Report: Israel seizes oxygen machines donated to PA

As reported in Haaretz.  Seven machines donated by Norwegian agency were confiscated en route to the PA over the chance that generators attached could be used for purposes other than medical treatment.

Again, very similar to what the US did during the "sanctions era" vs. Iraq.  This won't be the only "dual-use" item that the Israelis will prohibit.

Michael O'Hanlon's mindless optimism about Afghanistan

Says Brookings think-tanker O' Hanlon, it's all about staying the course. . . and about numbers: more US troops in Afghanistan, more trainers arriving for Afghan police and military. all of the supposedly unheralded slow progress.  The man is straining to the point of herniating himself to identify nuggets of "success." - reasons to keep on keeping on in Afghanistan, even when the vast majority of realistic experts judge that there is in fact very little reason to believe that "victory" is in the cards, and that any kind of "success" that's to be had will come only if the bar is lowered to something you might see in a limbo dance.

Meanwhile, as the LA Times reports, Iraqi officials (and some Americans as well) sense that the growing US commitment in Afghanistan has sucked all of the US's energy out of whatever commitment it may still have to Iraq - where the situation is, by the way, anything but stable or pacified. 

Meanwhile, in the country Petraeus "fixed" . . .

At least 11 killed, 16 wounded in attacks across Iraq
By the CNN Wire Staff

    * At least 11 killed, 16 wounded in attacks across Iraq
    * Two separate attacks in Mosul area kill 5, wound 8
    * Roadside bombing kills at least 2 policemen, wounds 8 in Baghdad
    * Home invaders kidnap and kill 4 men in Baquba.

Read on, here . . .

Petraeus' calming influence?

Analysis by the WaPo's Rajiv Chadrasekaran and Karen DeYoung suggests that replacing McChriystal with Petraeus could provide a "calming influence."   Indeed, Petraeus is beloved by the Capitol Hill crowd, whom he has cultivated assiduously; and he gets along well with US diplomats.

But he's now faced with - by his own admission - a much tougher war in Afghanistan than was that in Iraq.  And his hard-earned demi-god status, which this very ambitious man is surely intent on preserving (and his name has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012 or after), will surely be riding on his ability to "fix" things in Afghanistan. 

But can he do that?  There's no real reason to believe that Afghanistan is indeed fixable - at least by the US - in the short term.  And according to Mr. Obama's statements when the Afghanistan "Surge" was announced, the US has only a bit more than one year to achieve "success" before at least some troops begin to come home.  All of which begs certain questions - one of them, in fact, set up by Chandrasekaran and DeYoung, who note: "in turning to the nation's most prominent general, Obama has embraced a commander who may become a formidable advocate for slowing, or arresting outright, the pace of troop reductions next summer. So, . . .

• What happens if, as the clock begins to tick down, Petraeus begins to make it known to his adoring fans in Congress that he wants more time - an extension of the "Surge"?
• Indeed, did Petraeus demand from Obama some accommodation on this score before he agreed to accept this new command? 
  

McChrystal Out; Petraeus to Succeed Him

Just reported by the NYT and others: McChrystal out, Petraeus to succeed him.  Makes sense:

•  Petraeus is the author of the counterinsurgency doctrine that McChrystal was brought in to implement.
• Petraeus seems to have the respect of both the military establishment and  (especially) the Lieberman - McCain - Graham clique in the Senate.  It will be difficult for the red-meat-eating "victory"-seeking bunch in Congress or at the American Enterprise Institute to argue with this one.

But there's potentially a huge down-side for Petraeus, who still shimmers in the glory of his alleged "victory" via the Surge in Iraq.  Now he's going to be in charge of the Surge in Afghanistan, which is not going nearly as well as the Iraq Surge and shows no real promise of going any better.  If Afghanistan continues to swirl the bowl (which, IMO, it will - bringing in Petraeus is not a game changer), his reputation as a miracle worker is going to suffer.

On the other hand, can Obama trust Petraeus to stick to his July 2011- start-the-withdrawal game plan?  Or might Petraeus end up undercutting that and force Obama's hand?

McChrystal, Rolling Stone, and Obama's credibility

Unless you've just landed from Mars, you're aware  that the Rolling Stone profile of Stanley McChrystal is the news story of the hour.  The opinions are flying in fast and furious: fire him, don't fire him, can he be replaced, etc.  Afghan president Hamid Karzai evidently has implored the White House to keep him on as a "good partner" for that country; and the WaPo piece reporting this notes that

 "The endorsement illustrated what is likely to be McChrystal's best shot at saving his job and legacy: The general is arguably the U.S. official who has the most influence over, and credibility with, the Afghan government."

