“The just man is a light in darkness to the upright.”
–Psalm 112:4
Apparently, Your Host Has Found Some That Need This Translated--In America
Fellow Patriot’s,
In the Superbowl yesterday, all learned something that Veterans and active-duty Warriors have known since the first conflict in the history of Humanity. The game is not over until your foe is either defeated or vanquished altogether. Even a neophyte as your host ”gets it.”
See if you can, if I have reason for deep concern, or as my mental health agent used to say; “You have a way of misunderstanding certain issues…”, although they had no real grasp of military history (I am compelled that they were at least more honest than most).
**************************************************************************************
BRAC Threat Takes DoD Budget Fight to Next Level
If the Pentagon didn’t already have Congress’ attention for its appeal to prevent next year’s round of automatic budget cuts, it does now.
Thursday’s “preview” of this year’s Defense Department budget submission included the reappearance of one of Capitol Hill’s most dreaded four-letter words: “BRAC.” The Base Closure and Realignment process might be necessary, Pentagon officials warned, if the military services shrink as much as now planned, or more.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that the DoD’s $487 billion in reduced budget growth over the next decade, and the threat of another $500 billion in automatic growth reductions next January, might mean another round of base closures would be inevitable.
“As a result of all this, we will also need to look at facilities infrastructure, balancing overseas forward presence requirements with basing requirements back home. In this budget environment, we simply cannot sustain the infrastructure that is beyond our needs or ability to maintain,” Panetta said.
The re-emergence of BRAC may have been as much a political gambit as a straightforward notice that the DoD might have to decrease its footprint around the U.S. A day after Panetta’s announcement, the chiefs of the two biggest military services were split on whether they’d be affected by another BRAC, and made clear they were well away from making any decisions about the future of their bases.
In fact, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that even as his service plans to draw down 80,000 troops over the next six years, he didn’t think that would require any major posts to close. Yet Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said he feared the Air Force could be hit hard by a new BRAC despite its plans to reduce its force on a much smaller scale — about 10,000 Airmen.
But whether the need is real or not, the mention of “BRAC” was radioactive in Congress, where it brought back memories of bitter competition between lawmakers trying to protect bases in their districts or dealing with the after-effects of closed or consolidated DoD facilities. The Pentagon’s gamble may be that another BRAC is so unpleasant to contemplate that lawmakers would consider protecting it from next January’s “sequestration” as a viable compromise.
Members of Congress in both houses wasted no time making clear that any talk of another round of BRAC closures was a non-starter.
Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a press release with two other Connecticut lawmakers calling a BRAC request “dead on arrival” if it reaches Congress.
“There is sweeping bipartisan opposition to another round of BRAC,” the three wrote. “Given that the process requires congressional approval just to get off the ground, the proposal is dead on arrival.”
Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he didn’t expect Congress to approve a recommendation for another round of BRAC, describing the last closures as “bitter.”
To be sure, Pentagon leaders said their BRAC talk was based upon an honest conclusion that a smaller future force naturally meant it would be “prudent” to consider leaving behind some bases, and not just as a threat to Congress.
“This is not a shot across anybody’s bow,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a top Pentagon spokesman.
And Schwartz said there was a case to be made for an Air Force BRAC, given that his service did not close any large installations in the last round of base closures — even though Pentagon officials estimated the Air Force had 20 percent excess infrastructure. Since 2005, the Air Force has retired about 500 aircraft, leading Schwartz to expect to lose bases in a future BRAC.
“And so the presumption is, I think it’s a fair presumption, that there’s yet more excess infrastructure. And so indeed, we certainly support the proposal to go through another round of base closure analysis and execution,” Schwartz said. “I think our expectation is that we would actually close bases in a future base closure round.”
So Air Force base closures might be as much an example of the process catching up as a reflection of the comparatively small number of Airmen projected to leave the service.
Comparatively, the Army sustained massive closures and realignments of units over the last six years as part of BRAC. Fort Bliss, Texas, for example, added 18,000 Soldiers to its base as the 1st Armored Division completed its transfer from Germany to Texas.
“The Army went through a very significant BRAC here not too long ago. And we did a fairly significant consolidation within the Army. So for the Army, I believe a follow-on BRAC would be — would not have as much impact on the Army because we’ve pretty much done what we want to,” Odierno said.
“You might see a reduction in the installation, but I don’t think you’ll see a big installation being asked to close. We think we have the right footprint.”
The Pentagon will request Congress start the first BRAC round in 2013 with the second starting in 2015, according to sources. Without Congress’ support, though, the military will not receive the BRAC process Panetta has requested.
