by Jim Lobe

As I noted in the piece published on IPS Friday, “It’s All About Israel,” Israel and the presumed threat posed by Iran to its security dominated Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Thursday. It was the one opportunity Committee members — [...]]]> via Lobe Log

by Jim Lobe

As I noted in the piece published on IPS Friday, “It’s All About Israel,” Israel and the presumed threat posed by Iran to its security dominated Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Thursday. It was the one opportunity Committee members — and, for that matter, the entire Senate — had to publicly probe the nominee’s basic beliefs about the myriad challenges confronting U.S. national security in what Robert Gates described, while he was still working for George W. Bush, as an increasingly “multi-polar world.” That the panel chose to focus almost exclusively on the challenges facing Israel, rather than the United States, speaks volumes about the influence of the Israel lobby on the U.S. Senate. It also speaks volumes about the very basic lack of seriousness or curiosity on the SASC’s part about the geo-strategic issues that one would expect to be at or near the top of the Pentagon’s agenda. As Chas Freeman put it to me, the whole scene made it look like senators were “busking for campaign dollars” rather than grappling with the multi-faceted problems the U.S. armed forces face around the world.

So I wanted to give some additional idea of just how negligent I think the Committee’s questioning was by compiling a list with some brief annotations or explanations of countries, non-state actors, and regions and the number of times each was mentioned in the hearing. (If someone has the software to create a map of the world based on the number of mentions a country gets based on this list, I’d love to publish it on Lobelog.)

I should mention at the outset, however, that one of the most surprising discoveries to me was this: Al Qaida — you know, the group and its affiliates that have supposedly been Public Enemy #1 since 9/11 and that Republicans have been arguing for several months now has still not been defeated and is now popping up all over the place, planning attacks on the American homeland — was mentioned a grand total of twice during the eight hours of testimony. That compares with 24 mentions of Hezbollah and 11 of Hamas, neither of which has been accused by the U.S. government of planning attacks on the U.S. homeland, let alone actually carrying any out. The disproportionate focus on these two non-state actors — contrasted with the virtually complete lack of curiosity about Al Qaida and its affiliates — is yet another manifestation of the degree to which the SASC appears to be far more concerned about Israel’s security than that of the United States. (I should note that SASC senators have submitted written questions to Hagel which no doubt cover a much broader number of issues than were raised at the hearing. But the hearing is the only opportunity to raise these issues in ways that get broader attention, and that’s what makes it so important.)

I have left out two countries that were mentioned numerous times: Vietnam (41 references) and Germany (9 references) because all mentions of those two countries were biographical; that is, they didn’t relate to current policy, but rather only to Hagel’s experience and relationship to them.

In any event, here is the partially annotated list. The number on the left refers to the number of mentions in the transcript:

178 – Israel

171 – Iran (threat to Israel)

30 – Iraq (where we just concluded a war in which nearly 4,500 U.S. servicemen and women were killed)

27 – Afghanistan (where we still have well over 60,000 U.S. troops deployed and the exit strategy remains unclear.)

24 – Hezbollah (threat to Israel)

23 – Russia (only other major nuclear power which also will have a major influence on U.S. policy toward Iran,    Syria, and withdrawal from Afghanistan, among other issues.)

22 – Palestine or Palestinians (threat to Israel)

18 – Syria (a country torn by civil war and a possible threat to Israel.)

11 – North Korea (a nuclear power believed to be preparing another nuclear test.)

11 – Hamas (threat to Israel)

10 – Pakistan (a nuclear power whose cooperation is critical to U.S. Afghanistan policy.)

9 – Egypt (a country undergoing heavy turbulence to which the U.S. provides $1.5 billion a year in military aid; potential threat to Israel.)

6 – Asia (yes, the entire continent, consisting of over half the world’s population toward which our military is supposed to be “pivoting.”)

5 – China (critical to U.S. policy toward Iran and many other hotspots, not to mention its being the geo-strategic focus of the above-mentioned “pivot.”)

5 – NATO (Washington’s most important alliance and the one with which it conducted an aerial campaign in Libya, is still fighting in Afghanistan, and just set up Patriot missile batteries in Turkey close to the Syrian border.)

5 – European Union (all references were related to the EU’s refusal to put Hezbollah on its terrorism list.)

2 – Libya (the country where Republicans have complained that Obama’s “leading from behind” has led to disaster.)

