<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; General David Petraeus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/general-david-petraeus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Was Petraeus Sacrificed for Obama?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/was-petraeus-sacrificed-for-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=was-petraeus-sacrificed-for-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/was-petraeus-sacrificed-for-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=164963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The knives were out for the general for quite some time. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/was-petraeus-sacrificed-for-obama/general-petraeus/" rel="attachment wp-att-164975"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-164975" title="general-petraeus" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/general-petraeus-419x350.jpg" alt="" width="293" height="245" /></a>As the scandal regarding the Obama administration’s deadly bungling in Benghazi, Libya, begins to heat up, suddenly CIA director David Petraeus is out, felled by his own sex scandal.</p>
<p>Complicating matters further, Ronald Kessler <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-affair-fbi-investigation/2012/11/11/id/463697/">reports</a> at Newsmax that “Senior FBI officials suppressed disclosure of the highly sensitive case, apparently to avoid embarrassment to Obama during his re-election campaign.”</p>
<p>Congressman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that the details of the Petraeus situation that have been reported by the media so far don’t make sense. “It seems this [investigation] has been going on for several months, and yet now it appears that they’re saying the FBI did not realize until Election Day that Gen. Petraeus was involved. It just doesn’t add up,” said King.</p>
<p>According to the administration, the Petraeus resignation makes the ex-CIA chief unavailable to testify in Congress this week about what the administration knew and when it knew it. Acting CIA director Michael Morrell is now expected to testify Thursday before the House and Senate intelligence committees behind closed doors.</p>
<p>Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s panel on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/11/10/Rep-Gowdy-Either-Petraeus-Will-Come-and-Testify-to-Congress-Or-He-Will-Be-Subpoenaed">said</a> Petraeus’s resignation ultimately won’t prevent Congress from compelling his testimony.</p>
<p>“The fact that he’s resigned and had an affair has nothing to do with whether he will be subpoenaed to Congress. I hope we don’t have to subpoena a four star general and a former CIA director. I would hope he would come voluntarily but if he won’t he will be subpoenaed … But there is no way we can get to the bottom of Benghazi without David Petraeus.”</p>
<p>The knives have apparently been out for Petraeus for a while. In a story that may have been planted by the Obama White House, Fox News reported earlier this month that the CIA did almost nothing while the consulate was in flames. Anonymous officials also <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/petraeus-benghazi/">told</a> the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> that the CIA failed to provide adequate security at the mission. The CIA replied that its personnel were involved in repelling the attack.</p>
<p>Petraeus is the highly respected Army general who commanded the successful “surge” that helped to turn around the war in Iraq. As the nation searches for answers about the Sept. 11 atrocities in Benghazi, this war hero has been made to fall on his sword, conveniently disposed of to protect the president.</p>
<p>Leftists won’t lose sleep over Petraeus’s ouster because they already despise him. MoveOn published a full-page ad in the <em>New York Times</em> in 2007 accusing the then-general of “cooking the books for the White House” to justify President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. The ad labeled Petraeus “General Betray Us.” The message <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html">prompted</a> an unusual official rebuke from the U.S. Senate, which voted 72 to 25 to condemn the offensive ad. To no one’s surprise, then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden missed the vote.</p>
<p>It was reported last week that the married Petraeus had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and suddenly Democrats, whose party stands for abortion-on-demand and free condoms, are outraged. (There is also talk that Petraeus may have been involved with another woman not his wife.) As Robert Spencer <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus/">noted</a>, Obama and his party care nothing about sexual improprieties. In fact it can be argued that among his fellow Democrats such behaviors can be resume-builders. (See Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, and recently, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/women-sen-bob-menendez-paid-us-for-sex-in-the-dominican-republic/">Bob Menendez</a>.)</p>
<p>Newly awakened to the importance of national security, Democrats are worried that as a philanderer Petraeus may have been open to blackmail, something that never concerned them when womanizers Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy, occupied the Oval Office.</p>
<p>Those who study history and the grim statecraft of scapegoating must find it difficult to take Petraeus’s explanation seriously. Doomed Roman officials would take a warm bath and slit their wrists, often after a farewell party, before peacefully drifting off to Elysium. In the old Soviet Union, an out-of-favor intelligence chief would be found dead of an apparent heart attack, or shipped off to remotest Siberia to enjoy an early retirement, but in America a sex scandal will suffice as a cover story.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the State Department continues its stonewalling operation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined an invitation to testify in Congress this week. Instead she’ll jet off to Australia.</p>
<p>House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is unhappy with the State Department for refusing to hand over information that she demanded.</p>
<p>“While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote in a Nov. 7 letter to Clinton.</p>
<p>Few observers take the department’s Accountability Review Board that is supposed to investigate Benghazi seriously. It is headed by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering whom critics deride as a pro-Islamist tool of Islamofascist Iran who doesn’t take the terrorist threat to America seriously.</p>
