Tag Archives: Chuck Hagel

Hagel’s $160 Billion West Bank US Troops Deathtrap

Hagel, at Obama’s bidding, plans to send troops to Judea andSamaria (the “West Bank”) where they would soon be victims of Hamas terror. It’s in writing. An investigative report.

Mark Langfan

There is only one reason that Chuck Hagel was picked by President Obama to be US Defense Secretary, and why Obama will go nuclear to get him confirmed:

Hagel is the only person alive now dumb enough to deploy US “peacekeeping” troops to what is surely a “West Bank” deathtrap. Don’t believe me??! Well, in early 2009, two years after Hamas violently took over Gaza, Hagel along with a ragged has-been crew of “Israel Lasters” had some strong “recommendations” for the incoming President Obama.

I will let Hagel’s 2009 “recommendations” speak for themselves. But to lend a note of rationality, Florence Gaub, a NATO researcher, in 2010 published a NATO Research paper outlining some of the problems of such a deployment. (I.e. it would need about 60,000 US/Nato troops and about 160 billion Dollars over 10 years) I and I will excerpt her report as well.

Obama’s determination in confirming Hagel is based on Obama’s belief that Hagel will cripple Israel at any price: including the deaths of  thousands of US soldiers at the hands of Hamas suicide bombs in the Palestinian Authority.
START OF HAGEL’S 2009 REPORT:
“A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement,” April 2009. “Submitted to the administration of President Barack Obama” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Chuck Hagel, et al.

The U.S. parameters should reflect the following fundamental compromise:

[A] non-militarized Palestinian state, together with security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty, and a U.S.-led multinational force to ensure a peaceful transitional security period. This coalition peacekeeping structure, under UN mandate, would feature American leadership of a NATO force supplemented by Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis. We can envision a five-year, renewable mandate with the objective of achieving full Palestinian domination of security affairs on the Palestine side of the line within 15 years. Page 6

III. Substantive Issues to be Resolved: Israel-Palestine

Security.

The borders between the two states must be physically secure and fully controlled for their entire length. A U.S.-led multinational force would likely be essential for a transitional period once a peace agreement is concluded. Palestine would likely be non-militarized. No doubt Jerusalem will require a special security and administrative regime of its own and special arrangements will be needed for the use and regulation of Palestinian airspace. Page 12

Israel-Syria

Security. Demilitarization of the Golan Heights and limited forces zones on both sides – all likely to be supervised by multinational forces featuring American leadership – will be mandatory. Page 13

Annex: Addressing Israel’s Security Challenges

Beyond the current efforts we expect that, upon the full agreement of the parties, there will be a robust international effort involving outside armed forces for a period of indeterminate length assisting Palestinian authorities in executing their responsibilities in the security sphere and helping them build capacity in order eventually to act without outside assistance. Page 14

Naturally, the U.S. will play a large and perhaps decisive role. Yet it should not act alone – there should be broad participation reflecting international consensus on the importance of supporting the emergence of a truly sustainable two-state outcome. Page 14

Although General Jones’ mandate has focused exclusively on the Israel-Palestine track, clearly there would also be a robust American role in implementing the security-related aspects of any Israel-Syria accord. Beyond helping the IDF with improving capabilities designed to compensate for full withdrawal from territory occupied on the Syrian front since 1967, the U.S. would undoubtedly play a vital role in monitoring a demilitarized Golan Heights and providing early warning services to both parties. Page 16

In our view there is no avoiding a central U.S. role in helping the parties (especially the Palestinian side) meet their security-related responsibilities to each other in the context of two states. Page 16

GAUB’S 2010 NATO REPORT:

Research Paper – Research Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – “NATO: Peacekeeping in the Holy Land? A feasibility study,” by Florence Gaub. March 2010.

This paper argues that such a mission would struggle to be successful, and is very likely to fail. Although the idea is attractive to some who would like to prove NATO’s global peace-enforcing capacity, the chances are that this endeavor would turn bad and tarnish NATO’s image in more ways than one. NATO is not currently ready to take on this kind of mission, and might never be. Page 2

Bright lights, big city

Also, 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. Page 8

Less is not more, less is less

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. Page 11

Who dunnit?

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. Page 11

According to some estimates, 57,000 of the 76,000 men would preferably be international civilian police or gendarmerie. Page 11

Time is Money

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. Page 11

In a Nutshell

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. Page 12

END OF GAUB’S 2010 NATO REPORT:

And now for my analysis: Florence Gaub’s NATO College real analysis exposes Hagel’s US “peacekeeping” “recommendation” for the US defense policy fraud it is. Based on Hagel’s sheer hate of Israel, and without a whit of real thinking, Hagel would have had Obama commit the greatest US defense error in US history bringing the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, and the destruction of Israel, America’s anchor in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.

