by Mitchell Plitnick
When Israel, or any country, engages in armed conflict with a guerrilla group, even if that group controls significant territory and resources, it is a virtual truism that the longer the fighting persists, the greater the gains for the non-state actor. In Gaza, Hamas’ quasi-governmental position still leaves it [...]]]>
by Mitchell Plitnick
When Israel, or any country, engages in armed conflict with a guerrilla group, even if that group controls significant territory and resources, it is a virtual truism that the longer the fighting persists, the greater the gains for the non-state actor. In Gaza, Hamas’ quasi-governmental position still leaves it in the role of the guerrilla enemy. And with the events of the past few days, it is worth asking if Israel is not losing this “war.”
The Israeli government is pointing to several objectives, chiefly the destruction of some tunnels in Gaza that lead into Israel and at degrading and diminishing Hamas’ ability to fire rockets. While the frequency of rocket fire from Gaza has decreased somewhat in the last few days, it has obviously not stopped. And when the heat dies down, Israelis are bound to notice that the tunnels Netanyahu is making such a point about had not been used for infiltration until after the fighting began.
By the same token, Israelis might also notice that, at this writing, 35 Israelis have been killed, three of them civilians. In the five and half years since the end of Operation Cast Lead, a grand total of 38 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, combining both Gaza and the West Bank, 10 of them civilians. When a sober assessment of all this is made in Israel, the result might not look top good if Netanyahu has so little to show for it.
Hamas, on the other hand, may have quite a bit to toot their collective horns about. Yes, the death toll, which is now topping 700, is horrific, as is the number of injured (now over 4,100), not to mention the damage to Gaza’s already crumbling infrastructure and the destruction of 500 homes, some 16 mosques and two hospitals. But Hamas, despite having lost a lot of popularity over the years, is standing up to Israel and insisting on an end to its siege of the Gaza Strip, which is preventing many common goods from getting in and just about all exports from going out.
Moreover, Hamas has put all of Israel on high alert, disrupting daily life not just in the south, but as far north as Haifa, and as far east as Jerusalem. Residents of Tel Aviv are not living in “the bubble” they did five years ago; now they are repeatedly hustling to shelters when warning sirens go off. Most importantly of all, Hamas forced US and European airlines to suspend all flights to Israel for two days when a rocket from Gaza came within a mile of Ben Gurion International (BGI) airport.
That victory might be far more profound than what anyone in Gaza has so far realized. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is as apolitical as a federal agency can get, suspended flights to Israel for obvious reasons: in the wake of the downing of the Malaysian flight over Ukraine, a rocket coming that close to BGI was too much of a risk for the FAA to take.
But in the United States, any decision that Israel doesn’t like instantly becomes politicized, even though it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the US government that the president had nothing to do with this call — it is entirely within the FAA’s bailiwick. But Israel complained that the decision sent “the wrong message,” to which the State Department replied, “The only consideration in issuing the notice was the safety and security of our citizens.”
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately flew to Israel and stated that he felt as safe there as anywhere. But Bloomberg’s grandstand play also serves to undermine the rationale for this entire operation by Israel — after all, if it is that safe when fire is being exchanged, how can Israel justify their own losses, let alone the far more massive toll of death and destruction in Gaza?
Republican Senator Ted Cruz, never one to let a lunatic theory pass by unexploited, went so far as to accuse President Barack Obama of using “…a federal regulatory agency to launch an economic boycott on Israel, in order to try to force our ally to comply with his foreign-policy demands.” No kidding, he really said that.
With all of this tumult resulting from one rocket, Hamas can certainly claim a major win in this regard.
Hamas has also made political gains. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been working to help find a ceasefire formula. In the past, Hamas would disavow Abbas’ authority to negotiate for them, but they have not done so this time. That’s because Abbas is arguing for Hamas’ terms for a ceasefire. That makes Abbas, rather than any Egyptian or Turkish leader, the contact point between Hamas and Israel. It also symbolically demonstrates that the Palestinians have a unified government — Abbas is presenting himself as the leader of all of Palestine, including Gaza, without saying so or ruffling any of Hamas’ feathers.