<p>Now that President Obama is safely past the electoral finish line, he is free to focus on eliminating any remaining obstacles that threaten his project to “fundamentally transform” the United States.</p>
<p>While official Washington and the mainstream media are entranced by the Petraeus sex saga, playing with it like a kitten plays with a ball of yarn, the Obama administration’s cover-up regarding the Sept. 11 massacre at Benghazi, Libya, that claimed four American lives, including the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, continues.</p>
<p>Evidence has already <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/obama-white-house-knew-al-qaeda-ally-hit-benghazi/">established</a> that two hours after the deadly assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama White House knew the operation had been orchestrated by Muslim terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda. Instead of trying to solve the problem, President Obama hopped onto Air Force One on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 and escaped to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. U.S. forces that could have come to the rescue sat idle an hour’s flying time away awaiting an order to deploy that never came.</p>
<p>Benghazi could be Obama’s Watergate, a potentially presidency-ending scandal far worse than anything President Nixon ever did. Nixon, who almost certainly would have been impeached had he not resigned, involved himself after the fact in covering up a bungled and otherwise inconsequential break-in at the opposition party’s headquarters. Obama almost certainly knew what was happening on the ground in Libya as it was happening and yet he did nothing, preferring instead to fly off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, a city he otherwise mocks. And if Obama didn’t know, that in itself is an indictment.</p>
<p>Nixon got involved in a scandal that would have, but for his association, faded away to become a mere footnote in history. Nixon did something and it was relatively trifling; Obama did nothing and his omission cost American lives, including the life of a sitting U.S. ambassador.</p>
<p>There are so many other improprieties that could topple or at least weaken President Obama in his second term. There is Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious Mexican gun-walking scandal, a Reichstag fire calculated to foment anti-gun hysteria; the failure to defend U.S. borders; the refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); and the ongoing abuse of executive orders and recess appointments.</p>
<p>This is only a partial list.</p>
<p>During President Obama’s second term, the list is bound to grow.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/was-petraeus-sacrificed-for-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>110</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Convenient Resignation of General Petraeus</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 04:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=164696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A preposterous pretext for the CIA director's exit.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus/zumaglobalthree235379/" rel="attachment wp-att-164700"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-164700" title="zumaglobalthree235379" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/zumaglobalthree235379-425x350.jpg" alt="" width="298" height="245" /></a>Apparently overcome with guilt over an extramarital affair, General David Petraeus abruptly resigned as director of the CIA Thursday. A suddenly socially conservative Barack Obama accepted his resignation Friday, as Petraeus explained in a statement made public Friday afternoon (the time when all stories that the administration wants to bury are released). But Petraeus’s statement simply didn’t hold water &#8212; not only because it assumed an Obama as strait-laced as Pat Robertson, but also because it comes just after the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked him to testify in its investigation of the Benghazi jihad attack and subsequent Obama administration cover-up.</p>
<p>“Yesterday afternoon,” Petraeus <a href="http://wtvr.com/2012/11/09/cia-director-petraeus-resigns-over-extramarital-affair/">wrote</a>, “I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position as D/CIA. After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”</p>
<p>Parson Obama, that well-known moral crusader who praised Ted Kennedy as an “extraordinary leader” and Barney Frank as “a fierce advocate for the people of Massachusetts and Americans everywhere who needed a voice,” may indeed have been so indignant over Petraeus’s affair that he accepted his resignation with alacrity. On the other hand, maybe his willingness to see the last of Petraeus had something to do with the statement that the CIA issued on <a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/261936225106132993">October 26</a>: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”</p>
<p>This came after <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/">Fox News had reported</a> that same day that “sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command &#8212; who also told the CIA operators twice to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”</p>
<p>But if it wasn’t Petraeus who ordered that no help be given to Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff when jihadists attacked the embassy, the order would have had to come from someone who outranked even the director of the agency. Thus Petraeus’s denial that the order had come from him pointed the finger directly at Barack Obama. And while the mainstream media buried that fact before the election, probably the House Foreign Affairs Committee would have asked Petraeus just who did give the order.</p>
<p>For surely it was just a coincidence that Petraeus resigned on Thursday, the very same day that <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/house-panel-to-hold-hearing-on-libya-attack-with-top-obama-intelligence/">Fox News reported</a> that the Foreign Affairs Committee was planning to call him to testify at their Benghazi hearings, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Surely that had nothing to do with Petraeus’s decision to submit his resignation. This couldn’t have had anything to do with his quitting. It is much more likely indeed that suddenly, just as the news that he was going to be summoned to testify came in to his office, Petraeus was overcome with remorse over his affair, and decided – although apparently the affair began some time ago, since <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/09/petraeus_resigns_over_affair_with_biographer.html">there were rumors about it while he was still in Afghanistan</a> – that Thursday was the day, right then and there, to come clean and resign his position.</p>