And although opponents were making their views clear in the days after Panetta’s announcement, their position was not unanimous.
The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Maryland Democrat Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, said budget realities have forced the Defense Department to consider all solutions.
“The new defense budget reflects our economic reality and prioritizes planning for the threats of tomorrow: investing in cyber operations, technology-based weapons and space infrastructure. It’s more modern. Our military footprint should also reflect that,” he said.
As a former member of Congress himself, Panetta conceded that there are problems with the BRAC process, but he said it’s the best way to reduce unnecessary defense infrastructure.
“I’ve been through BRAC. I know its weaknesses and its failings. Obviously, we will, we will continue to work to make sure that it’s done effectively and that we achieve the savings that we hope to achieve from the process,” Panetta said.
*************************************************************************************
US Closes Syrian Embassy as Violence Escalates
The U.S. closed its Syrian embassy Monday and Britain recalled its ambassador to Damascus in a dramatic escalation of Western pressure on President Bashar Assad to give up power, just days after diplomatic efforts at the United Nations to end the crisis collapsed.
The U.S. evacuated all its diplomats from the country as Syrian forces intensified a shelling assault on the restive city of Homs. The offensive began Saturday, the same day Syria’s allies in Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-backed resolution aimed at trying to end the brutal crackdown on dissent.
“We have been relentless in sending a message that it is time for Assad to go,” President Barack Obama said during an interview with NBC. “This is not going to be a matter of if, it’s going to be a matter of when.”
Also Monday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague told lawmakers that Britain is using multiple channels to express its “abhorrence” at the violent crackdown, and has summoned Syria’s ambassador to the Foreign Office to convey that message.
“This is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime,” Hague said. “There is no way it can recover its credibility internationally.”
The onslaught on Homs has reinforced opposition fears that Assad will unleash even greater violence to crush dissent, now that protection from China and Russia against any U.N.-sanctioned action appears assured.
Already, more than 5,400 people have been killed since the Arab Spring-inspired uprising that began in March, according to the U.N.
The decision to close the embassy is the most dramatic U.S. move so far after 11 months of a violent crackdown by Assad’s regime.
Even as the U.S. stepped up pressure on Assad to quit, Obama said a negotiated solution in Syria is possible and it should not be resolved by foreign military intervention.
The State Department warned last month it would close the embassy unless Assad’s government stepped up its protection. It cited concerns about the safety of personnel and recent car bombs.
In Homs, shells slammed into a makeshift medical clinic and residential areas, killing at least 23 people in the third day of a new offensive on the epicenter of the country’s uprising, activists said. Another 10 people were reported killed elsewhere.
In Cairo, Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby said he was “extremely alarmed and concerned” at the use of heavy weapons by regime forces. The League been an important diplomatic force trying to stem the bloodshed, and its proposal for a transition to democracy in Syria was the basis for the U.N. Security Council resolution that Russia and China blocked in a vote Saturday.
The government denied shelling Homs, however, and said “armed terrorist groups” were attacking civilians and police in several neighborhoods. The state-run news agency also said Monday that gunmen killed three soldiers and captured others at a checkpoint in the Jabal al-Zawiyah region of Idlib province, which borders Turkey.
Syria has blocked access to trouble spots in the country and prevented independent reporting, making it nearly impossible to verify accounts from either side as the conflict spirals out of control and turns increasingly violent.
Homs, which many refer to as “the capital of the Syrian revolution,” has become a flashpoint of the nearly 11-month-old uprising against Assad. Several neighborhoods in the city, such as Baba Amr, are under the control of rebels.
The threat of both sides turning to greater force increased Saturday when Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ending the bloodshed. .
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice says China and Russia are running the risk of suffering the same sort of international isolation as Assad because of their double veto.
Moscow and Beijing “will come to regret” their votes, Rice told “CBS This Morning.”
On Saturday, Syrian forces killed up to 200 people in Homs – the highest death toll reported for a single day in the uprising – according to several rights groups. There was no way to independently confirm the toll.
While government forces have in the past used tanks and other weapons, the increased number of victims appear to have resulted from the indiscriminate use of artillery, according to the activists’ reports.
“As of 6:30 this morning, the shelling intensified with a rate of one shell every two minutes,” Baba Amr activist Omar Sheker said during Monday’s bombardment.
The uprising began with mostly peaceful protests against Assad, but government forces responded with a fierce crackdown. Now, army defectors and others are taking up arms to fight back, raising fears of civil war.