2 – Yemen (the country where the Pentagon is working with the CIA to carry out drones strikes against suspected Al-Qaida militants)

2 – Bahrain (another country in turmoil which is also home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet)

2 – Somalia (another country in turmoil where the U.S. military has attacked suspected Al Qaida and Al Shabaab leaders)

2 – Al Qaida (in all its forms)

1 – Mali (where the U.S. just provided logistical and intelligence support for a French campaign against Al Qaida in the Maghreb)

1 – Jordan

1 – Turkey (NATO ally neighboring Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon)

1 – Japan (closest U.S. ally in Asia with which Washington has a mutual defense treaty. U.S. has 50,000 troops based there.)

1 – South Korea (second closest U.S. ally in Asia. U.S. has 28,000 troops based there.)

1 – France (U.S. NATO ally, permanent UN Security Council member, just carried out U.S. military-backed campaign in Mali. Actually the only reference was about President Clinton granting a waiver to a French oil company operating in Iran.)

So that’s the list. Now, consider those countries which did not get a single mention during the eight hours of the hearing despite their possible strategic importance to the United States. This is necessarily a partial list, but just contemplate what the SASC was not interested in:

India (a nuclear power, world’s second most-populous nation, neighbour to Pakistan and China, avidly courted by the U.S. military in the last decade.)

Indonesia (world’s fourth most-populous nation, world’s most-populous predominantly Muslim country, avidly courted by the Pentagon over the last decade.)

Brazil (world’s fifth most-populous nation, dominant power in South America.)

Mexico (with Canada, closest U.S. neighbor which is receiving U.S. military training as part of its drug war.)

Saudi Arabia (biggest U.S. arms customer by far; closest U.S. ally in Arab world with world’s biggest oil reserves.)

Qatar (home to giant U.S. air force base; aggressively supported rebels in Libya, Syria)

Nigeria (Africa’s most populous country; major oil producer; threatened by Boko Haram insurgency allegedly tied to Al Qaida in the Maghreb; Pentagon actively seeking ties with military,)

United Kingdom (Washington’s closest NATO ally and permanent member of UN Security Council).

In this context, it’s appropriate to remember what Hagel told David Aaron Miller in that fateful 2008 interview, to wit:

And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn’t supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt.

I said, ‘I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.’ I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States — not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that. Now I know most senators don’t talk like I do.”

You bet they don’t, Chuck.

Photo: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioning defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel over an appearance the former senator made on Al Jazeera in 2009. 

Not too long ago, John McCain considered Chuck Hagel to be one of  the leading voices on national security and foreign policy in the Senate. “I’d be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity,” McCain said in 2006. Although the two had disagreed about Iraq policy for the past [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Not too long ago, John McCain considered Chuck Hagel to be one of  the leading voices on national security and foreign policy in the Senate. “I’d be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity,” McCain said in 2006. Although the two had disagreed about Iraq policy for the past three years, with McCain calling for a counterinsurgency strategy (“surge”) and Hagel increasingly leaning toward withdrawal, “they remained friendly and respectful colleagues, who disagreed without rancor,” according to Mark Salter, McCain’s former Chief of Staff and a senior adviser to his presidential campaign. Last week on CNN, however, McCain described Hagel’s view “that (the) surge in Iraq would be the greatest blunder since the Vietnam War” as “bizarre”.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the most conservative Republican in the Senate, has stated that despite their personal friendship, he and Hagel “are simply too philosophically opposed on [certain] issues for me to support his nomination.” Immediately upon hearing rumors of Hagel’s impending nomination, Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) claimed that Hagel had “long severed his ties with the Republican party” and blamed Obama for putting forward “an in your face nomination…to all of us who are supportive of Israel.”

Another Republican SASC member, Roger Wicker, has declared, “I am strongly opposed to the President’s nomination of Sen. Hagel…His views and positions on the Middle East and Israel are contrary to the Administration’s own stated policies, and there are concerns from members of both parties about this nomination.” And David Vitter (LA) has already decided he will be voting “no” in the Armed Services Committee and on the floor. “Given Chuck Hagel’s statements and actions on a nuclear Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, I think his confirmation would send exactly the wrong message to our allies and enemies alike,” he said.

A newly elected Republican appointed to SASC, Ted Cruz (TX), told Fox News Sunday during his show debut that ”Hagel’s record is very, very troubling on the nation of Israel,” and he’s already decided that he’ll be voting “no” regardless of what he might learn at the SASC nomination hearings. Cruz offered no evidence other than Hagel’s reference in an interview to “the Jewish lobby.” Kelly Ayotte (NH), who did not serve alongside Hagel in the Senate, saidshe is “concerned” about Hagel’s record and plans to to grill Hagel about Israel and Iran.