<p>The preposterousness of this scenario is obvious. And the convenience of the timing for Barack Obama cannot be overlooked. Now Petraeus <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/petraeus-will-not-testify-in-house-intelligence-committee-hearing/">will not be testifying at the House hearings</a>, and so, barring a subpoena, the primary witness to who ordered the CIA to stand down in Benghazi has been removed.</p>
<p>The transparently flimsy justification given for the resignation is also troubling, reminiscent as it is of the charges that Stalin suddenly brought against his former friends and comrades in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, when overnight heroes of the revolution became hated class enemies. That a Democrat administration as socially to the Left as Obama’s would use a charge of adultery as an excuse to remove a hitherto respected public official already strains credulity well beyond the breaking point. It also has more than a whiff of totalitarian-style denunciations and purges. Will a show trial follow?</p>
<p>And the worst part of all this is that the election is over, the opposition to Obama is reeling and toothless, and clearly the man believes that he can behave this way without worrying about any accountability. And he is probably right.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/the-convenient-resignation-of-general-petraeus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>133</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Way to Fight Terror</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Gurney]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[command]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence agencies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence operatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military strikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[September]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special forces operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist cells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America's new intelligence strategy to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-61724" title="sf-beard-hires" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sf-beard-hires-300x198.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="198" /></a></p>
<p>Last September, General David Petraeus, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, signed a seven-page memo authorizing an increase in American special forces operations across his command. Under the order, which was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html?hp">reported</a> by the <em>New York Times</em> last week, American special forces would be able to deploy to countries throughout CENTCOM’s area of responsibility (the Middle East and Africa) to “gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.” They would also gather intelligence “that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran.” Notably, the order applies to all countries within the region. Many are at least officially friendly to the United   States, but some, notably Syria and the afore-mentioned Iranian regime, are decidedly unfriendly.</p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em> report makes for fascinating reading and certainly sounds portentous. But it is important to understand exactly what such an order means (to the extent it is possible to understand a classified document that has not been seen by the general public). General Petraeus has not authorized any attacks or disruptive operations by American forces, he lacks the authority to do so; any major operations would require Washington’s approval. But he has made it possible for American military personnel to function as intelligence operatives, infiltrating countries both hostile and friendly, to assess conditions on the ground and work, perhaps in conjunction with local friendly forces, to disrupt terrorist cells and training operations.</p>
<p>These efforts will provide the United   States with valuable human intelligence in areas where the CIA and other intelligence agencies lack significant resources, and will provide details that even the most advanced satellite or drone cannot possibly detect. While deploying American troops secretly into any country will always carry risks, General Petraeus will not be freelancing any unsanctioned invasions, despite some of <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/opinion/main6517976.shtml" target="_blank">alarmed reaction</a> the memo has generated.</p>
<p>These assignments will be dangerous, both for the personnel involved and for the United   States politically, but they should still be applauded. Nine years of warfare in Afghanistan, and now seven years in Iraq, have shown how difficult it is to wage war against diffuse terrorist cells linked only by their ideology, with heavy weapons and mass formations of troops designed to do battle with the Cold War-era Soviet  Union. It took a long time after the shocking attacks of September 11<sup>th</sup> for the American military, as powerful as it is, to adjust to the new kind of war, waged not by billion-dollar battalions, but the courage and ingenuity of small units.</p>
<p>Given the current weaknesses in the American economy, such a shift away from the massive deployments of the last ten years was inevitable. America cannot afford to keep fighting <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_re_us/us_times_square_car_smoke" target="_blank">attempted car bombers</a> with columns of tanks. Once American forces have left Iraq, and after Afghanistan is stable enough to leave (<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=3063490" target="_blank">if ever</a>), future battles in the war against Islamist extremism will be waged by these clandestine warriors. By infiltrating extremist hotbeds, they will make possible the same kind of targeted killings of enemy leaders that have of late proven so successful in Pakistan and Yemen.</p>
<p>They will not be enough to defeat militant Islamism, but if kept up at a steady pace, will serve to keep it off balance and offer local governments the chance to develop functional, stable societies of the sort less likely to export fanatical suicide bombers to the West. For that reason, this plan — what we know of it — should be commended. It offers the prospects of tangible benefits to the United   States for relatively little risk.</p>