China said Monday it was forced to use its veto because the vote was called too soon, before the parties could work out differences in the proposal. But China denied playing spoiler and said it wants to see an end to violence there.
China and Russia have drawn the wrath of the United States, Europe and much of the Arab world for the weekend veto. China says the resolution put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian government and prejudged the result of any dialogue between the parties in Syria.
“On the issue of Syria, China is not sheltering anyone nor do we intentionally oppose anyone. We uphold justice and take a responsible attitude,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Monday.
Also Monday, an explosion ripped through a gas pipeline in Homs, the state-run news agency, SANA, reported. SANA blamed terrorists. The regime says terrorists acting out a foreign conspiracy are behind the uprising, not protesters seeking change.
The Local Coordination Committees activist group said Monday’s shelling in Homs hit a makeshift clinic in Baba Amr, causing casualties.
At least 17 people were killed across the city on Monday, according to the LCC and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Activist Shaker said a paramedic was wounded in the shelling of the clinic and two people who were standing outside died instantly. He added that many volunteers at the hospital were wounded as well as people receiving treatment.
Syria’s state-run TV denied government forces were besieging the area, saying activists in the city were setting tires on fire to make it appear as if there was a bombardment.
Syrian security forces are “chasing the terrorists and clashing with them,” it said.
On Sunday, the commander of rebel soldiers said force was now the only way to oust Assad, while the regime vowed to press its military crackdown to bring back stability to the country.
“We did not sleep all night,” Majd Amer, another activist in Homs, said by telephone. Explosions could be heard in the background. “The regime is committing organized crimes.”
Amer said shelling of his neighborhood of Khaldiyeh started at 3 a.m., and most residents living on high floors either fled to shelters or to lower floors. He said electricity was also cut.
*************************************************************************************
UN: Taliban Has Caused 77% of Afghan Civilian Casualties
The Taliban and other insurgent groups were responsible for nearly 80 percent of the civilian deaths in the war in Afghanistan last year, said a U.N. report released Saturday.
The report said the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documented 3,021 civilian deaths in the conflict in 2011 – up 8 percent from 2010, which saw 2,790 deaths, and an increase of 25 percent from 2009, when 2,412 civilians were killed.
The U.N. said “anti-government elements” – shorthand for the Taliban and other insurgent groups – were responsible for 2,332, or 77 percent, of conflict-related deaths in 2011, up 14 percent from 2010.
The report said 410 civilian deaths, or 14 percent of the 2011 total, were caused by operations by “pro-government forces,” or Afghan, U.S. and international security forces – a drop of 4 percent from 2010. A further 279 deaths, or 9 percent of civilian fatalities, could not be blamed on any side.
A leading Afghan politician and women’s rights activist labeled Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar a hypocrite and called his followers terrorists in the wake of a U.N. report into civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
“Civilian casualties by any side are not acceptable,” said Fawzia Kufi, a member of Parliament and head of the National Assembly’s women’s affairs committee. She said the Afghan government as well as U.S. and international forces had to accept responsibility for not doing enough to protect innocent Afghans in the conflict.
But the Taliban had made terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy in Afghanistan. “They go for terrorist attacks,” said Kufi, “They are intentionally targeting civilians.”
Kufi accused the Taliban and Omar of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
“Mullah Omar said during (last year’s Muslim festival of) Eid that civilian casualties were unacceptable, and that deliberately killing civilians was a breach of human rights,” but the insurgents were attacking more civilians than previously, she said.
The U.N. report said the record loss of life of Afghan children, women and men “resulted from changes in the tactics of anti-government elements and changes in the effects of tactics of parties to the conflict.”
Insurgents “used improvised explosive devices more frequently and more widely across the country, conducted deadlier suicide attacks yielding greater numbers of victims, and increased the unlawful and targeted killing of civilians,” the report said.
The Taliban were targeting civilians as an act of terror, said Kufi, because they were being defeated by U.S. and international forces, but “they cannot justify their actions.”
Attempts Saturday to reach Taliban spokesmen for comment were not successful.
Abdul Hakim Mujahid, a member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, which is tasked with promoting negotiations with the insurgency, and formerly the Taliban ambassador to the U.N., told McClatchy on Saturday that he had not read the U.N. report. He described Kufi’s criticism of the Taliban as “a media fight.”
“I have absolutely no comment,” said Mujahid.
U.S. Gen. John R. Allen, who commands U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, said they would continue to do everything possible to reduce Afghan civilian casualties.
Allen said the drop in deaths caused by US and international forces was promising, “but there is more work to be done.” Civilian deaths from air attacks – conducted mostly by U.S. forces – rose in 2011, despite a drop in the number of those attacks.