Israel’s goal in starting this round of fighting was to destroy the unity deal between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Thus far, the opposite seems to have materialized. Abbas is in agreement with Hamas’ goals, and is apparently fully representing them. That represents a major failure for Netanyahu. But that outcome is far from assured.
The statement by Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) executive committee, that the Palestinians would now pursue their goals through the international judicial system, seemed like a potential game-changer. It is telling, though, that after Ashrawi made her statement, welcomed by many of us who advocate for an equitable international judicial system and see its value for the Palestinians, there has been virtually no follow-up.
Indeed, going, for example, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) might have very different effects than one might imagine for the Palestinians. Unlike the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is really the one place at the UN that Israel’s complaints of unfair treatment have real merit, the ICC is not a politically driven body. Its unfortunate bias against poor countries, countries that do not have great power backing and, particularly, sub-Saharan African countries is based on what cases are brought before it, and that, sadly, is entirely dictated by politics.
But if the ICC were to investigate the fighting in Gaza, it might well be inclined to investigate both sides. And, if Palestine, with its new-found recognition as a state, were to go to the ICC, they would be placing themselves under its jurisdiction. The simple fact is that, while Israel has devastated civilians, Hamas has also been targeting civilians, albeit with much less success. That, however, is also a crime. But Israel has not joined the ICC, so it is not under ICC jurisdiction. The ICC could not compel any of its leaders to appear, much less answer charges.
Israel is reportedly considering a ceasefire deal that would be modeled after the 2006 accord achieved in Lebanon. If that were followed, the PA would assume control over Gaza. Hamas might have a tough time arguing with that, given their defense of the unity government. The PA would have, presumably, the same armament it has in the West Bank, but all other factions would be forced to disarm, surrender rockets and dismantle tunnels under international inspection. And in exchange, Israel would end its blockade of Gaza’s coastline and ease restrictions at the border crossings.
That sort of agreement would absolutely represent a Palestinian victory, but it would also mean Hamas would no longer exercise control over Gaza. They would sacrifice their ability to re-launch an armed resistance until they could find a way to re-arm clandestinely. That might prove very difficult — they haven’t been very successful at it in the West Bank, largely due to PA efforts. For the group itself, it would mean a major loss. But the objectives of the current fighting would have been achieved — ending the siege and preserving the unity government.
Netanyahu would also claim victory in such an event. But it would remain clear that the Palestinians were now unified and speaking with one voice. Abbas could no longer see Hamas as an opposition party, but as part of his constituency, and this whole experience seems to have forced him out of his habit of going along with US and Israeli diktats. The Palestinians would be strengthened politically, even as they lose Hamas’ paltry military capabilities. Netanyahu would have also failed to destroy the unity government, which is what this was all about. But a nullified Hamas would be an easy image to present as a victory to the Israeli people, who have been lied to by Bibi from the beginning and are thus largely unaware of the real aims of this onslaught.
It remains to be seen if such a ceasefire agreement is actually being considered. I really can’t see Bibi agreeing to it; he is absolutely obsessed with keeping the Palestinians divided, and his stated refusal to even consider a two-state solution means he is obsessed with good reason. I’m not at all sure Hamas would accept such a deal, even though it might boost them politically. And right now, it is Hamas, not Israel, who is dealing from a position of strength. Despite the pounding Gaza is getting, Hamas seems to have gotten the issue of lifting the siege on the table, as even the US keeps saying that the “underlying issues” must be dealt with, and even when the EU is scolding Hamas, they are also calling Israel’s acts “criminal.”