<p>But the risk is real, not just for the soldiers whose lives will be in danger (though we of course must keep them in our thoughts) but due to the temptation to become overly reliant upon these elite teams at the expense of other, more traditional elements of American military strength. Given the enormous financial pressure the United   States finds itself under, and given the tendency thus far of the current White House Administration and Congress to favor social spending, cutbacks to some elements of American military readiness are inevitable. Until America’s fiscal house can be put back in order, that is simply the bleak reality.</p>
<p>But the cuts made today to save money tomorrow will have an enormous impact for decades to come. Ballistic missile defense, as originally envisioned by the administration of George W. Bush, has already been scrapped, and the orders for advanced navy destroyers and F-22 stealth fighters have been slashed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently got into a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460AN20100507" target="_blank">public spat</a> with the Navy over whether or not the United States truly needed 11 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world combined does not have that many. Such debates will undoubtedly become more common in the years ahead, and military leaders and politicians alike must avoid cutting American capabilities too deep on the false assumption that special forces teams can pick up the slack.</p>
<p>To an extent, they can — but only to that extent. Indeed, it is worth noting that the original report on the expanded role for these teams was quite clear that one of their missions is reconnaissance in preparation for a possible American attack against the Iranian nuclear program. That example perfectly illustrates the proper balancing of unconventional special forces and old fashioned heavy firepower. After all, once American special units conducted such preliminary survey missions, it would fall to the Navy and Air Force to blast their way into Iran, destroy their targets, and then deal with the inevitably violent Iranian response.</p>
<p>There is a role for special forces teams in future wars and low-level conflicts, and General Petraeus and the Obama Administration are to be praised for recognizing that. But the best efforts of those brave Americans deployed far from home will be wasted if the United   States does not maintain the striking power to make use of their hard-won information and chooses instead of cut the military too deep to reduce deficits or free up funds for social programs of dubious value.</p>
<p><em>Matt Gurney is an editor at the </em>National Post<em>, a Canadian national newspaper, and writes and speaks on military and geopolitical issues. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:matt@mattgurney.ca" target="_blank">matt@mattgurney.ca</a>. </em></p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/matt-gurney/the-new-way-to-fight-terror-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Times Square Denial</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/stephenbrown/times-square-denial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=times-square-denial</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/stephenbrown/times-square-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 04:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Brown]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abc program this week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[B. Raman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Headley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denmark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faisal Shahzad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fort Hood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hasan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janet Napolitano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kashmiri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lone gunman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Major Nidal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malik Hasan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohammad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muhammad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mumbai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murderous rampage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary of homeland security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Asian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Times Square]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zazi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59959</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama officials jump to wrong conclusions to stop Americans from making the right ones.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/nap.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-59961" title="nap" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/nap.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="288" /></a></p>
<p>Before  any real investigation had been carried out into the attempted terrorist bombing  on New York’s Times Square last week, Secretary of Homeland  Security Janet Napolitano had almost immediately dismissed it as a “one-off”  thing. General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, was also quick off  the mark, saying the terrorist behind the plot, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/04/new-york-bomb-suspect.html" target="_blank">Faisal  Shahzad</a>, 30, who traded his Pakistani citizenship for American last year,  was a “lone wolf.”</p>
<p>But  last weekend the truth came out when Attorney-General Eric Holder was forced to  admit what many suspected all along. It was another act of international Islamic  jihad against the United  States, and faceless murderers in Taliban/ al Qaeda  terrorist organizations, based in Pakistan and motivated by their undying  resolve to kill as many Americans, were the  string-pullers.</p>
<p>“We’ve now developed evidence that shows that the  Pakistan Taliban was behind the attack,” Holder said on the ABC program, <em>This Week</em>. “We know that they probably  helped finance it. And that he (Shahzad) was working at their  direction.”</p>
<p>With  Holder’s admission, the question remains as to why a government that told people  not to jump to conclusions concerning a connection between the  Fort Hood massacre and Islamist terrorism was  so quick to erroneously declare the Times Square bombing a solo, one-time operation? In the  Fort Hood killings, Major Nidal Malik Hasan  was also initially described as a lone gunman, whose motives were unclear,  although he was shouting “Allahu Akbar” during his murderous rampage. President  Obama himself cautioned against any premature judgement, even though his own  intelligence agencies knew for months Hasan had been trying to make contact with  al Qaeda-connected people.</p>
