Who’s in Charge—Obama, the Pentagon or Israel?
By William Pfaff
The sea change often comes at night, its signals to the sailor subtle ones, but
sometimes large and sudden. This has been a pre-inaugural period of extravagant
speculation by Barack Obama supporters, with an unprecedented investment of
hope—and also of anxiety, as if, after this, there might not be another chance.
More than one Obama supporter has warned himself, or secretly assumed, in the
aftermath of the celebration of Obama’s victory, “now prepare to be
disappointed.”
Obama has luck, but on the record of his career it has been earned luck, the
best kind. For that reason, the most heartening news item I have seen during
the entire pre-inaugural period was published in the International Herald
Tribune on Jan. 14, six days before the presidential inauguration. It reported
that the president-elect “has signaled to top military commanders that he is
not satisfied with their timetable for a reduction of American troops in Iraq
and has asked for options to accelerate the withdrawal.”
Obama campaigned on a promise to have all American combat troops out of Iraq by
May 2010, 16 months after he takes office. Last month, a Pentagon delegation
discussed the matter with the president-elect, and afterward its members said
they had told him that his schedule was not realistic. The Iraq government had
to be protected, American troops were needed for security, the future was
uncertain. ...
This was not the first instance of military defiance. Under George Bush, there
were calculated leaks from the military to the press that the deadlines for
departure agreed to by the Bush administration in its negotiation of an Iraq
status-of-forces agreement were unsatisfactory.
That document required all U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq’s cities by May
of this year, and the rest of American troops gone by the end of 2011.
After it was signed, there were off-the-record comments to the press that
“combat troops” is an elastic category; removing equipment would take much
longer than the document called for; and after all, this deal was with a
fragile Iraq government facing elections, and agreements can be renegotiated.
The status-of-forces agreement was presented off the record as something to
keep Iraqi politicians happy and give Bush the exit he wanted, but in fact the
United States would remain in control of Iraq, as it had meant to do from the
beginning.
Shortly afterward, the biggest American embassy ever built, or even ever
imagined, was opened with pomp and ceremony in the (fortified) Green Zone.
When Pentagon officials met with Obama last month, there again were winks and
nods to the press. Obama was a naive and inexperienced politician from Flyover
Land. He could and would be “handled.”
Now Obama has handled them. He has said, no doubt very politely, that he is the
president and the military services are constitutionally required to carry out
his policy, not their own. This naturally has produced journalistic murmuring
of “clashes” between Pentagon and White House. If there should be clashes, the
Pentagon will lose. The military have become accustomed to getting whatever it
wants from presidents and Congress. That must end, and it is essential that the
new president and his military advisers make this clear, however politely.
I began with a comment on luck. That referred to the plunge into the political
abyss by the Israeli rightist forces, which are accustomed to claiming that
they “own” the U.S. Congress. Israel’s useless, senseless and self-destructive
assault on the people of Gaza, and upon the U.N.‘s headquarters and warehouses
of food and medicine, has proved globally devastating to the reputation and
moral credit of Israel. Even in the United States, there has been a precipitous
drop in support for what Israel has been doing, and for Israeli policy in
general.
In international political circles, there is disbelief that Israel could
imagine that this attack on Hamas, with its civilian casualties and physical
destruction of Gaza, would “strengthen” the position of the Palestine Authority
and of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Party. It is a death blow to them. Israel
behaves as if it has completely lost touch with reality.
Thus Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s arrogant utterance that he personally
caused the United States to reverse its position on the U.N. Security Council
resolution last week demanding a Gaza cease-fire. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice had helped organize support for that resolution and had
committed the United States to vote in its favor.
Olmert told an Israeli audience that, last Friday, upon hearing of Rice’s
position, he immediately telephoned George W. Bush. Told that Bush was
delivering an address in Philadelphia, Olmert replied, “I’m not interested,”
demanding to speak to Bush. Bush then left his Philadelphia podium and,
according to Olmert, the Israeli prime minister instructed the American
president that “the U.S. cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution.”
Bush then telephoned Rice and ordered her to abstain from the vote.
That’s Olmert’s story, or Israeli megalomania, presented to the Israelis with
pride, but unlikely to be received by Americans with pleasure.
Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff. com.
© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