Insurgent improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, were “the single largest killer of Afghan children, women and men in 2011,” according to the U.N. report, claiming 967 civilians – 32 percent, or nearly one-in-three, of those killed.
The report also recorded a huge rise in civilians killed in suicide attacks, with 431 fatalities in 2011 – a jump of 80 percent from the previous year.
“While the number of suicide attacks did not increase over 2010, the nature of these attacks changed, becoming more complex, sometimes involving multiple suicide bombers, and designed to yield greater numbers of dead and injured civilians,” the report said.
Mir Ahmad Joyenda, deputy director of the Kabul-based Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit, and a former member of Parliament, said the rise in civilian deaths reported by the U.N. was a reminder that ordinary Afghans were at risk of violence “from morning to night.”
“Nobody’s safe, nobody’s secure,” said Joyenda. “Everyone is suffering.”
The U.N. report urged the Afghan government and U.S. and international forces as well as insurgents to do more to protect civilians and minimize deaths and injury among non-combatants.
That would be a particular challenge with insurgents, said Joyenda, as there were many such groups and the Taliban had become more fragmented. He said even Taliban leader Omar seemed unable to limit the violence.
“Many times he has issued an edict that civilian casualties are to be avoided,” said Joyenda, but the rising number of civilian deaths that the Taliban was responsible for “suggests that Mullah Omar has lost control over his army.”
Pressure had to be put on Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, to convince the Taliban not to commit suicide attacks, Joyenda said.
The ISI has had strong ties with the Taliban since the Taliban rose to power in the 1990′s, and is often accused by the Afghan government and the U.S.-led coalition of aiding the insurgents.
However, Kufi was not hopeful that insurgents would move away from targeting civilians.
She said the Taliban “cannot win on the battlefield,” so they would focus on creating terror among the civilian population, both by suicide attacks and by targeting politicians and government officials.
U.S. and international forces also would be responsible for an increased rate of civilian deaths as the date for their withdrawal from Afghanistan drew closer, said Kufi.
Coalition forces would conduct more operations against insurgents, and that would lead to a rise in deaths of civilians caught up in the fighting.
“My assumption is that things will continue to get worse,” she said.
************************************************************************************
Venerable A-10 Warthog Faces Extinction
The venerable A-10 tank killer aircraft is taking a hit of its own as part of the Defense Department’s decision to eliminate six of the Air Force’s tactical air squadrons and one training squadron.
Air National Guard squadrons will bear the brunt of the losses. Three of the five A-10 squadrons going away will be Guard units. Air Force leaders plan to eliminate one Reserve and one active duty squadron.
The Air Force will also decommission one Guard F-16 squadron and one F-15 training squadron.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Adm. James Winnefeld confirmed the type of aircraft and duty status of each squadron during an editorial board meeting with Gannett Government Media reporters, said Lt. Col. Patrick Seiber, Winnefeld’s spokesman.
Seiber said the vice chairman would not name the specific squadrons the Air Force plans to eliminate. Air Force officials contacted Monday declined to name the squadrons.
“The Air Force plans to lay out the entire force structure announcement in the coming week,” said Lt. Col. Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta first announced the Air Force would get rid of seven squadrons Jan. 26 as he highlighted that and other reductions the Defense Department would make to account for $487 billion reduction in growth to defense spending over the next decade.
“The review determined that we could eliminate six of the 60 [Air Force tactical air squadrons] as well as one training squadron. None of that will impact our ability to dominate the skies,” Panetta said.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said the pilots in the decommissioned squadrons would transfer to other units, including those that fly unmanned aircraft like MQ-9 Reapers and MQ-1 Predators.
“What we are doing is re-missioning the units,” Schwartz told reporters at the Pentagon Jan. 27. “In other words, for example, a unit that was operating manned aircraft might transition to a remotely piloted aircraft mission. And so, their fundamental skills will still be employed but in a different way.”
A source with the Air National Guard, who asked not to be identified, said he expected the Air Force to target three A-10 Guard units that just recently transitioned from F-16s to A-10s as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process – known as BRAC.
The Guard source said he expected the Air Force to close the 107th Fighter Squadron at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich.; the 163rd Fighter Squadron at Fort Wayne Air National Guard Station, Ind.; and the 184th Fighter Squadron at Ebbing Air National Guard Base, Ark.
The Guard source also said the Iowa National Guard’s 124th Fighter Squadron, which flies F-16s, is a target for decommissioning.