<p>“We  don’t know all the answers yet,” Obama said at the time. “And I would caution  against jumping to any conclusions until we have all the facts.”</p>
<p>But in  the case of the failed Times Square bombing the facts were already in, some of  them for a long time. The United  States is in a worldwide war with radical Islam, a  concept some still have difficulty with. As a result of this war, according to  one analyst, America was the target of about a <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20091121.aspx" target="_blank">dozen  terrorist attacks</a> within its borders last year alone. Only the  Fort Hood strike was successful, costing 13  lives while another 30 were wounded.</p>
<p>In one  of the thwarted attacks, also potentially the most deadly, an Afghan residing  legally in the United  States, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/najibullah_zazi/index.html" target="_blank">Najibullah  Zazi</a>, 25, was arrested last September along with two others for planning  three suicide attacks on the New York subway. Zazi, like Shahzad, had  also received weapons and explosives training at a terrorist training camp in  Pakistan. Zazi pleaded guilty last February  and will be sentenced in June.</p>
<p>However, it was the arrest of two men of  Pakistani origin in Chicago last year on terrorism charges that  indicated how deeply the al Qaeda/ Taliban terrorist network had spread in  America. Rather than use the two Chicago  residents, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley" target="_blank">David  Headley</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahawwur_Hussain_Rana" target="_blank">Tahawwur Rana</a>, the  former an American and the latter a Canadian citizen, to carry out terrorist  attacks in the United States where they lived, an easier proposition, the  terrorist leaders sitting in Pakistan confidently used them to help carry out  the most devastating terrorist attack of 2008: Mumbai.  Headley, using his American passport and  Rana’s business as cover, traveled several times to  India to scout out potential targets  before the attack and to gather information. The two men’s sinister activities  remained undetected in both India and  America.</p>
<p>Headley  would also travel to Pakistan where he would drop off his reports  to<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyas_Kashmiri_%28militant%29" target="_blank"> Ilyas  Kashmiri</a>, the mastermind behind the Mumbai attack and allegedly the head of  al Qaeda’s military operations. When arrested, Headley and Rana were carrying  out reconnaissance in Denmark for another Kashmiri-planned  terrorist attack, this time against the Danish newspaper, the <em>Jyllands-Postens</em>, which printed the  Muhammad cartoons. Kashmiri was indicted at the trial that saw Headley plead  guilty to terrorism charges last March.</p>
<p>When  the investigation is complete concerning the failed Times Square bombing, it would not surprise if  Ilyas Kashmiri’s name pops up once more. South Asian affairs analyst <a href="http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3506.html" target="_blank">B. Raman</a> describes Kashmiri as seeing himself as another Khalid Sheikh Mohammad who wants  “to carry out a spectacular terrorist strike in a Western country.”</p>
<p>American  intelligence indicated Kashmiri’s importance by subjecting him to three drone  attacks in the past. Kashmiri, who also heads al Qaeda’s secretive <a href="http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3506.html" target="_blank">313 Brigade</a>, granted a Pakistani journalist <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ15Df03.html" target="_blank">an interview</a> last October after his death was reported in the  third attack to prove he was still alive and planning further terrorist strikes  in India, Europe and North America.</p>
<p>“They  are right in their pursuit. They know their enemy well. They know what I am  really up to,” he told the interviewer with  pride.</p>
<p>The  fact the Pakistani Taliban rather than al Qaeda at first took credit for helping  Shahzad and then later retracted its claim is probably an attempt to deceive.  Raman writes there is really no knowing what the relationship is between the  Pakistani Taliban, Ilyas Kashmiri and his 313 Brigade. He further observes that  the terrorist scene in Pakistan is “getting murkier and murkier”  and not even Pakistan’s leaders know exactly what is  going on.</p>
<p>The  fact that so many terrorist plots in America and elsewhere have led back to  Pakistan, why then would Napolitano and  General Petraeus hastily conclude the Times Square bombing was a “one-off”, “lone wolf” deed?   What drives such speedy, and  misleading, utterances and presidential warnings not to jump to conclusions is  the White House’s fear of a backlash against Muslims living in  America. Such a backlash, it is believed,  would not only play into the Islamists’ hands and adversely affect the War on  Terror, but would also jeopardise Obama’s stated desire to build bridges to the  Islamic world.</p>
<p>But  while such fear may be understandable, it only serves to hinder people from  drawing the proper conclusion: Islamic terrorism is a very real danger to  Americans and the threat is growing.  And that is something that can’t be  denied.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/stephenbrown/times-square-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Anti-Israel Lobby</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-anti-israel-lobby/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-anti-israel-lobby</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-anti-israel-lobby/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan--which]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american deaths in iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben-Ami]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buchanans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths in iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic Extremists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeremy Ben-Ami]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Mearsheimer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim extremists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pat buchanan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Walt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vice President Joe Biden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[J-Street can no longer claim to support the Jewish state. 

