’s remarkable how similar their rebuttals of Walt’s six major points are, and I think it’s fair to say that they demolished his argument.   Both emphasized, however, that neither history nor current trends give credence to the notion that the Taliban should be considered a rational actor in any future scenario. 

I think another of Walt’s points demonstrates not merely a problem with realism but with the exercise of analyzing current events through a single theoretical prism.  Simplifying for the sake of modeling is not what I’m attacking.  It’s necessary in economics, IR, and other fields.  But when applying a model to a given topic, an analyst has to be careful not to force departures from the model to fit.  Walt was not with his first point, that the Taliban was not, is not, and will not likely be an ideologically unified force.  Both responses to Walt emphasized that the current trend among the Taliban fighters is unification, exactly the opposite.  Walt ignored this. 

Challenging widely accepted notions of strategy is a valuable exercise to force policymakers to rethink and defend foundational assumptions.  I made an effort, though admittedly not one from an expert, to do that with respect to the administration’s Russia/Ukraine/Georgia strategies. But it becomes something entirely different when a scholar overplays his hand.  It becomes advocacy. 

My final question, though, is this.  Do realists live up to the rational actor assumption if uninformed, screaming Americans receive more skeptical treatment than the Taliban? This week, at least, Stephen Walt didn’t make a great case in the affirmative.

Photo from CNN.

Excerpt of Stephen Walt’s opinion of the late Robert McNamara:

…McNamara may have been a gifted analyst and corporate executive, blessed with a lot of raw smarts, but he was also one of those people who could not imagine being wrong or resist the desire to tell the world what to do. Failure in Vietnam did not teach him humility; he ran the World Bank with same ego-driven sense of infallibility he had brought to the Pentagon (and with predictably mixed results). Yet this second experience with failure did not temper his love of the limelight or his desire to prescribe How Things Should Be Done. He spent the last decades of his life offering high-profile advice on various aspects of nuclear weapons policy — with the same degree of self-assurance he had always displayed — and he sought the spotlight once again with a belated memoir on his role in Vietnam. As always, however, it was filled with “lessons” for others; to the last, McNamara retained an unwarranted confidence in his own ideas as well as an inability to keep quiet.

Overall, McNamara’s post-Vietnam behavior raises a broader question about the role of former officials who have led their country into major disasters. Ordinarily, we should respect the men and women who have devoted years of their lives to public service and listen carefully to the counsel of those who have the benefit of long experience. Moreover, someone who is no longer competing for a job in Washington may be more likely to give honest advice than someone who is still worrying about the questions she might face at a confirmation hearing.

But in some cases — and a lot of former Bush administration officials come to mind here — the failures are of sufficient gravity as to render all subsequent advice suspect. And when a government official’s repeated errors have left thousands of their fellow citizens dead or grievously wounded, along with hundreds of thousands of other human beings, it would be more seemly for them to remain silent, in mute acknowledgement of their own mistakes. And if they persist in pontificating — as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, and Dick Cheney are now doing — a nation that understood the importance of accountability might have the good sense to pay them the attention and respect they deserve. Which is to say: none.

via The “Lessons” of Robert S. McNamara | Stephen M. Walt.

afghanistan, Bush, Cuban Missile Crisis, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, foreignpolicy.com, indochina, international affairs, international relations, Iraq, John Bolton, Pentagon, policy, politics, public policy, Robert McNamara, Stephen Walt, Vietnam, World Bank

In 2002, then-president George W. Bush (like his father and many other presidents) tossed ‘brave rhetoric’ around while signing checks to Israel. His rhetoric was as fresh and promising as President Obama’s this week in Cairo,  in that it wasn’t.

Mr. Bush’s speech from 24 Jun 02 (h/t: Ali Abunimah):

“It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve….

“If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine….

“Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.

Mr. Bush even acknowledged the illegality of the settlements:

“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”

U.S. military welfare to Israel increased in 2007, committing $30bn for a decade. Mr. Bush also signed over another $20bn and $13bn to the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, respectively. All three of these countries elevated its atrocities and were rewarded by the Bush administration for terrorizing people.

Prof. Noam Chomsky’s reaction to President Obama’s speech seven years later: “Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.”

According to a senior Obama administration official, the U.S. will not cut military welfare to Israel, nor has the administration given any reason to believe that continuing to enable the Saudi and Egyptian regimes of terror will cease, either. This week, Mr. Obama called the despotic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak a “force for stability and good” and contrary to the Newspeak, Mr. Obama grants tacit consent to Israel’s illegal occupation which already exists in the West Bank — only objecting to further expansion of the colonization, as Olivia Zemor points out:

The media speaks of the American president’s “firm stand.” What sort of firmness is that? The AFP wrote again recently, “On Monday, before leaving for the Near East, the American resident Barak Obama reaffirmed the necessity for a certain firmness regarding Israel, on the subjects of a Palestinian state and the settlements in the Territories.”