When Hamas initially refused the ceasefire, I understood, but also believed that they would eventually be forced to take that deal, and that their refusal would result in many more dead Palestinians. That latter part has proven true, and it is still possible that Israel, the US and Egypt will eventually force Hamas to accept the terms they dictated. But it’s looking less and less likely that the Egyptian ceasefire accord will be the one Hamas has to accept. Is it worth the price in blood? Only the people of Gaza can answer that question.
Photo: The ongoing Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated regions in the world, have destroyed essential infrastructure including family homes, fishermen’s boats, water systems and health centers. Credit: Mohammed Al Baba/Oxfam
]]>by Jim Lobe
Just four days before 14,000 members arrive for AIPAC’s annual policy conference and a keynote by none other than Bibi Netanyahu himself, the group appears at sea, tossed between Republicans eager to do the Likud leader’s bidding and embarrass President Barack Obama on the one hand and the [...]]]>
by Jim Lobe
Just four days before 14,000 members arrive for AIPAC’s annual policy conference and a keynote by none other than Bibi Netanyahu himself, the group appears at sea, tossed between Republicans eager to do the Likud leader’s bidding and embarrass President Barack Obama on the one hand and the administration and leading Democratic lawmakers who believe that any new sanctions legislation will likely sabotage the ongoing negotiations with Iran and bring the country closer to another Mideast war.
The latest move is predictably coming from the Republican side, which seems determined to find a new legislative vehicle for the stalled Kirk-Menendez (“Wag the Dog”) sanctions bill. They apparently intend to propose — and try to force a vote on — an alternative to a military veterans’ bill (S. 1982) put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders. The alternative, sponsored by North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, reportedly includes most of the Kirk-Menendez provisions. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear Wednesday that the Republican stratagem was very much linked to the AIPAC conference when he made yet another appeal to Majority Leader Harry Reid to permit a vote on sanctions legislation. Here’s what he said on the floor:
Now I know many active Members of AIPAC — the Majority Leader mentioned AIPAC — they want to have this vote. They’ll be coming to Washington next week from all over the country. I’ll bet you, Mr. President, this is a vote they want to have.
So far, however, it appears that Reid and the Democrats are standing firm against the move, as the caucus tweeted in response to McConnell:
Please do not inject the Iran sanctions issue into a debate on how we can improve the lives of veterans. #Veterans pic.twitter.com/8ZBCmmXp3M
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 26, 2014
They quickly marshalled strong support from key veterans groups, including the American Legion, whose National Commander, Daniel Dellinger, put out the following statement:
Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982, which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and that’s understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran – or any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans – with separate legislation.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) quickly followed suit with its director, Paul Rieckhoff tweeting that Iran sanctions were “not relevant” to the bill and suggesting that the Republican maneuver was another example of “gridlock” in Washington. Later in the day, Reid himself tweeted:
The @iava and @AmericanLegion are right: We should keep vets bill focused on vets. Republicans are trying to divert attention from this.
— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) February 26, 2014
The question, of course, is where is AIPAC in all this? I sent an email query to the group’s spokesman, Marshall Wittman, around noon but had received no reply as of late Wednesday night, suggesting either that the organization had not yet formed an opinion or simply preferred not to comment, a rather striking possibility given the proximity of its policy conference which will end with all of the attendees fanning out across Capitol Hill to lobby their lawmakers on a range of priorities, no doubt beginning with Iran. As the delegates will have just heard a no-doubt hawkish exhortation from Netanyahu himself Tuesday morning and the Burr alternative may be the only pending Iran-related measure that reflects his views, what marching orders will AIPAC offer its legions? Moreover, given the strong Democratic opposition to date, lobbying in favor of Burr will make AIPAC’s claim to bipartisanship appear ever more hollow. And while that may be the direction in which some of the group’s biggest donors would like to take it, such a move would risk further alienating its largely Democratic base.