The Air Force will reduce its end strength by 10,000 Airmen to account for shrinking infrastructure, Schwartz said. It’s unclear if the service will target Airmen assigned to the lost squadrons.
First built in 1975, the A-10 Thunderbolt II – better known as the “Warthog” — is known as the infantryman’s favorite Air Force aircraft because of its ability to fly low and slow over a battlefield providing close air support.
The Air Force flies 189 A-10s in the active duty, 108 in the Air National Guard, and another 48 in Reserves. Air Force leaders plan to phase out the A-10 and allow the F-35 Lightning II to take its mission sets once it enters the Air Force fleet in numbers.
But the F-35 program has experienced problems and Panetta announced in his budget “preview” that the Pentagon would delay it once again.
*************************************************************************************
Considering that few aircraft can get “up close and personal”, as say, your host during my era in the military–hunting/killing tanks from a [great] distance, one of my concerns is just what are our Special Forces operatives going to do if or when they encounter true ‘heavy metal’? No matter of Valor will penetrate a Tank. Now will it? Particularly when the following issues are blended into this–mix…
*************************************************************************************
Danger Pay Now Calculated By the Day
Starting this month, the Defense Department will calculate imminent-danger pay by the day rather than the month, a cost-cutting move the department estimated last year could save $30 million annually.
Up to now, servicemembers received a full month’s imminent-danger pay — $225 — for spending even a single day in designated hazardous areas, which range from war zones such as Afghanistan to out-of-the-way spots like Montenegro.
But beginning Feb. 1, they’ll get the extra pay only for days they’re actually present in the danger zones. The prorated daily amount works out to $7.50.
“This is a more targeted way of handling that pay,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said Thursday.
The exception is for troops exposed to hostile fire.
“If you take fire, you get the full $225,” regardless of time spent in the area, said DoD spokeswoman Eileen Lainez.
The change, signed into law by President Barrack Obama on Dec. 31 as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, should have little effect on troops on long-term deployments in hazardous areas. But it could reduce the paychecks of officers making short visits to designated locations or Sailors passing through them, Lainez said.
Pentagon officials said affected servicemembers should begin seeing the difference in their paychecks on Feb. 15TH.
************************************************************************************
Considering that the American Embassy was getting hit by in-direct fire, and there was that buzz over a female Warrior that was captured while engaged in doing security, her convoy was ‘wasted’, and it took a Special Forces team to “…rescue…” her? Since when can someone in Washington, D.C. understand where someone in an asymetrical combat situation where there are no longer “rear-areas” or as even I have been guilty of stating that those in relative secure position’s (1979-1989) were “in the rear with the gear.”
We are moving people, just keep your eyes open…
************************************************************************************
Fool me twice
Former US congressman Robert Wexler is a man worth listening to. Wexler served as then-senator Barack Obama’s chief booster in the American Jewish community during the 2008 presidential campaign. He appeared everywhere and said anything to convince the American Jewish community that the same man who sat in the church pews listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic vitriol for two decades, and listed among his closest friends and associates a host of Israel-haters as well as former terrorists, was the greatest friend Israel could ever have.
Once Obama was elected, Wexler continued to serve as his Jewish shill. Wexler traveled to Israel multiple times in the early months of Obama’s presidency, to pressure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit to Obama’s demand and embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood. After Netanyahu finally announced his support for Palestinian statehood at his speech at Bar-Ilan University in September 2009, Wexler returned with a new demand – that Netanyahu enact a moratorium on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post at the time, Wexler promised that Israel would be richly rewarded if it took the unprecedented step of denying Jews the right to their property in Judea and Samaria simply because they were Jewish. Even if the moratorium were temporary, Obama would view the discriminatory measure as proof of Israel’s good intentions.
Moreover, Obama would expect the Palestinians and the wider Arab world to respond to Israel’s move by taking steps to normalize their relations with Israel.
For instance, Wexler claimed that Obama had demanded that the Arabs respond to an Israeli moratorium on Jewish property rights by among other things opening trade offices and direct economic ties; conducting cultural and economic exchanges; and permitting Israeli airplanes to overfly their territory.
And in the event that the Arabs refused to rise to the occasion, Wexler proclaimed, “You can rightly say that all bets are off.”
Wexler continued, “I want to call their bluff. I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position.”
In the event, Netanyahu bowed to Obama’s demand and enacted a temporary ban on the exercise of Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria. And in the aftermath of his stunning move, the Arab world did nothing.
Amazingly, far from calling their bluff, Obama doubled down on his pressure on Israel.