But IMHO, Dana Milbank's take is on the money: The disrespect and insubordination in the remarks of McChrystal and his staff require that McC be canned, especially after the comments of Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs:

Only two words were missing from this disembowelment of the commander: You're fired. Gibbs hinted that Obama would deliver that message to McChrystal in person on Wednesday. If he doesn't, it's hard to see how he can maintain his credibility as a leader.

Even before the quotes in the Rolling Stone article (the accuracy of which McChrystal hasn't challenged), the commander in chief had surprised foes and worried friends by how far he allowed himself to be pushed. That accounts for an Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this month finding that 57 percent of respondents viewed Obama as a strong leader and 43 percent did not; 14 months ago, it was 77 percent to 22 percent.

On the Hill, Democrats have ignored White House pleas for party unity, and intraparty disputes are preventing action on the budget, war spending, job creation, immigration reform and energy legislation. In the media, stalwart allies such as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow panned Obama's speech on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Obama's own secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, told the world about his unannounced plan to file suit over Arizona's new immigration law.

Republicans, in turn, have reached new levels of presidential disrespect. After Obama pushed BP to set aside money for those hurt by the oil spill, the opposition apologized -- to BP. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, took the extraordinary step of attacking Obama at a political rally over comments he says (and the White House denies) the president made in a private meeting.

Through it all, Obama has given precious little pushback, taking the disrespect like a President Dangerfield. When the public saw no anger from him over the oil spill, Gibbs assured Americans that he had, in fact, seen the president clench his jaw. Obama then insisted that he was looking for "whose ass to kick" on the Gulf Coast -- but no bottoms were bruised.

Now Gen. Bite Me may have gone too far even for President Dangerfield to tolerate. The insults from McChrystal and his men -- packaged with vulgarities, a middle finger and drunken singing in a Paris bar -- challenge not just Obama but the sacred concept of civilian control of the military. That's probably why figures such as Republicans Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) gave Obama a free pass on Tuesday to fire the general.

The president, nibbling around the edges, said nothing about McChrystal until remarking in the evening that the general had shown "poor judgment." Gibbs, in the briefing room, was similarly slow to bare his teeth when asked for Obama's reaction. "Well, suffice to say, our combatant commander does not usually participate in these meetings from Washington," he said of Wednesday's session in the Situation Room.

But it didn't suffice to say that, and reporters tried to provoke Gibbs, sniffling and sipping tea from a paper cup, to unload on McChrystal: "How can the president keep someone in his job who offers that level of insubordination? . . . Does the president at all feel betrayed?"

The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman, pointing out that McChrystal had already been in trouble (for disagreeing publicly with Biden), asked: "How many times can this man be taken to the woodshed?"

Gibbs followed the familiar route of expressing the president's anger. "I gave him the article last night, and he was angry," he announced.

"How so?" asked CBS's Chip Reid.

"Angry. You would know it if you saw it," Gibbs said.

Reporters pressed: "Did he pound the table? Did he curse? Can you elaborate?"

"No," Gibbs said. "I'm not going to elaborate."

Good answer. It's time for Obama and his aides to stop talking about his anger, and start acting on it.

Indeed.  Obama has put much stock in crafting the image of a calm, cool, unruffled, non-impulsive leader.  But this kind of insubordination requires a strong response, if for no other reason than to reaffirm the established principle of civilian authority over the military in the American system.  When Truman fired WW II and Korean War hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the latter war, MacArthur had achieved huge popularity and respect across the board; and Truman ran a great risk in dismissing him.  But the consensus view today is surely that Truman made the right decision.

Now some argue that Obama cannot fire McChrystal, because McChrystal is indispensable to the US effort in "Afpak."  For me, that only brings to mind a comment attributed to French president (and WW II military hero) Charles De Gaulle:  "The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

Israel Unveils Procedures to Ease Gaza Blockade

 Israel says it will ease the blockade, but retain the prerogative to ban "dual-use" materials.

The US insisted on a similar prerogative during its sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003 - depriving ordinary Iraqis of vital materials, including chemicals crucial for sanitation and infrastructure. I expect Israel to do the same.  This easing of the blockade will likely not be all that it will be cracked up to be.

Turkey's emergence as hero of the "Arab street"

The LA Times' Jeffrey Fleishman today has an interesting, wide-ranging analysis that discusses Turkey's emergence within a deeper historical and broader Middle Eastern context, including the long rivalry between Egypt and Turkey - with a money quote from Mustafa Karahan, director of an energy investment company:

"The [Turkish AKP] party figured, 'Instead of being a small brother in the West, let's be a big brother in the East.' The only problem with this is that a lot of Arabs, especially Egyptians, don't like Turks. But Egypt's time is done. It's over."