AIPAC’s two top leaders sought last weekend to clarify its position in an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Don’t Let Up on Iran,” which, in addition to misstating a number of facts, succeeded only in muddying the waters by noting, “Earlier this month, we agreed with Mr. Menendez on delaying a vote in the Senate, but we remain committed to the bill’s passage.” What that means at this point, however, is anybody’s guess. Do they think that what they agreed to delay just two weeks ago should now be voted on despite the stronger opposition among Democrats? Not clear, not clear at all. It would seem that the flailing I referred to a couple of weeks ago continues.
Meanwhile, two likely Republican president candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, made clear Wednesday they have no reservations about supporting new sanctions or, for that matter, war if it comes to that. Both senators suggested that if Iran obtained a bomb, it might very well transfer it to Venezuela. (Shades of pre-Iraq war hype.) “They both hate us,” declared Cruz. Meanwhile, Cruz’s fellow-Texan, Pastor John Hagee has scheduled his big annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in Washington for July 21-22; that is, two days after the expiration of the six-month Joint Plan of Action (JPA) negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany), which, however, can be extended by another six months by agreement of the parties. If, as anticipated, such an extension will be agreed, AIPAC will be joined by its Christian Zionist brothers and sisters in a major new push for sanctions.
Photo: Senator and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Credit: Gage Skidmore
]]>by Marsha B. Cohen
Several members of the House and Senate have responded to Friday’s historic 15-minute phone conversation between Presidents Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani. In addition to the general sense of discontent that’s been conveyed by all but 1 person are calls for ever more pressure:
by Marsha B. Cohen
Several members of the House and Senate have responded to Friday’s historic 15-minute phone conversation between Presidents Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani. In addition to the general sense of discontent that’s been conveyed by all but 1 person are calls for ever more pressure:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):
I am concerned that President Obama did not press Iranian President Rouhani to halt Iran’s ongoing support for radical Islamic terrorism, its repeated violations of U.N. and IAEA resolutions, and its support of Bashar Assad’s war against the Syrian people. These topics were not publicly addressed by the President today, but require his urgent attention. Iran’s government remains — in spite of President Rouhani’s rhetoric — a brutal, repressive theocracy. It is particularly unfortunate that President Obama would recognize the Iranian people’s right to nuclear energy but not stand up for their right to freedom, human rights, or democracy. The President suggests there is ‘new leadership’ in Iran, yet Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei remains the true ruler in Tehran, and we are only fooling ourselves when we suggest otherwise.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC):
Our damaging sanctions have gotten Rouhani on the phone. We must increase the economic pressure until Iran stops its nuclear drive.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman, HFAC Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa:
There’s a reason why the United States for three decades has not maintained diplomatic relations with Iran. It’s a State Sponsor of Terrorism that is responsible for the deaths of Americans, is one of the world’s worst human rights violators, and has continued to develop nuclear weapons. Reaching out to Rouhani and giving him credibility on the world stage will only further embolden the regime to continue its crackdown on its citizens and will buy it more time to complete its nuclear weapons program – exactly what Rouhani’s charm offensive had planned. This is the same man who bragged about deceiving the West in order to buy more time to continue and expand its nuclear program while he served as chief nuclear negotiator for Iran a decade ago, and he cannot be trusted.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “Iran’s Messenger has Changed; Its Messenger has Not,” op-ed, Washington Post (excerpt):
As proponents of a series of bipartisan bills legislating sanctions targeting Iran’s oil and banking industries and lawmakers who have worked with our European allies to isolate Iran from international financial markets, we understand full well the result of crippling sanctions.
Iran expressed an interest in negotiations because the economic pain levied on it by Congress and the international community has become unbearable. This outreach was borne out of necessity, not a sudden gesture of goodwill….
We believe that four strategic elements are necessary to achieve a resolution of this issue: an explicit and continuing message that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, a sincere demonstration of openness to negotiations by Iran, the maintenance and toughening of sanctions and a convincing threat of the use of force.
The national security implications of a nuclear Iran are unimaginable — threatening the very existence of our ally Israel, as well as launching an all-but-certain nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region. Diplomacy is our hope, but the U.S. resolve to take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state will not be compromised.