That’s right: Obama is not demanding the dismantlement Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. He’s not demanding the end of the occupation, nor the end of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, nor the payment of the costs of the enormous destruction wrought on the Gaza Strip.

Obama is not demanding that Israel return to the Palestinians what was stolen from them. Not all, not even some. Obama’s “demands” consist of calling for “a freeze in the settlements:” nothing new there! And the Palestinian state, where will that be now that Israel has annexed 89% of the Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem? What Bantustans will Obama propose to the Palestinians?

They dare to “arm wrestle” with us again: in what is now a well-oiled production. The Israeli government plays the “impossible and too painful concessions” card in order, as usual, to ratify a fait accompli. A fait accompli which consists of stealing and annexing practically all of the land in order to later give the impression of conceding when they stop, when there is no longer anything left to take….

The Israelis will have made a “painful concession,” and isn’t it that which counts? The settlers will cry out and menace. They will say, like the butcher Sharon, transformed into a man of peace, “Ah, what courage the Israeli government has to stand up to the pressure of a part of its population, its parliament, and its own government.” And while we talk about the yet to be born children of settlers who will be deprived of playgrounds, Israel can continue to massacre Palestinian children, chase Palestinians, destroy their houses, uproot their olive trees and imprison and torture thousands of Palestinian men, women and children. She can also continue to show proof of a confident racism by refusing to give the same rights to Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, without being restricted by any government or institution. Investigation reports follow one another when the massacres become too obvious. And we continue to roll out the red carpet for all of those war criminals, presenting them to be men of courage who have made generous propositions, but which the Palestinian terrorists refuse to accept.

And Obama, like Clinton, will he undoubtedly replay the “I did what I could” scene, but the Palestinians made the negotiations fail? How could an outlaw state oblige another outlaw state to act morally? Obama has just raised the US military budget and sent new troops to Afghanistan. Is it really like that, that you take the road to peace and justice?

In 2007, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, where they analyze the lobby’s influence on the actions of the U.S. government, no matter what the rhetoric of its leaders. Former American president Gerald Ford “threatened to reassess U.S. support for Israel”. In 1992, then-president George H.W. Bush “briefly withheld loan guarantees”. (165)

The Clinton administration of the 90’s is highly revered for the Oslo Accords in 1996 and the frequently misreported Camp David Summit in 2000:

The Clinton administration’s Middle East policy was heavily shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations. The two most notable individuals in this regard were Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and cofounder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who served on Clinton’s National Scurity Council, as ambassador to Israel (1995-97, 2000-01), and as assistant secretary of state (1997-2000); and Dennis Ross, who served as Clinton’s special envoy to the Middle East and joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001. They were among President Clinton’s closest advisers at the Camp David summit in July 2000.

Although both Indyk and Ross supported the Oslo peace process and favored the creation of a Palestinians state — which led hard-liners to denounce them unfairly for betraying Israel — they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israeli leaders… The American delegation at Camp David took most of its cues from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.… Even the “Clinton parameters” presented in December 2000 were less an independent American proposal than Clinton’s summary of where negotiations stood and his assessment of the bargaining space within which a solution might be found. Palestinians negotiators complained that the Israelis would sometimes present them with a specific proposal, and then later the Americans would offer the same idea, on the Americans would label it a “bridging proposal.” As another member of the U.S. team later admitted, Israeli proposals were often “presented [to the Palestinians] as U.S. concepts, not Israeli ones,” a subterfuge that fooled no one and reinforced Palestinian suspicions. (165-166)

It’s worth noting that Dennis Ross is a member of the Obama administration as one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special advisers.

Dr. Mearsheimer recently commented:

The special relationship [between the Israel Lobby and the American government] means Washington gives Israel consistent, almost unconditional diplomatic backing and more foreign aid than any other country. In other words, Israel gets this aid even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements. Furthermore, Israel is rarely criticized by American officials and certainly not by anyone who aspires to high office. Recall what happened earlier this year to Charles Freeman, who was forced to withdraw as head of the National Intelligence Council because he had criticized certain Israeli policies and questioned the merits of the special relationship.

Many hope that Obama will be different from his predecessors and stand up to the lobby. The indications thus far are not encouraging. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama responded to charges that he was “soft” on Israel by pandering to the lobby and publicly praising the special relationship. He was silent during the recent Gaza War—when Israel was being criticized around the world for its brutal assault on that densely populated enclave—and he said nothing when Freeman was forced to quit his administration. Like his predecessors, Obama appears to be no match for the lobby….

