Savvy Petraeus
However, it now appears that in March 2010, the politically savvy Petraeus was seeking to ingratiate himself with Boot by repudiating the Senate testimony echoing Obama's concerns that the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate risked the lives of American troops. In other words, Petraeus was putting distance between himself and the administration's position in order to slip into a more favorable light with the neocons.
At the end of a news conference on April 13, President Obama restated his worry about the risks to the United States from the Middle East conflict, saying it will end up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
However, Boot and other leading neocons have made clear they don't care much about either of those costs when extracting the "blood and treasure" from the American people is needed to protect the security interests of Israel.
And, the neocons seem to have prevailed in this internal Washington battle fought over the past 18 months. Obama appears even more locked into the Afghan War today as he presses Congress to approve $33 billion more for the conflict and as his new Afghan commander, David Petraeus, essentially dismisses Obama's announced policy of beginning a significant U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in one year.
As for Israel, Obama welcomed Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday and almost fell out of his Oval Office chair trying to express how much he agreed with Israel.
Obama was so effusive in his praise for Netanyahu that Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who usually positions himself safely on the neocon side of any division, termed Obama's behavior something akin to surrender, suggesting that the appropriate flag to wave would have been a white one.
"Four months ago, the Obama administration made a politically perilous decision to condemn Israel over a controversial new settlement," Milbank wrote. "The Israel lobby reared up, Netanyahu denounced the administration's actions, Republican leaders sided with Netanyahu, and Democrats ran for cover.
"So, on Tuesday, Obama, routed and humiliated by his Israeli counterpart, invited Netanyahu back to the White House for what might be called the Oil of Olay Summit: It was all about saving face.
Milbank wrote that President Obama "performed the Full Monty of pro-Israel pandering: "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable' " "I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu' " "Our two countries are working cooperatively' " "unwavering in our commitment' " "our relationship has broadened' " "continuing to improve' " "we are committed to that special bond, and we are going to do what's required to back that up'."
Milbank viewed Obama's bowing to Netanyahu as a cold bath of reality.
"Obama came to office with an admirable hope of reviving Middle East peace efforts by appealing to the Arab world and positioning himself as more of an honest broker," Milbank wrote. "But he has now learned the painful lesson that domestic politics won't allow such a stand." [Washington Post, July 7, 2010]
In short, the American neocons and their Likud friends in Israel still seem to deliver the most powerful one-two punch in Washington policy circles.
That is a lesson that Gen. Petraeus, who is considered by some pundits a possible Republican challenger to Obama in 2012, already appears to have learned.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