In the coming days, we will be outspoken in our support for furthering sanctions against Iran, requiring countries to again reduce their purchases of Iranian petroleum and imposing further prohibitions on strategic sectors of the Iranian economy.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), press release:
This week, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) filed a resolution, S. Res. 252, in recognition of President Obama’s offer to meet with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly and the one-year anniversary of Iran’s imprisonment of Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen.
The resolution states that it is the sense of the Senate that before any future meeting between President Obama and President Rouhani, the Government of Iran should affirm the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and also immediately and without conditions release all United States citizens unjustly detained as prisoners of conscience in Iran.
After the revelation Friday afternoon that President Obama had engaged in a telephone conversation with President Rouhani, Senator Cruz said:
“I commend President Obama for raising Pastor Abedini* in his conversation with President Rouhani; he did the right thing. Now this resolution is all the more necessary to keep pressure on Iran to take real action on this issue. Congress needs to send a strong signal that direct communication with the leader of the free world is a privilege, particularly for a regime that has been as hostile as Iran has been towards America for more than three decades. President Rouhani needs to take these two simple steps to demonstrate good faith before any further discussions.”
*Saeed Abedini is an Iranian-born convert to Christianity from Islam. He married an American citizen in 2002, two years after his conversion. He became an ordained minister in the U.S. in 2008 and an American citizen in 2010. Like many Muslim countries, Iran prohibits missionary activity by other faiths. Detained in 2009 while visiting his family, Abedini was released after signing an agreement to desist from his missionary activities. Returning to the U.S., he made several trips to Iran in the next three years, and was arrested and imprisoned during a visit in July 2012. In January 2013, he was tried and sentenced to 8 years in prison. During his phone call with Rouhani, Obama discussed Abedini’s case and those of two other Americans held in Iran: Robert Levinson and Amir Hekmati.
Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-MN):
]]>President Obama and President Rouhani should be commended for taking the bold step yesterday to reestablish dialogue between the United States and Iran. I have long supported renewed diplomatic contact with Iran and last month called for an Obama-Rouhani summit. Both leaders should be congratulated for breaking the 34-year impasse between our countries. For too long, a lack of dialogue and outright antagonism have characterized U.S.-Iranian relations. The differences between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are well known. Now the door has opened for the opportunity that constructive dialogue will bring. Iran is an extremely important country in the region and in the world. In addition to negotiations on the nuclear issue, I hope we can build upon this diplomatic opening to address the war in Syria and sectarianism across the region.
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a black hole in the federal budget into which hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been sucked and billions more seem destined to vanish.
The most recent reminder came in an April 1 UPI article about the retirement [...]]]>
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a black hole in the federal budget into which hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been sucked and billions more seem destined to vanish.
The most recent reminder came in an April 1 UPI article about the retirement of Executive Vice President and JSF General Manager Tom Burbage from Lockheed Martin:
After spending 12 years fronting the Lockheed Martin F-35 program, Burbage retired Monday on an optimistic note but still far from clear about the aircraft’s ultimate cost and delivery schedule.
Burbage was named head of the F-35 program less than three weeks after the company beat Boeing to develop the aircraft. Then valued at $220 billion, the contract aims to build thousands of F-35 for the U.S. military and hundreds more for international partners…”The fundamental airplane is going to be there,” Burbage told reporters, Defense News said. “It’s going to be late, it’s going to be more expensive than we thought to do the development, but it’s still going to be there, which I think that’s the ultimate metric.”
Out of the “War on Terror”
The 9/11 attacks prompted the Pentagon in 2001 to push for a substantial increase of approximately $20 billion or more in its 2003 budget. Military officials expressed confidence that support for the “war on terror” would translate into recognition of the need to revitalize and rebuild the US armed services. Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had hoped to reduce the size of the US armed forces and cut back on big-ticket items, the Pentagon’s comptroller, Under Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, argued that spending had to go up because the military would need to build tanks, warships and tactical fighter jets. The already projected budget deficit with which the first year of the Bush administration had managed to eradicate the budget surplus of the Clinton presidency, and the cost of the war in Afghanistan (initially estimated to be $1 billion a month), was being funded through supplemental congressional allocations which weren’t even in the budget.
