The real reason President Obama wants Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense so bad is not just because he's a Republican who can be a convenient figleaf for the president's planned hollowing out of our military.
It's because he profoundly agrees with President Obama's views on Israel and with top level Obama advisers like the president's NSC assistant
Samantha Power. The way to 'solve' what they see as the Israel problem is to invade with U.S. troops, forcibly evict any Jews living outside the pre '67 lines including Jerusalem and leave American 'peacekeepers' in place to enforce it.
That is exactly what Chuck Hagel, long time Israel hater and former Carter NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcraft, Arab lobbyist Carla Hills and a slew of the usual suspects proposed to President Obama in a
2009 report entitled "“A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement”.
The report calls for an imposed settlement and of course, links the Israel problem with al-Qaeda, even though the Arabs waged genocidal jihad on Israel before al-Qaeda was even in existence.Here are a few lovely ideas contained in this document. First it mentions that America's pro-Israel community might be a tad upset, but that an American president ought to be able to perform the massive con job needed to convince most Americans why this is so vital, and why vast amounts of taxpayer dollars need to be spent:
"A new U.S. effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement
may anger certain domestic constituencies. We do not, however, believe it is beyond the capability of any American President to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and
public expenditure to make it work."
Yes, this calls for yet another episode of nation building at the American taxpayer's expense.
The report calls for a non-militarized Palestinians state, enforced by an estimated 60,000 U.S. troops under UN mandate, plus, believe it or not, Egyptians and Jordanians ( who will of course be paid for by the American taxpayer as well. The document envisions this as being in place for - wait for it - 15 years. It also calls for U.S. recognition and support of Hamas ( "shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.")
As if Hamas hadn't already made its views totally clear as well as its behavior! Hagel and company want to Israelis to lay down and accept a terrorist group with clearly genocidal intentions as a 'peace partner', backed up financial aid to Hamas and by U.S. force of arms. And that demilitarized Palestinian state? The Arabs were quick to disavow that almost as soon as Israeli PM Netanyahu proposed it.
The report goes on to link the creation of Israel with 'considerable and ongoing Palestinian suffering' as though Arab violence and support for a jihad against Israel with the murder of every Jew in Palestine had nothing to do with that. Needless to say, there's no mention of the enforced ethnic cleansing of almost a million Jews for the Arab world and
their suffering. it also links U.S. problems with Iran to the 'Israel problem', as though all the Ayatollahs need to become peaceful and give up their nuclear program is Israeli capitulation and the creation of 'Palestine'. There's also a slam at "militant settlers and their political supporters", with no mention of Israeli attempts to swap land for peace in Gaza or via Oslo.
But wait..there's more. The report urges that Israel be muscled into ceding the strategic Golan Height back to Syria..in exchange for a Syrian promise "to participate in no anti-Israeli alliances of any kind" and to make an attempt to "use its influence" to get the likes of Hezbollah to agree to peace with Israel.The Syrians might agree - why not? But you can guarantee that once they have the land back, the promises will be quickly forgotten.
I'm sure President Obama absolutely drooled as he read this. That's likely one reason why Chuck Hagel was made co-chairman of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board.
There was an
interesting NATO analysis and feasibility study of this proposal made by Florence Gaub, an analyst NATO Defense College. She mentions the following points:
"..there are over 19 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. In total, 4.2 million inhabitants in the area live in cities of this kind, with more than half a million living in refugee camps. This itself implies two things:
first, arms caches are difficult to locate without local knowledge, and arms smuggle is facilitated greatly. Disarmament measures would be even more difficult to enforce than they already are under friendlier circumstances."
In other words, like UNSC 1701, disarmament would simply not occur..especially if aome of the peacekeeping force were Arab or Turks.
"Independently from the local security forces, the NATO force in Palestine (hence the minimalist version) would, if it follows the example of the successful cases of Bosnia and Kosovo,
need forces ranging from 43,700 to 76,000 men, including the police forces. Of these, between 16,100 and 28,000 would patrol Gaza, and between 27,600 and 48,000 the West Bank. Page 10
Current theatres of operations would have to be reduced in size before a suitable size NATO mission in Palestine would be available without introducing longer deployments – something many Allies would like to avoid."
"Stabilisation missions are largely infantry missions. This is topped in our case by the fact that in worst case scenario,
the tasks would entail urban warfare and counterinsurgency, which are also infantry heavy tasks."
In other words, (a) most of our NATO allies would be even less anxious to assume the cost of maintaining combat troops in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria as they were in Afghanistan,especially for the 15 years anticipated, so most of them would be Americans or paid for by the U.S. (b) since disarmament is unlikely, these troops (as well as Israeli civilians) would be sitting ducks for terrorism attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah's al-Aksa brigade and others.
Needless to say, since the American taxpayers are likely to tire fairly quickly of seeing American troops come home in body bags while defending 'Palestine' th emission would quickly collapse...except the Arabs would have the land, Israel would be left with a lot of dead civilians and indefensible borders and the security guarantees given them would be absolutely worthless...just as they were in Gaza and Lebanon.And the cost, essentially money borrowed from China to enforce 'Palestine' would be staggering.Remember, it currently costs around $100,000 per year to deploya an American soldier.
"Aside from the costs for the mission itself, additional costs can be expected, due to the training of the Palestinian police, building infrastructure and providing equipment. Some estimates calculate between $9.61 billion and $16.72 billion per year, not calculating reconstruction efforts, which in the case of the recommended 5 years would result in a total number between $48.05 billion and $83.6 billion."
"NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure. One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.
"The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and
a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency. Thus, this mission would need thorough preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success. At the current stage, and with its other operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan."
There's another little detail that needs to be explored. Suppose Israel decides
not to cooperate in her own national suicide? What if they don't accede to dividing Jerusalem again ans creating 500,000 Jewish refugees?
Ah, that's the fun part. Israel isn't Serbia. They're a nuclear power with a well trained and well armed military. So either implementing this diktat either involves NATO,led by America, attacking Israel, perhaps in coordination with Arab armies (an unlikely scenario, but not impossible with this president) or a total severing of the U.S.-Israel alliance.
This is why President Barack Obama wants Chuck Hagel in so badly.
Any Senator whom votes to confirm Chuck Hagel when this comes to a vote needs to realize that this is exactly what they're voting for. Deploying 60,000 U.S. troops into a death trap, spending $160,000 billion we don;t have on 'Palestine' and severing the American-Israeli alliance.
As Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said earlier this week, anyone voting to confirm the likes of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary is going to be held accountable. They can't say later they weren't aware, that they didn't know.