Just how far out of the mainstream was Chuck Hagel as his two terms in the Senate drew to a close? Well, Hagel’s Senate voting record on Defense issues was in fact mainstream, which makes the level of outrage that his nomination has generated in certain Republican circles curious. Indeed, Hagel’s record is very much in line with his former Republican colleagues who are now members of the SASC and who have already declared their staunch opposition or strong reservations about his nomination: Lindsey Graham; James Inhofe;  John McCain; David Vitter; and Roger Wicker.

This assessment is based on 15 Senate votes between 2006 and 2008 for a number of Senate bills, amendments and resolutions that were selected for their substantive content and implications for policy.

1. Defense Authorization Bill, S 3001. Passed Senate 78-12, Sept. 17, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe Yes; McCain Did Not Vote (DNV ); Vitter No; Wicker Yes.

Republicans were split: Hagel voted with Inhofe and Wicker.

2. Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding, Unemployment Benefits Extension, and GI Bill, HR 2642. Concurrence  vote passed Senate 92-6, June 26, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain DNV; Vitter Yes; Wicker Yes.

Hagel was well within the Republican — and Senate — mainstream in voting for the funding of both wars that the U.S. was engaged in.

3. Iraq Provisions Including a Troop Withdrawal, Senate Amendment 4817. Rejected 34-63, May 22, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain DNV; Vitter No; Wicker No.

Hagel was in the minority on this vote in favoring a troop withdrawal from Iraq. The amendment did not pass. But in a vote on another amendment the same day, Hagel voted with the majority in the Senate and the current SASC Republicans who are now complaining about his record.

4. Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senate Amdt. 4818. Adopted  70-26, May 22, 2008. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain DNV; Vitter Yes; Wicker (appointed to fill Trent Lott’s seat in the Senate Dec. 31, 2007) Yes.

5. Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, S Amdt. 3875. Rejected  24-71, Dec. 18, 2007.  Hagel No; Graham No;  Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.

Hagel’s vote was in accord with those of the SASC Republicans and the Senate as a whole.

6. The Senate passed HR 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, by a vote of 92-3 on Oct. 1, 2007.  Numerous Senate amendments were proposed prior to its passage. The only Iraq-related amendment to it that passed was S 2997, proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (DE) giving the sense of Congress that “the U.S. should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based on the final provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions, consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders.” The amendment passed the Senate 75-23 on Sept. 26, 2007, with Hagel, Graham, Inhofe and Vitter all voting No. McCain did not vote.

Among the proposed amendments that failed:

7. Troop Reduction Amendment, S Amdt. 2898. Rejected Senate 47-47, Sept. 21, 2007. Hagel Yes; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.

8. Time Between Troop Deployments, S. Amdt. 2909, Rejected Senate, 56-44, Sept. 19, 2007. Hagel Yes;  Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No.

The votes on these two amendments are among the relatively rare times that Hagel voted differently than his GOP colleagues.

9. Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees, S. Amdt. 2351, Adopted Senate 94-3, July 19, 2007. Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Vitter Yes.

Hagel votes with the overwhelming majority in the Senate, as do his current critics.

10. United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007. Joint Resolution, Failed Senate 48-50, March 15, 2007. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain DNV; Vitter No.

In a close vote, Hagel voted with his Republican SASC colleagues.

11. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. PN 2191. Nomination confirmed, 95-2, Dec. 6, 2006; Hagel Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.

12. Military Commissions Act of 2007, S 3930. Passed 65-34, Sept. 28, 2006. Hagel  Yes; Graham Yes; Inhofe Yes; McCain Yes; Santorum Yes; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.

13. National Security Amendment, S Amdt 4936. Motion rejected 41-57, Sept. 13, 2006. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter No. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.

14. Troop Redeployment Amendment, S. Amdt 4442. Motion rejected 13-86, June 22, 2006. Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Santorum No; Vitter No. Hagel voted with his SASC critics and the majority of the Senate.

15. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. 2006, HR 4939. Passed 77-21, May 4, 2006; Hagel No; Graham No; Inhofe No; McCain No; Vitter Yes. Hagel voted with his SASC critics except for Vitter and the majority of the Senate.