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jstreet.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58721" title="jstreet" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jstreet.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="323" /></a></p>
<p>J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be &#8220;a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.&#8221; It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.</p>
<p>This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.</p>
<p>It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that&#8217;s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm&#8217;s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.</p>
<p>It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state <span style="text-decoration: underline;">does</span>, but what it <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span>: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn&#8217;t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel&#8217;s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan&#8211;which they are not&#8211;then the only logical solution would be Israel&#8217;s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.</p>
<p>Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel&#8217;s &#8220;good&#8221; actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel&#8217;s &#8220;bad&#8221; actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel&#8217;s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.</p>
<p>Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the <em>New York Times</em> on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Although Ben-Ami doesn&#8217;t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase &#8220;critical to…American strategic interests,&#8221; is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.</p>
<p>In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered &#8220;pro-Israel.&#8221; The argument is also anything but &#8220;pro peace,&#8221; since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.</p>
<p>Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel&#8217;s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don&#8217;t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-anti-israel-lobby/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>78</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Victim: The &#8220;Peace Process&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/obamas-victim-the-peace-process/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-victim-the-peace-process</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/obamas-victim-the-peace-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Queda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contretemps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[correlation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial impetus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish neighborhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Mearsheimer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netanyahu government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[one]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patrick Buchanan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president hamid karzai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president joe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quarter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Sanchez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Cohen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Walt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vice President Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Western Wall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=56977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And the winners are . . .]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obamar.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-56984" title="obamar" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obamar.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="239" /></a></p>
<p>The apparently escalating conflict between the US and Israel did not have to occur. It must be resolved now, before it does irreparable harm to prospects for peace.</p>
<p>The conflict was largely contrived by people with agendas.  The initial impetus for the brouhaha was an ill-timed announcement that permits had been issued for building 1,600 additional residences in a part of Jerusalem that had been captured by Israel in the 1967 war.  The Netanyahu government had been praised by President Obama for agreeing to a freeze on building permits on the West Bank, despite the fact that the freeze did not extend to any part of Jerusalem.  Thus the announcement of new building permits did not violate any agreement by Israel.  Nonetheless, the timing of the announcement embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden who was in Israel at the time.  The timing was neither an accident nor was it purposely done by Prime Minister Netanyahu to embarrass Biden.  Many believe that the announcement was purposely timed by opponents of the peace process in order to embarrass Netanyahu.  Whatever the motivation, the announcement deserved a rebuke from Vice President Biden.  It also warranted an apology and explanation from the Israeli government, which immediately came from Netanyahu.  That should have ended the contretemps.</p>
<p>But some in the Obama Administration apparently decided that they too had an agenda beyond responding to the ill-timed announcement, and they decided to take advantage of Israel&#8217;s gaffe.  They began to pile on and on and on.  Instead of it being a one day story, the controversy continues to escalate and harden positions on all sides to this day and perhaps beyond.  The real victim is the peace process and the winners are those&#8211;like Iran, Hamas and extremist Israelis&#8211;who oppose the two-state solution.</p>
<p>The building permits themselves were for residences not in East Jerusalem, but rather in North Jerusalem, and not in an Arab section, but rather in an entirely Jewish neighborhood.  This neighborhood, Ramat Shlomo, is part of the area that everybody acknowledges should and will remain part of Israel even if an agreement for a two state solution and the division of Jerusalem is eventually reached.  In that respect, it is much like the ancient Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, which was illegally captured from the Jewish residents by the Jordanian army in the 1948 war.  The Jordanians then desecrated Jewish holy places during its illegal occupation, and the Israelis legally recaptured it during the defensive war of 1967.  No one in their right mind believes that Israel has any obligation to give up the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site in the world, despite the fact that it was recaptured during the 1967 war.</p>
<p>Because the Palestinians understand and acknowledge that these entirely Jewish areas of Jerusalem will remain part of the Jewish state even after an agreement, the ill-timed announcement of building permits during the Biden visit generated a relatively mild and routine complaint, rather than a bellicose response, from the Palestinian Authority leadership.  The bellicose response came from the American leadership, which refused to let the issue go.  Once this piling on occurred, the Palestinian leadership had no choice but to join the chorus of condemnation, lest they be perceived as being less Palestinian than the Obama Administration.</p>