Six weeks after 9/11, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon had awarded “the largest military contract in American history to Lockheed Martin to build a new generation of supersonic stealth fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp.” Describing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as “more Chevrolet than Porsche,” the Times noted that according to the over $200 billion contract, Lockheed would build “more than 3,000 of the relatively low-cost aircraft over the next two decades.”
Costs, Congress and the Pentagon
The price tag for these “relatively low cost aircraft” has now skyrocketed to $400 billion, according to Time Magazine. The Pentagon admits the overall cost of the F-35 program will reach at least $1.4 trillion dollars over the next 5 decades.
The F-35 has been plagued by problems caused by the contradictory and unprecedented demands made of a single aircraft. In a Foreign Policy article from last year headlined as “The Jet That Ate the Pentagon,” Center for Defense Information analyst Winslow Wheeler, a long time F-35 skeptic, wrote “A review of the F-35′s cost, schedule, and performance — three essential measures of any Pentagon program — shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.”
Asked how far behind schedule the F-35 program was, Lockheed’s Burbage referred to a restructuring of the program in 2010, adding, “I would argue the program post-2010 is not the program pre-2010, modified slightly. It’s really a new program.” That’s apparently enough to justify over a decade of development and the hundreds of billions of dollars that have already been expended on the “old” JSF.
So why aren’t the cheerleaders of fiscal austerity in our deficit-driven Congress demanding an immediate halt to this exorbitant project whose cost has skyrocketed while the problems with it have multiplied?
One actually has, Congressmen Ron Paul, who dared to use the F-word in a Texas Straight Talk commentary on March 3 about the sequester. It has received zero attention outside his fan base:
…the entire $1.2 trillion dollars that the sequester is supposed to save could be realized by cutting one unneeded, wasteful boondoggle: the $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter program. The F-35, billed as the next generation all-purpose military fighter and bomber, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its performances in recent tests have been so bad that the Pentagon has been forced to dumb-down the criteria. It is overweight, overpriced, and unwieldy. It is also an anachronism: we no longer face the real prospect of air-to-air combat in this era of 4th generation warfare. The World War II mid-air dogfight era is long over.
What’s most remarkable about this astute, candid and scathing criticism of the F-35 program is that Paul is from Texas. At least a quarter of Texas Congress members are strong supporters of the F-35, since a major portion of the work is being done in Ft. Worth. Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), the organizer and fairy godmother of the 48-member Joint Strike Fighter Caucus in the House, declared in a 2011 speech to Lockheed Martin that the JSF was sacrosanct budget-wise and “absolutely, absolutely essential to our national defense.” Not surprisingly, Granger and her JSF caucus receive twice as much in campaign contributions as other members of Congress, according to the Dallas Morning News, with Granger topping the list.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn is also among the staunchest defenders of the F-35 in the Senate. This explains in part Cornyn’s vehement opposition — and that of Texas junior Senator Ted Cruz — to the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Before and during his nomination hearings, Hagel made no effort to hide his doubts about whether the F-35 was worth what it was costing the Pentagon, soaking up limited resources with no apparent end in sight. The alternative nominees for Secretary of Defense proposed by Hagel’s critics were supportive of the F-35
Ashton Carter, who heads acquisition for the Pentagon, certified to House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton in June 2010 that the development of the F-35 was “essential to national security”; that there were no acceptable alternatives to the F-35 that would provide “acceptable” capability at a lower cost; that the Pentagon’s Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation considered the F-35′s cost to be “reasonable”; and that the JSF was of a higher priority than other Pentagon programs that might have to be cut in order to fund it.