And what about all those “pro-Iran” and “anti-Israel” votes that Republican SASC members are so upset about? They don’t appear to have occurred in the Senate during the last two years of the Bush administration, which were Hagel’s last two years in the Senate. Hagel was not among the 61 senators of both parties who co-sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S 333), a bill Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced on February 9, 2005. The bill’s stated purpose was “to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.” Among Hagel’s fellow Republicans who also chose not to co-sponsor the bill were: Lamar Alexander (TN); Wayne Allard (CO); Lincoln Chafee (RI); Thomas Craig (WY); Pete Domenici (NM); Michael Enzi (WY); Bill Frist (TN);  Lindsey Graham (SC); Charles Grassley (IA); Orrin Hatch (UT); Richard Lugar (IN); Lisa Murkowski (AK); Richard Shelby (AL); Arlen Spector (PA); John Warner (VA).

The question of whether or not the bill would have brought freedom or support to the people of Iran is beside the point, since the bill died after it was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. Santorum reintroduced the bill in (S 3971) in Sept. 2006 with only 9 co-sponsors, but it died in committee without a vote. President George W. Bush signed an AIPAC-lauded House bill (H 282) instead. Since it never came the floor of the Senate for a vote, Hagel did not vote for or against the Senate version. While his decision not to sign on as a co-sponsor of he bill may have put Hagel in the minority, he was not “outside the Republican mainstream” — unless Graham was too.

Nor was Hagel among the 62 co-sponsors of S 534, introduced by Sen. Bill Frist (TN) on July 18, 2006 as a resolution that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors, while supporting Israel’s right to self defense. Neither were Graham, Inhofe or 33 other Republican senators. The resolution passed the Senate by voice vote.

It’s perhaps understandable that Graham — and New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (who has apparently gotten over it) — might have felt miffed that Hagel chose not to sign on to the Schumer-Graham letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The letter, dated Oct. 2, 2007, asked Rice to pressure Arab states to be more conciliatory towards Israel and Hamas to abandon the use of terror. But — guess what? There were other Republicans besides Hagel who also didn’t sign it: Lamar Alexander (TN); Bob Bennett (UT); Kit Bond (MO); Jim Bunning (KY); Richard Burr (NC); Thad Cochran (MS); Larry Craig (ID); Elizabeth Dole (NC); Mike Enzi (WY); Chuck Grassley (IA); Judd Gregg (NH); Orrin Hatch (UT); James Inhofe (OK); Trent Lott (MS); Richard Lugar (IN); Mel Martinez (FL); Richard Shelby (AL); Gordon Smith (OR); Arlen Specter (PA); Ted Stevens (AK); John Sununu (NH); Craig Thomas (WY); John Warner (VA); and Roger Wicker (MS).

Hagel’s critics are also complaining about his decision to not join the 88 senators who signed a bipartisan letter to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana that called on the EU to add Hezbollah to its terrorist list. The other 9 of the 10 Republican senators who didn’t sign the letter? Lamar Alexander (R-TN); Lincoln Chafee (RI); Tom Coburn (OK); Larry Craig (ID); Pete Domenici (NM);Michael Enzi (WY); Judd Gregg (NH);  Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (IN); and the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John Warner (R-VA).

And here’s something that Chuck Hagel did co-sponsor during his last year in the Senate, along with 56 other senators from both parties: the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act  (S 22), introduced by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb (VA) on May 7, 2008. Not among the co-sponsors were numerous Republicans — whose “support for our our military” apparently means supporting defense contractors, rather than our troops and veterans — among them Graham (who refers to himself as a “Gulf War veteran” even though he did not serve abroad in the Gulf War itself); Inhofe; McCain; Santorum; Vitter; and Wicker. President Bush signed it into law as HR 2642 on June 30, 2008.

McCain has now stated that he won’t block Hagel’s nomination and won’t keep it from reaching the Senate floor. Even Vitter’s vow that he will not support Hagel in the SASC or in the full Senate vote strongly implies that he expects the nomination to move forward from the Armed Services Committee to a full Senate vote.

“These recent attacks amount to a mix of revisionist history and political gamesmanship, not a substantive examination of his record,” a former staffer told Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin. “And I think most of his former colleagues know that.” Contrary to the staffer’s expectations, however, Hagel’s nomination doesn’t seem to have blunted the animosity of his attackers. Perhaps a review of their own voting records will?

Photo: Chuck Hagel shares stories with Army Sergeants during a 2008 visit at Camp Eggers in Kabul, Afghanistan. 