Another "victory" for Israel

AP reports that Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has called off scheduled municipal elections in the West Bank.  The reason?  Even with Hamas sitting out the election, indications were that Fatah, the secularist nationalist party that Abbas leads, was headed for a drubbing by independent candidates.  According to the report, Fatah . . .

looked sure to triumph in the July 17 elections in 300 towns and villages since Hamas announced it would not compete, fearing its candidates would be targeted in the crackdown Abbas' security forces have waged on the militants since they seized Gaza.

However, last week, with the deadline for registering candidates just hours away, Fatah leaders were getting increasingly worried about problems in many districts. In Nablus, the second largest city, former Mayor Ghassan Shakaa defied local Fatah leaders and formed his own slate, arguing that he would do better as an independent.

In the largest city, Hebron, little-known Fatah candidates seemed poised for defeat by independents.

With these reports in hand, the party leaders called Abbas, who was in Washington at the time, and urged him to cancel the election. Abbas quickly agreed and a terse statement said the vote was being postponed to give reconciliation with Hamas another chance.

Yes, Fatah has been plagued with corruption for many years, starting under its most celebrated leader, Yasir Arafat; but the real reason for its slide in popularity is that Israel's years of delaying tactics (in which the US has  consistently acquiesced for many years)  during the so-called "peace process," accompanied by Fatah's inability to stop the burgeoning Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank, left Fatah - and Mr. Abbas - discredited and delegitimized in the eyes of most Palestinians, many of whom consequently turned to Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections.  Hamas was democratically elected to power (in an election, by the way, that at the time the US insisted take place); the US and Israel refused to accept the results (so much for the US's democracy promotion in the Middle East); Israel arrested dozens of Hamas parliamentarians, with the US cheerleading the effort; and then Israel and US turned to Abbas as the truly "legitimate" Palestinian leader.

In truth, Abbas has been turned into a pathetic puppet to be manipulated by his American benefactors as they have seen fit.  Hence, his party's political fortunes are on the ropes.

And Israel can chalk up another win.  It can continue its oft-repeated wail that it has no "partner" for peace (gee, ya think?) . . . and keep on doing whatever it wants to do, whenever it wants to, to keep Abbas and the West Bank under its thumb . . . and Gaza, under its heel.

Philip Stephens, Financial Times: West must offer Turkey a proper seat

Stephens makes an excellent point in noting that the US - and, for that matter, Israel - has become accustomed to having its way with Turkey, especially during the Cold War and with Turkey's inclusion in NATO.  But Turkey now is reasserting what it sees as its rightful place in the Middle East region.  The US needs to accept that, even embrace it - and if Turkey continues its current tough line against Israel's high-handedness, the US ought to be seeing the writing on the wall and re-evaluate its slavish support for Israel.

America's Useful Idiots

Or perhaps I ought to say, "Israel's useful idiots."  M J Rosenberg calls them out . . .

And now, they want to kick Turkey out of NATO?!

US lawmakers blast 'disgraceful' Turkey over Iran, Israel

disgraceful Turkey?!  How about disgraceful, ignorant, myopic congressmen . . . in particular, Democrat Ms. Shelley Berkley, who  turned Turkish officials away from her office this week and said she would continue to do so "until I see a change in policy" and vowed to fight against Turkey's accession to the European Union.

All because Turkey dared to condemn an Israeli act of piracy against a ship bringing aid to blockaded Gaza that caused the death of 8 Turkish and 1 American citizen.  Says Ms. Berkley,

 "As far as I'm concerned, Turkey is responsible for the nine deaths aboard that ship, it is not Israel's troops that are responsible. . . .  They don't deserve to be a part of the EU until they start behaving more like the European nations and a whole lot less like Iran."

Except that people across Europe have joined in condemning Israel's act of piracy, as well as its earlier faked-passport shenanigans, for which the Irish government has just expelled the Israeli ambassador.

On the other hand, it's tough to be too hard on Ms. Berkley when our shiny-bright Democratic president declares himself well satisfied with Israel's decision to investigate itself over the piracy matter.  As Helena Cobban reports,

Washington rushed to express its support for a formula under which an all-Israeli body would conduct the investigation, aided by two "international" observers who would not have voting rights within the investigatory body (and whose access to all the documents it works with is by no means assured, either.) . . . .  Israel's creation of this whitewash self-investigation meets the goal of the White House that it further postpone the day when the Obama administration feels it needs to do anything concrete about the May 31 incident, in which non-NATO member Israel attacked a peaceful convoy of boats and killed one US citizen and eight citizens of NATO ally Turkey...

Again, when it comes to Israeli high-handedness, Washington's response is to kowtow to political expediency, rather than take a course of action that might serve the larger interests of justice.