In short, a clear majority of Americans do not favor the special relationship and would back Obama if he leaned on Israel to accept a Palestinian state. The lobby, however, would surely side with Israel and pressure the White House to back off. Given the lobby’s track record—as well as Obama’s—it is difficult to imagine him not caving.…

This week, Dr. Walt asked, “Is the Lobby Getting Weaker?“:

Let’s start by recognizing that all Obama has done so far is lay down some rhetorical markers.… But Obama has yet to put any real pressure on Israel, and he certainly hasn’t tried to make U.S. support (still over $3 billion/year) conditional on Israeli compliance. And the main bone of contention right now is simply whether Israel is willing to stop expanding settlements; we haven’t even gotten to all the steps that will be necessary to make a viable Palestinian state possible.

Furthermore, we pointed out in our book that the lobby exerted more influence in Congress than on the Executive Branch, and we noted that several past Presidents (e.g., Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) had been able to put limited pressure on Israel in recent decades. So mild Presidential pressure on Israel is hardly unprecedented. In the meantime, the situation on the Hill hasn’t changed very much: a recent AIPAC-sponsored “Dear Colleague” letter telling Obama to privately coordinate his Mideast diplomacy with Israel (and proposing various conditions on the Palestinians) garnered 76 signatures in the Senate and 329 in the House. And there are signs that Israel’s supporters on the Hill are beginning to mobilize in more direct ways.

Dr. Mearsheimer continues:

Israel’s backers often maintain that American support for Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, but this claim is simply not true. Consider the motivations of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, whom the 9/11 Commission describes as the “principle architect of the attacks.” According to the commission, “KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Numerous independent accounts have also documented that Osama bin Laden has been deeply concerned about the Palestinian situation since he was young, and the 9/11 Commission reports that he wanted the attackers to strike Congress, which he saw as the most important source of support for Israel in the United States. The commission also tells us that bin Laden twice wanted to move the date of the attacks forward because of events involving Israel—even though doing so would have increased the risk of failure.

In short, there is little hope of ending America’s terrorism problem and improving its standing in the Middle East if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not resolved. That will only happen if there is a two-state solution, and that will only occur if the United States puts pressure on Israel.

Mr. Obama’s words are nothing new. Israel’s dissent toward a president’s words are nothing new. The actions of the American government unconditionally favoring of Israel through it’s robbery and mass murder, contrary to rhetoric from the American government — its most charitable and loyal financiers — is nothing new.

Mr. Obama can say all he wants to seduce the ‘Muslim World’ as he seduced his way into the White House. They can’t avoid seeing him for the torture enabling, warmongerer that he is as he tortures and kills them, their mothers, their fathers, and their children. Alexander Cockburn asked in an absolutely scathing article a couple of weeks ago titled, “From Anti-War Law Professor to Warmongerer in 100 Days”: “How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, ‘decapitation’ strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?”

After the Cairo Speech, Paul Craig Roberts is quick to point out:

In [Obama's] first 100 days, Obama managed to create two million Pakistani refugees. It took Israel 60 years to create 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.…

Muslim extremists are the creation of decades of Western colonization and secularization that has created an elite, which is Muslim in name only, to rule over religious people and to suppress Islamic mores. All experts know this, and most of them hail it as bringing progress and development to the Muslim world.

Obama said that “human progress cannot be denied,” but “there need not be contradiction between development and tradition.” However, the West defines development and education. These terms mean what they mean in the West.  Muslim extremists understand that these terms mean the extermination of Islam.

Days before the speech, Robert Fisk accurately predicted strong rhetoric and the reaction that would occur from American client states and so-called “liberals” in the West:

He can, and will, surely, try his global-Arab line; that every Arab nation will be involved in the new Middle East peace, a resurrection of the remarkably sane Saudi offer of full Arab recognition of Israel in return for an Israeli return to the 1967 borders in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242. Obama will be clearing this with King Abdullah on Wednesday, no doubt. And everyone will nod sagely and the newspapers of the Arab dictatorships will solemnly tip their hats to the guy and the New York Times will clap vigorously.

And the Israeli government will treat it all with the same amused contempt as Netanyahu treated Obama’s demand to stop building Jewish colonies on Arab land and, back home in Washington, Congress will fulminate and maybe Obama will realise, just like the Arab potentates have realised, that beautiful rhetoric and paradise-promises never, ever, win against reality.

Ali Abunimah captured the Newspeak aftermath of the Cairo Speech to the ‘Muslim World’ best — saying it “will please American liberals much more than it will convince [the] intended audience (unless that is the audience).”

Considering where the president is gaining political capital with his lies, the ponzi scheme seems to be in full effect.

MORE ON THE PRESIDENT’S CAIRO SPEECH:

• “Obama’s Cairo Speech” by Noam Chomsky
• “Obama in Cairo: High Words, Low Truths” by Alexander Cockburn
• “Obama, Like Bush, Just Doesn’t Get It” by Jacob G. Hornberger
• “Obama in Cairo: Words, Words, Words” by Justin Raimondo
• “Obama in Cairo: A Bush in Sheep’s Clothing” by Ali Abunimah