Robert Wright has an excellent piece at the Atlantic exploring the “hidden causes” of the protests against the United States across the Muslim world. The violence, which it’s important to emphasize is never excusable, is receiving little serious analysis in the mainstream media.

The American Enterprise Institute’s via Lobe Log

Robert Wright has an excellent piece at the Atlantic exploring the “hidden causes” of the protests against the United States across the Muslim world. The violence, which it’s important to emphasize is never excusable, is receiving little serious analysis in the mainstream media.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali – who sympathized with Norwegian anti-Muslim terrorist Anders Breivik back in May – published a cover story in this week’s Newsweek titled, “Muslim Rage & The Last Gasp of Islamic Hate.” She wrote:

The Muslim men and women (and yes, there are plenty of women) who support — whether actively or passively — the idea that blasphemers deserve to suffer punishment are not a fringe group. On the contrary, they represent the mainstream of contemporary Islam.

That type of simplistic analysis, says Wright, fails to ask or answer the real questions about why parts of the Muslim world hold deep-seated resentment towards the US. Wright blogs:

[W]hen a single offensive remark from someone you’ve long disliked can make you go ballistic, the explanation for this explosion goes deeper than the precipitating event. What are the sources of simmering hostility toward America that helped fuel these protests? Here is where you get to answers that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney wants to talk about and that, therefore, hardly anybody else talks about.

Wright goes on to list drone strikes, the US’s unconditional support of Israel (sometimes at the expense of progress in the peace process), and American troops in Muslim countries as some of the explanations for the eruption of anger. “…[W]hen American policies have bad side effects, Americans need to talk about them,” he writes.

Indeed, reflecting on US policies in the Middle East is a verboten topic during the presidential election. Mitt Romney, in comments surreptitiously recorded at a fundraiser and released this morning, quipped:

I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, “There’s just no way.” And so what you do is you say, “You move things along the best way you can.” You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem… All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don’t go to war to try and resolve it imminently.

But the media and Obama and Romney’s unwillingness to publicly acknowledge the geopolitical dangers for the US in the Middle East does come at a a very human cost. Back in March 2010, Gen. David Petraeus set off a firestorm when his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee linked the lack of progress in the peace process with security risks for the US. Petraeus said:

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Petraeus’ comments, later echoed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CENTCOM commander Gen. James Matthis, were met with denunciations by Israel hawks. The Anti-Defamation League event went so far as to label Petraeus’ views as “dangerous and counterproductive.”

With anger in the Muslim world towards the US erupting over the past week, observers are left with two options: Accept an Islamophobic, if not outright racist, narrative of irrational Arab and Muslim anger towards the US or start asking tough questions about US policy, as well as US strategic interests, in the Middle East.

Some of the US’s most prominent strategic thinkers have already warned about the geopolitical and security dangers facing the US as a result of failed policies in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the TV news cycle and the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appear to have little bandwidth to openly discuss the strategic challenges facing Americans in the Middle East, even while US diplomats are finding themselves in harms way.

Perhaps that’s why, just in time for the holidays, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) launched a scathing attack on some of the most prominent — and pro-Israel– [...]]]> There’s no better way to commemorate a civil war among Jews 2,275 years ago, memorialized by the Jewish festival of Chanuka, than by a little intra-tribe squabbling.

Perhaps that’s why, just in time for the holidays, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) launched a scathing attack on some of the most prominent — and pro-Israel– Jewish Senators and organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Noah Silverman, RJC’s Congressional Affairs Director since 2006, may have been moved by the sight of boiling oil when he made his debut as an official RJC blogger. No sooner writ than said, Silverman’s pontifications splattered over to RJC’s e-mail list on Thursday night.

Silverman attacks Jews and Jewish organizations who have come out in support of the immediate ratification of the New START Treaty. Picking up where the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and JINSA left off, Silverman’s rails against “an unprecedented effort to ‘make START a Jewish issue‘ by pressuring Jewish communal organizations to advocate for the treaty’s ratification.”

He’s irate with the ADL and the American Council of World Jewry, both of whom  objected when Senate Republicans made it known that they would use member prerogative to block ratification: “We are deeply concerned that failure to ratify the new START treaty will have national security consequences far beyond the subject of the treaty itself,” a Nov. 19 letter from the ADL to all members of the Senate asserted. ”The U.S. diplomatic strategy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons requires a U.S.-Russia relationship of trust and cooperation.”