Among other things, since squeezing the first temporary ban on Jewish property rights out of Netanyahu, Obama has demanded that the moratorium be made permanent and be extended to Jerusalem.
As for his vision of the “peace process,” Obama has demanded that Israel accept the 1949 armistice lines as the basis for negotiations.
He has used the US veto at the UN Security Council as a means of pressuring Israel to make further unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.
And the “pro-Israel” US president has demanded no similar concessions from the Palestinians.
THIS WEEK, Wexler, now the head of the far-left S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, was back in town. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, he said that Israel should consider extending the ban on Jewish property rights to within the 1949 armistice lines. Wexler based his claim on then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer to Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Olmert’s offer, which Abbas rejected, involved a “land swap,” in which in the framework of a comprehensive peace deal, Israel would give the Palestinians land from within its 1949 boundaries in exchange for land in Judea and Samaria that Israel would permanently retain. According to media reports, Olmert offered Abbas 4.5 percent of Israeli territory in exchange for a similar amount of land in Judea and Samaria.
While Wexler appeared at the Herzliya Conference as the president of a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, his continued intimate relationship with Obama is well known. Last fall, Commentary’s Omri Ceren documented that Zvika Krieger, Wexler’s vice president at the Daniel Abraham Center, authored documents for Obama’s reelection campaign. Among other things, those documents cited articles authored by Krieger and Wexler in which they championed Obama’s record on Israel from their nonpartisan perch at the Daniel Abraham Center.
Given Wexler’s close ties to Obama, it is reasonable to assume that his suggestion that Israel cease exerting its national sovereignty over its sovereign territory in the interests of the peace process is not simply his personal view.
There is much to criticize about Wexler’s suggestion. But more important than its arrogant, insulting absurdity, and more disconcerting than Wexler’s own hypocrisy, is what his suggestion tells us about the dangers inherent in Netanyahu’s current negotiations with the Palestinians.
To understand the connection we need to recall the nature of Olmert’s offer to Abbas.
Olmert’s negotiations with Abbas were based upon the proposition – repeated ad nauseam to the Israeli public – that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
The idea was clear. True, on the one hand, the prime minister was conducting negotiations far from the spotlight, and refusing to tell the public what was on offer. But on the other hand, we could rest assured that that nothing he offered would have any significance whatsoever unless the Palestinians agreed to a final-peace deal with Israel. If they rejected peace, then everything Olmert said would become null and void, and be tossed down the memory hole.
In accordance with this basic proposition, when Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer, and made no counteroffer, it was naturally assumed that Olmert’s proposal was rendered null and void.
Yet four years later, here is Wexler, Obama’s surrogate, advocating a policy of unilateral abrogation of Israeli sovereignty over 4.5% of its national territory in order to enable the eventual implementation of an offer that was predicated on the notion that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to” and as such is null and void.
THIS BRINGS us to the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. For the past month, under the aegis of the Middle East Quartet, Netanyahu’s representative attorney Yitzhak Molcho has been conducting negotiations with Abbas’s representatives in Amman, Jordan. Last week, Molcho reportedly outlined the government’s general positions on lands it is willing to cede to the Palestinians.
Without presenting any maps, Molcho reportedly said that a permanent agreement would involve most of the Israelis living in Judea and Samaria remaining in Israeli territory. The media interpreted this to mean that like Olmert, Netanyahu expects for Israel to retain perpetual control over large blocks of Israeli communities that take up less than 10% of the overall landmass in Judea and Samaria.
For his part, Netanyahu this week reiterated his position that Israel must maintain a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This has been interpreted to mean that Netanyahu is willing to cede sovereign rights to the area to the Palestinians.
Taken together, what Molcho’s statement and Netanyahu’s statement indicate is that at a minimum, in exchange for peace, the Netanyahu government is willing to expel some portion of the 350,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria from their homes and to transfer sovereignty over a significant portion of the territory to a Palestinian state.
From the vagueness of what has been reported, it is apparent that Netanyahu has been far less specific about the scope of the territorial concessions he is willing to undertake than his predecessor was. But then again, Olmert made his offer after conducting negotiations with Abbas for over a year. Netanyahu only entered these talks a month ago.
And while no one in or out of government believes that these negotiations have any chance of leading to a peace deal, the fact is that Netanyahu is feverishly working to ensure that the talks continue. He spent a good part of his day on Wednesday speaking on the phone to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair and UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, begging the foreign leaders to convince the Palestinians not to abandon the negotiations.
As he put it in his joint press conference with Ban, “You cannot complete the peace process unless you begin it. If you begin it, you have to be consistent and stick to it.”