<p>Now positions have hardened on both sides, due largely to the public and persistent nature of the American condemnation.  This rebuke culminated in the very public dissing of Prime Minister Netanyahu by President Obama during their recent White House meeting.  Obama treated Netanyahu far worse than he treated Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is corrupt to the core and who had invited Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver an anti-American tirade inside Afghanistan&#8217;s presidential palace.  According to a high ranking Afghan source, Karzai &#8220;invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans.&#8221;  Nonetheless, President Obama flew to Afghanistan and had a very public dinner with Karzai, according him the red carpet treatment, thus granting him legitimacy following his fraudulent re-election.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, has been treated with disrespect in what many Israelis see as an effort to delegitimize him in the eyes of Israeli voters who know how important the US-Israeli relationship is in the Jewish state.</p>
<p>The shabby treatment accorded Israel&#8217;s duly elected leader has also stimulated an ugly campaign by some of Israel&#8217;s enemies to delegitimize the US-Israeli strategic relationship, and indeed the Jewish nation itself, in the eyes of American voters.  The newest, and most dangerous, argument being offered by those who seek to damage the US-Israel alliance is that Israeli actions, such as issuing building permits in Jerusalem, endanger the lives of American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>
<p>This phony argument&#8211;originally attributed to Vice President Biden and General David Petraeus but categorically denied by both of them&#8211;has now taken on a life of its own in the media.  A CNN headline on the Rick Sanchez Show blared &#8220;Israel a danger to US Troops.&#8221;  Other headlines conveyed a similar message:  &#8220;US Tells Israel: &#8216;You&#8217;re undermining America, endangering troops.&#8217;&#8221;  Variations on this dangerous and false argument have been picked up by commentators such as Joe Klein in Time Magazine, Roger Cohen in The New York Times, DeWayne Wickham in USA Today and not surprisingly, Patrick Buchanan and Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.</p>
<p>It is a dangerous and false argument.  It is dangerous because its goal is to reduce support for Israel among mainstream Americans who understandably worry about our troops fighting abroad.  This is ironic since the major pillar of Israel&#8217;s policy with regard to US troops is that Israel never wants to endanger our troops.  That&#8217;s why it has never asked US soldiers to fight for Israel, as other allies have asked our soldiers to fight for them.  By seeking to scapegoat Israel for the death of American troops at the hands of Islamic terrorists, this argument blames those who love America for deaths caused by those who hate America.</p>
<p>Most of all, it is an entirely false argument.  There is absolutely no correlation between Israeli actions and the safety of American troops&#8211;none.</p>
<p>No one has ever shown any relationship between what Israel does and the rate of American casualties, because there is no such relationship&#8211;none</p>
<p>Consider two significant time periods.  The first is the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, when Israel offered the Palestinians virtually everything they could have wanted:  a state on 100% of the Gaza and 97% of the West Bank, a capital in a divided Jerusalem and a $35 billion reparation package for refugees.  Virtually the entire Arab world urged Arafat to accept this generous offer, but he declined it.  During the very months that Israel was doing everything possible to promote peace with the Palestinians, Al Queda was planning its devastating attack on the World Trade Center.  No correlation between Israeli actions and American casualties.</p>
<p>Then consider the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 when Israel was engaged in Operation Cast Lead, which caused significant Palestinian casualties.  During that difficult period, there was no increase in American casualties.  Again, no correlation.</p>
<p>Those offering up this phony empirical argument have an obligation to present evidence in support of this fallacious correlation, or else to stop making this bigoted argument.</p>
<p>The reason there is no correlation is because extremist Muslims who kill American troops are not outraged at what Israel <span style="text-decoration: underline;">does,</span> but rather at what Israel <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span>&#8211;a secular Jewish, democratic state.  As long as Israel exists, there will be Islamic extremists who regard that fact as a provocation.  The same is true of the United States:  as long we continue to exist as a secular democracy with equal rights for women, Christians and Jews, the Osama Bin Laden&#8217;s of the world will seek our destruction.  Certainly as long as American troops remain in any part of the Arab world&#8211;whether it be Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan&#8211;Muslim fanatics will try to kill our soldiers.  Blame for the murder of American troops should be placed on those who kill them, rather than on those who stand for the same values of democracy and equality as America does.</p>
<p>In considering the relationship between the United states and Israel, several points must be kept in mind.  First and foremost, the US and Israel are on the same side in the continuing struggle against Islamic extremists who endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians.  Second, Israel is one of America&#8217;s most important strategic allies, providing us with essential intelligence, research and developments and other important assets.  Third, there is nothing that Israel or the United States can do that will turn these extremist enemies into friends.  It is what we are, rather than what we do, that enrages those who wish to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate and subject us all to Islamic Sharia law.  Fourth, any weakening of the alliance between the United States and Israel will make it far less likely that Israelis&#8211;who get to vote on these matters&#8211;will take significant risks for peace.  Fifth, the Obama Administration&#8217;s public attacks on Israel will harden Palestinian demand and make it less likely that they will accept a compromise peace.  Sixth, if Israel&#8217;s enemies were to lay down their arms and stop terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel, there would be peace.  Seventh, if Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide.  And eighth, when the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state <span style="text-decoration: underline;">more</span> than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.</p>
<p>It is in the best interest of the United States, of the peace process and of Israel for disagreements between allies to be resolved quietly and constructively, so that progress can be made toward achieving a two-state solution that assures Israel&#8217;s security and Palestinian statehood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/obamas-victim-the-peace-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pakistan In Peril &#8211; by Stephen Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/stephenbrown/pakistan-in-peril-by-stephen-brown/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pakistan-in-peril-by-stephen-brown</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/stephenbrown/pakistan-in-peril-by-stephen-brown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Brown]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ahmed Mukhtar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amnesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[army]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asif zardari]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benazir bhutto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[border]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civilian government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corrupt politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption charges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dawn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government members]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity from prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[junior minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[list]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military coup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military dictatorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military industrial complex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Zardari]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national reconciliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposition parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ostensible reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Asif Zardari]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tarek Fatah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=42308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Military coup brewing against President Zardar. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-42310" title="peril" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/peril.jpg" alt="peril" width="450" height="282" /></p>