Granted that the ADL was speaking from the perspective of its anti-Iran agenda. Nonetheless — and perhaps especially so — it’s bizarre to hear the RJC’s Silverman challenging the right of Jewish organizations to weigh in on issues other than Israel. And Silverman is livid that Senate Democrats would dare to use an argument about Israel’s security to enlist AIPAC in the effort to get START ratified.

MJ Rosenberg — citing Nathan Guttman in the Forward and Ron Kampeas at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency — suggests that

AIPAC is in agony. It desperately wants to support the US-Russia START treaty aimed at limiting nuclear warheads because the treaty would greatly advance Israel’s security.

But it is afraid of defying right-wing Republicans in the Senate. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), in particular, is telling AIPAC “don’t you dare.” His reason is simple: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has ordered Republicans to block anything the President submits to the Senate except, of course, tax cuts for millionaires. That includes START.

Tight-with-the-right Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin is Silverman’s source that the involvement of AIPAC in a non-Israel issue is shocking. Rubin writes,  “An experienced Israel hand tells me, ‘Well, they of course claim there is a direct link to Israeli security. But, no, this must be very rare.’ A Capitol Hill adviser from another office says ‘I’ve never seen this done with AIPAC on a non-Israel issue.’”

But it’s not all that rare, according to Rosenberg:

AIPAC argues that it does not get involved in congressional battles that do not directly involve Israel. Of course, they do. They always have. Even when I worked at AIPAC decades ago, they put their full lobbying weight behind a then-controversial plan to establish a military base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia.

Why? Because the Republican President at the time asked them to. More recently, AIPAC made sure that its friends in Congress knew that the “right vote” for Israel was supporting both Iraq wars. (Had AIPAC not indicated its support for war, far fewer Democrats would have voted for the second Iraq war.)

Silverman frames the effort to pass START as evidence of  “a panicked White House is scrambling to salvage what it can of its legislative agenda before its influence in Congress is diminished next year.” But the letter to AIPAC which so outrages Silverman was written by two longtime senators who supported arms control long before Barack Obama was elected president.

Michigan Democrat Carl Levin was first elected to the Senate in 1978, where he’s Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He’s been consistently supportive of conventional forces and basic, reliable weapons systems to protect national security. His support for START is anything but last minute. In a column in the Niles Daily Star on July 9, Levin wrote:

As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described it, New START will “make our country more secure and advance our core national security interests.” This treaty is in keeping with a long tradition of bilateral, verifiable arms control agreements with Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union, and it strengthens the U.S. commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

Silverman not only ignores Mullen’s endorsement of START, he seems completely oblivious to the support expressed by Republicans for “resetting” the Treaty. They include what Jim Lobe calls are the “big guns in what remains of the Republican foreign policy Establishment, including five former secretaries of state whose service spanned the last five Republican administrations.” They include Colin Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Lawrence Eagleburger, who wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that there are “compelling reasons” for Republicans to approve ratification of START.

Bloomberg News reports that several Republican senators — among them Richard Lugar, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, Bob Bennett, John McCain, and Kyl himself, are hinting they could support the reset of START in the lame-duck Senate session if (and perhaps only if) the Senate voted to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts to cover Americans in all income groups. So it’s domestic politics, not national security, that may determine the fate of START, JINSA notwithstanding. MJ Rosenberg also thinks that “Kyl may come around and then AIPAC can too.”

Silverman, who worked for seven years as a legislative aide in Kyl’s office, also uses his first blogpost to defend Kyl against what he deems to be assaults on his former boss’s reputation. He is no doubt bristling at the thought that his former boss will give in on START out of political expediency. Although the RJC launched some of the most vicious ad hominem attack ads against Obama before the 2008 election, Silverman huffs that “Pro-Obama commentators attacked Kyl in the most demeaning and personal terms — including calling him unpatriotic.”

The “demeaning” attack on Kyl to which Silverman links is a Huffington Post rhymed rant by self-described Ranting Political Poet Jim Parry. The personal attack: a single Tweet by Washington Monthly contributor and blogger Steve Benen. And the accusation of Kyl’s being “unpatriotic”? A tweet by actress Elizabeth Banks, co-star of the frat-boy comedy film Zack and Miri Make a Porno.

Does Silverman really consider two tweets and a rant “pro-Obama news commentary”? If so, it explains alot.

Like why, after 25 years of Republican Jewish Coalition activism, there is only one single Jewish Republican to be found in the U.S. Congress — in either the upper or lower chamber.