For his part, Abbas is doing everything in his power to make clear that he does not wish to negotiate, and that even if negotiations continue, he will never cut a deal with Israel. To underscore his bad faith, next week Abbas will travel to Egypt to meet with Hamas terror chief Khaled Mashaal. The two men are set to discuss the means of implementing the unity government deal they signed last May.
Netanyahu is obviously under great pressure to continue with these talks. A day doesn’t go by without some US official or European leader talking about the need for talks, or a leftist politician or political activist at home blaming Netanyahu for the absence of peace. But none of this pressure can justify the damage that is done to Israel’s position by continuing to engage in these negotiations.
As Netanyahu’s own experience with Obama (and Wexler) shows, concessions never bring a respite from the US leader’s pressure. They only form the baseline for demands for further concessions.
Beyond the narrow confines of Obama’s personal hostility towards Israel, Netanyahu’s current engagement in negotiations with the Palestinians is devastating to Israel’s position in two ways.
First, it makes it impossible for Israel to extricate itself from the lie of PLO moderation and to start telling the truth about its Palestinian “partner.”
Quite simply, as Abbas’s continued courtship of Hamas and his open embrace and glorification of mass murderers such as the murderers of the Fogel family make clear, the PLO has returned to its roots as a terrorist organization. It is no longer credible to claim that the PLO has abandoned terror in favor of peace.
By engaging in peace talks with the PLO, Netanyahu renders it impossible to make this critical claim. Consequently, he damns Israel to a situation in which we continue to empower and politically legitimize a terrorist organization committed to our destruction.
The second way continued negotiations devastates Israel’s position is by eroding our ability to claim our rights to Judea and Samaria and so extricate ourselves from this fake peace process with terrorists. As Wexler made clear, from the international community’s perspective, everything that Israel offers at the negotiating table is catalogued. Regardless of Palestinian bad faith, irrespective of actual prospects for peace, every theoretical Israeli concession becomes the new baseline for further negotiations.
American “friends” like Wexler and Obama play Israel for a fool again and again.
In truth, we should thank Wexler for coming here this week and reminding us of his bad faith, and the bad faith of the president he serves.
But it is up to Netanyahu to draw the appropriate lessons.
***********************************************************************************
For the sake of “The Chosen“, I pray the Prime Minister choses correctly. All that will come has been written before now after all. Now hasn’t it?
I heard there were programs to hire Veterans fresh off “the line.” Doing what? I will not speculate, but it may not top what a ‘friend with benefits’ can get to the current administration. However, there is this;
***********************************************************************************
Security contractors see opportunities, and limits, in Mexico
With the Iraq war over and the American presence waning in Afghanistan, U.S. security contractors are looking for new prospects in Mexico, where spreading criminal violencehas created a growing demand for battle-ready professionals.
After years of lucrative work in the Middle East and Central Asia, where their presence has been occasionally marred by incidents of excessive force and misconduct, contractors and private security firms of varying sizes and specialties are being drawn into a conflict closer to home. But Mexico’s restrictive gun laws mean that foreign contractors must enter the bloody drug war unarmed as they take jobs ranging from consulting and technical training for the Mexican military to guarding business executives from kidnapping gangs and extortionists.
Virginia-based DynCorp International has job openings in Mexico for aviation instructors and mechanics. The New York consulting firm Kroll hires anti-kidnapping specialists to protect Mexican business executives.
The companies are beckoned by swelling pots of public and private contracting gold. In November, the Pentagon’s counter-narco-terrorism program office solicited bids on more than $3 billion in contracts worldwide, with an unspecified amount destined for operations in Mexico. The State Department has pledged nearly $2 billion in drug war aid to Mexico since 2008, much of it available to U.S. companies that can provide equipment or services to the besieged Mexican state.
Security spending by private companies in Mexico and the Mexican government has also surged. Since President Felipe Calderon deployed Mexico’s military against the country’s drug kingpins in December 2006, the number of armed private security firms in the country has doubled, Mexican federal police statistics show. But while there are 1,400 licensed firms in good standing, analysts say there may be an additional 10,000 operating without proper authorization.
Still, despite Mexico’s potential for highly remunerative work, experts caution that it will never equal the bonanza that U.S. companies found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For one, the money available in Mexico doesn’t measure up to the cash that flowed through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the U.S. government spent more than $200 billion on private contractors over the past decade.