Michele Flournoy, the Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy between 2009-2012, whose name was also floated and cheered by Hagel’s opponents, co-authored a report by the Center for New American Security (which she co-founded), that recommended the Navy reduce the number of F-35Cs it planned to purchase by half and the Air Force cut its acquisitions of the JSF by about a third. The savings would then be applied to other acquisitions. It did not, however, call for scrapping the F-35.
The Israeli Tie-In and Sequester Silence
Which leads us to another under-reported aspect of congressional support for the F-35 that explains why Ron Paul is unique in his loud criticism of the program and certain pro-F-35 senators keep diverting media attention to Hagel’s alleged antagonism toward Israel during televised confirmation hearings. One of the justifications used by Lockheed and its partners for the problem-prone JSF is that its stratospheric cost will be offset by sales to US allies including Canada, Japan and, oh yes, Israel.
Since the inception of the JSF program, Israel made it known that it not only wanted to purchase the F-35, but be part of its development too. Israeli participation in discussions was briefly suspended in 2005 to reflect US disapproval of Israel selling advanced military technology to China, although Washington made it clear that this would not ultimately affect the sale of F-35s, which Israel hoped would begin arriving in 2012. By 2009, it was clear that the F-35s could not be delivered until 2014.
Much of the debate in Israeli military circles over whether and when Israel should attack Iran has explicitly or implicitly hinged on the JSF, with those advocating restraint arguing that Israel should wait until it has the enhanced military capabilities of the F-35 before striking. When Israel signed an agreement in October 2010 to purchase a squadron of F-35 fighters which would be received in 2015 and 2017, Israel’s Ambassador to the US Michael Oren strongly hinted that an impending confrontation with Iran was the primary reason for the agreement. “It will be capable of sneaking in, penetrating defenses and pulling additional forces after it,” enthused Amir Oren in Haaretz, making the case for restraint until the F-35s were delivered. “The armed, in-flight refueling, flying computer will be the aircraft of the next war. And that is another reason to postpone the date.”
In July 2012, just prior to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s visit to Israel, the Pentagon also reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin to integrate Israeli electronic warfare equipment and Israeli-unique systems into the JSF. Israeli technology is a design component of the F-35′s augmented reality helmet, the cost of which is estimated at between $1-$2 million each. The Israeli Air Force is counting on the F-35 to maintain its qualitative edge, still eagerly anticipating and preparing for the delivery of its squadron.
There is a significant overlap among members of the House and Senate from both parties who have been most supportive of the F-35 (many of whom are also ironically “deficit hawks”) and those from both parties who claim they are Israel’s staunchest and most unwavering defenders. Not all “pro-Israel” members of Congress approve of the F-35, however. Arizona Sen. John McCain has expressed serious reservations, calling the program a “scandal” and a “tragedy” in 2011. Nonetheless, it’s Ron Paul — perceived as so anti-Israel that he alone among the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination was not invited to make his case to the Republican Jewish Coalition in 2012 — who can speak bluntly about killing the F-35 in ways that others won’t. In contrast, John Cornyn complained to AIPAC’s Policy Conference in March, “I’m so disappointed that our delivery of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft keeps getting delayed. The F-35s are remarkably sophisticated planes that will dramatically enhance Israel’s security.” (At least one Jewish news organization interpreted this as a swipe against the Obama administration.)
The problems with the F-35 aren’t going away. Two months ago, the Pentagon called for all F-35s to be grounded when a crack on a turbine blade in the Pratt and Whitney jet engine was discovered during a routine inspection of a test aircraft in California. Despite the promises of retiring Lockheed EVP Burbage about how the F-35 will eventually ”be there,” Pierre Sprey predicts the Pentagon will “kill the program after 500 airplanes.”
In the meantime, don’t count on hearing this F-word anytime soon during all the squawking about the sequester.
Photo: The US Navy variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C.
]]>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 [...]]]>
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.
]]>