<p>Islamist elements in Pakistan’s military unhappy with<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari"> President Asif Zardari</a> are reported to be plotting to remove their country’s civilian government and replace it with a military dictatorship.</p>
<p>Two days after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus">General David Petraeus</a>, chief of US Central Command, dismissed fears of an imminent military coup, Pakistan’s defense minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, was prevented Thursday evening by border officials from leaving the country to visit China. According to one report, there are 248 such names on the border authorities’ list, including other high-ranking government members, of Pakistanis now denied exit rights.</p>
<p>The ostensible reason for Mukhtar’s detainment was that he, and other ministers of the ruling <a href="http://www.ppp.org.pk/">Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)</a>, is facing corruption charges and a possible jail term. Last Wednesday, Pakistan’s Supreme Court struck down the amnesty, called the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), which protected them and 8,000 other bureaucrats from prosecution, reviving old charges. The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the 2007 NRO amnesty that paved the way for Zardari’s murdered wife and then PPP leader, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto">Benazir Bhutto</a>, to return to Pakistan.</p>
<p>With the Supreme Court’s ruling, several ministers are now expected to resign, endangering the survival of the Zardari civilian government. Opposition parties are also calling for Zardari himself to step down, but he has presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court’s NRO ruling, though, is expected to leave Pakistan’s president open to legal proceedings regarding his eligibility as a candidate in last year’s election.</p>
<p>Columnist and former Pakistani activist Tarek Fatah writes that “religious right–wing backers of the Taliban and al Qaeda” in Pakistan’s military-industrial complex are behind this destruction of the Zardari government by legal means.</p>
<p>“Working from within the government, military intelligence was able to coax a junior minister to release a list of supposedly corrupt politicians and public officials in the country,” wrote Fatah. “Leading them was Mr. Zardari himself – notwithstanding the fact that before he was elected president, he had been imprisoned for more than a decade by the military without a single conviction.”</p>
<p>Zardari came to office a year ago last August, taking over from disgraced military ruler <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf">Pervez Musharraf</a> who resigned under threat of impeachment. Musharraf had come to power after staging the last military coup against a civilian president in 1999. Pakistan has been ruled by military leaders for about half of its 62 year history, so military takeovers are almost a part of the political fabric.</p>
<p>Army rule usually lasts about a decade before a civilian government is re-established which lasts an almost equal length of time. The current military threat to civilian rule is somewhat unusual, as Zardari has been in office only a year and four months.</p>
<p>A main reason for the military coups, though, is that the civilian politicians’ corruption and incompetence eventually become too ruinous for the country.</p>
<p>What is also unusual is the military’s current method for re-establishing itself in power. In the past, tanks would simply roll up to the president’s residence and eject him from office by force. The military’s strategy this time, it appears, is to let the courts take down the government, which gives the destruction of civilian rule a semblance of legality that would evoke less criticism from the western democracies. In the resulting political turmoil, the army could then seize power, appearing as a force of stability and law and order.</p>
<p>One reason for the military’s dissatisfaction with the Zardari government is that the war against Islamic extremists in Pakistan is not popular in some sections of the army, bureaucracy and Pakistan’s powerful intelligence service, the ISI. According to a story in the Pakistani newspaper, <em>Dawn</em>, Islamic radicals “have permeated the state apparatus and society to such an extent that they are now an integral part of them.” This made Zardari’s going to war against the Taliban a risky venture, since a backlash that could paralyse the government could ensue. The ISI is also unhappy that Zardari has been trying to root out the Islamist elements in its midst.</p>
<p>Some military people also regard the Taliban as a strategic asset to be used in any future war with India and as well as for giving Pakistan strategic depth in Afghanistan. The Taliban are regarded as excellent irregular fighters. The army already used them in the 1947 war against India when, under the leadership of Pakistani officers, they almost conquered Kashmir.</p>
<p>Zardari’s desire to make peace with India has also made him enemies in the military. Since independence in 1947, Pakistan has fought three major wars with India. Some in the military regard this showdown as the reason for the army’s existence and do not want it to end. To his credit, one observer states Zardari wants peaceful relations with all neighboring countries, since he knows economic growth in Pakistan is not possible without “peaceful borders.”</p>
<p>Fatah writes that the last straw for the military in its decision to go after the Zardari government was when the US Congress passed the <a href="http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=200156">Kerry-Lugar bill </a>last September that would see billions of dollars in aid flow to Pakistan. The problem was the generals would not be able to get their hands on it, like it did in the past under Musharraf, as the money is to go through civilian channels. Fatah describes what was at stake for the generals if they let the US Congress’s decision to bypass them go unchallenged: “If they do nothing, they lose their veto power over government policymaking, domestic as well as foreign.”</p>
<p>What the generals did do, according to Fatah, was to get the pro-Taliban media to launch a frenzied campaign, “claiming that Mr. Zardari had sold out to the Americans and the Indians.” And probably not coincidentally, American diplomats are now experiencing official harassment.</p>
<p>The fall of President Zardari would pose a very serious problem for American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Zardari recognised the danger the Islamic radicals pose and has vigorously pursued their destruction in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A change in the Pakistani government may very well see a change in that policy, which would constitute not only a serious setback but a defeat in the war against militant Islam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/stephenbrown/pakistan-in-peril-by-stephen-brown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1078/1118 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 13:57:46 by W3 Total Cache -->