Gun law restrictions
Then there’s the issue of Article 27 of Mexico’s firearms code, necessary reading for anyone tempted to make a transition from Kabul or Baghdad to Mexico’s urban badlands. It essentially bans foreigners from carrying guns in Mexico — a deal-breaker for many would-be soldiers of fortune, despite their growing interest in the country, said Michael Braun, former DEA operations chief and now a partner with Spectre Group International LLC, a private security firm based in Alexandria.
“The Mexican government is not going to allow U.S. contractors to be armed in Mexico, and I can tell you that alone will cause many companies large and small to not even consider performing work there,” Braun said.
“The Mexican government and the Mexican people are extremely sensitive when it comes to these questions of sovereignty, and we need to respect that,” he added.
Mexico maintains some of the tightest gun-control laws in the hemisphere, even as drug gangs amass formidable arsenals of AK-47 assault rifles, grenade launchers and other military-grade weapons. While foreigners who are permanent residents in Mexico can get permits to own certain firearms for hunting or home defense, Mexican law prohibits non-citizens from working as armed security guards or carrying concealed weapons for self-defense.
That has a broad, chilling effect on U.S. contractors contemplating work in Mexico, even among those who do not directly work in security details as bodyguards, analysts say. Many private security contractors are military veterans who are accustomed to keeping at least a handgun for self-defense, and they balk at the thought of going unarmed into one of Mexico’s hot zones, such as Ciudad Juarez or Nuevo Laredo.
“A lot of guys ask me: ‘How do you carry down there?’ And when I say I don’t, they can’t believe it,” said Rick Sweeney, chief executive of California-based SECFOR, which provides personal security services to business executives in several of Mexico’s manufacturing centers, mostly along the border.
Sweeney said he worked as a security contractor in Iraq until 2006. Today, all of his 15 or so contractors are deployed in Mexico. Most are ex-soldiers from Britain and Australia. None is allowed to carry a weapon, so they team with local Mexican companies that can provide firepower.
“Everyone thinks if they worked in Iraq and Afghanistan they can work in Mexico, but it’s a different ballgame,” Sweeney said. “I’m not looking for the guys who come to me and say they’re an expert shot or a black belt. I’m looking for guys who can plan and stay out of trouble, rather than blast their way out of trouble once it starts.”
Partners vital — and risky
Armed private security is a booming business in many parts of Latin America, and demand for personal protection services in Mexico is growing at least 20 percent a year, driven by foreign and local business executives looking to safeguard their families and employees, according to Robert Munks, a senior Americas analyst with London-based IHS-Jane’s, which tracks global security trends.
Foreign contractors who partner with Mexican firms to provide armed guards typically subject those workers to extensive background checks, according to Munks, but contractors are still exposed to considerable risk.
“They have to be incredibly careful about who they partner with,” he said. “A very large percentage of people working in private security are suspected of working with organized crime networks.”
Still, the huge volume of trade between the United States and Mexico often necessitates that American executives cross the border. Companies that do not have much experience in Mexico are especially concerned about sending their staffers, even for short trips, according to Robert Oatman, a Maryland-based security consultant.
“You’re not going to see many executives traveling to Tijuana, or if they do, they’re not spending the night,” Oatman said.
A boom in training
A growing number of former and current U.S. military personnel are also training Mexican security forces in counterinsurgency, electronic surveillance and other techniques honed by the long American engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
American security aid pays for some of those programs, while other contractors are paid by the Mexican government, whose spending on security jumped from $1.7 billion in 2005 to more than $12 billion in 2011, according to the think tank Mexico Evalua.
There are no precise figures on the number of U.S. security contractors working in Mexico, but the Pentagon and the State Department spent $635.8 million on counternarcotics contracts in Latin America in 2009, a 32 percent increase from 2005, according to an analysis prepared by the office of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in June.
The report found that the United States awarded more than $170 million in counternarcotics contracts in Mexico between 2005 and 2009, much of that from the nearly $2 billion in security assistance that Congress has allocated through the Merida Initiative.
Still, analysts say the U.S. role in Mexico will always be limited by sensitivities to the bitter legacy of armed American troops south of the border.
“The U.S. government is afraid of overstepping, given the limited welcome it has in Mexico,” said Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, a District-based watchdog group. “And given the history,” he added.
************************************************************************************
Any Spanish speaking taker’s? Although I would add that you might want to ensure a supply of water that will not make you ill. And trust is a rare item there…
But that’s just how “I” roll…
In Deo Speramus
“Strength And Honor”
In the meantime,
watch your six.
Universal Soldier
†
The Paratrooper's Creed. What one lived or died in accordance with, but you had best know it--there was no 'Gray' area, nor compromise...