Can anyone imagine the depraved analysis Hagel has been spewing while, at this very moment, he is currently the “Co-Chair” of Obama’s “President Intelligence Advisory Board” (“PIAB”)?

In fact, Obama specifically nominated Hagel as Co-Chair of the PIAB as reward for Hagel’s 2009 insane Middle East “recommendations.” No wonder Obama’s policy has enabled Iran’s nuke program, and betrayed all our historic allies. “Hagel” and “Intelligence” are mutually exclusive terms. For 3 years, Obama has seen Hagel prove himself to be a useful-idiot  who will dance to any Kill-Israel tune Obama plays for him.

So, in conclusion, Obama will do anything and everything to get Hagel confirmed because Obama knows Hagel, and only Hagel, hates Israel enough to sacrifice 1000s of US soldiers in body bags, and dumb enough to gladly blow 160 Billion US dollars, we don’t have, in order to grossly cripple, or perhaps even destroy Israel. In 2007,

Hagel saw Hamas takeover the Gaza Strip in 10 seconds flat. So in 2009, he knew the 60,000 US troops he was recommending Obama send into the “West Bank”  would have been instantly trapped by Hamas, and subject to multiple Marine Beirut Barrack’s-type suicide blasts and kidnappings. But to compound Hagel’s rank stupidity, Hagel also wanted to put US troops on the Golan at the same time. Imagine what Assad would have done with US troops on the Golan Heights!! Add to the thousands of US body bags,

Hagel would happily spend 160 Billion US dollars we will have to borrow from the Chinese (over ten years of a minimum deployment) to expose US troops to mass-murder suicide bombing by Iran’s Hizbullah, and Tel Aviv to Hamas fired chemical-katyusha rocket barrages. (As an author’s note, if AIPAC plans on lobbying the US Congress for their “West Bank/Golan-for-Dead-US-GIs” “peace” plan, they should also plan on fighting Mark Langfan like they did in 1994; when they tried it the first time, and lost. Remember well the Nickels’ Defense Authorization Amendment fight!!!! See,US Troops On Golan Quicksand, by Mark Langfan,1994,

But get this, in early 2009, Hagel proved his total obsession with annihilating Israel by his stating in the 2009 paper’s preface: “In short, the next six to twelve months may represent the last chance for a fair, viable and lasting solution.” (Toto, we’re not in Nebraska 2009 anymore!) So, in 2009, Hagel was fiercely advocating for 60,000 US troops to have been already deployed by 2010, and 45 Billion US dollars already poured down the drain!! Such defense policy insanity conclusively proves Hagel is uniquely and inherently disqualified to be US Defense Secretary. Hagel’s 2009 “White Paper” shows only one thing: Obama has, in Hagel, knowingly nominated someone whose abysmal defense policy judgment is only “exceeded” by his evident virulent hate for both Israeli and American Jews.

The US Senators now voting for Hagel’s confirmation don’t know that they are now really voting for a deployment of 60,000 US soldiers to the “West Bank” and Golan Heights. If the Senators don’t stop this catastrophic train now, the Obama-Hagel “peace” locomotive will run them over when the actual time comes for the deployment decision.

Calling Israel’s “Guardian” Chuck Schumer?? Where are you?

Advertisements

Obama to send US troops to Lebanon, Iraq (Besides Egypt)

Gen. Martin Dempsey says Pentagon assisting regional partners to ensure they’re prepared to meet Syria spillover

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military commanders have been told to explore ways to increase security assistance to Lebanon and Iraq, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said Wednesday, as the violence in Syria spills across the borders and the Iraqis face growing threats from the local al-Qaeda offshoot.

Gen. Martin Dempsey said the assistance is aimed at improving the two nations’ military capabilities and could include sending in U.S. training teams and accelerating foreign military sales of weapons and equipment to Iraq and Lebanon.

Dempsey made the recommendation to U.S. Central Command in recent weeks, according to Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for the Army general. There have been no U.S. military trainers in Iraq since troops left at the end of 2011, as the war there ended. But the U.S. has provided military training and assistance to Lebanon for a number of years.

“Militarily, what we’re doing is assisting our partners in the region, the neighbors of Syria, to ensure that they’re prepared to account for the potential spillover effects,” Dempsey said during a Pentagon briefing Wednesday. “As you know, we’ve just taken a decision to leave some Patriot missile batteries and some F-16s in Jordan as part of the defense of Jordan. We’re working with our Iraqi counterparts, the Lebanese Armed Forces and Turkey through NATO.”

He said that as he looked at the challenges being faced by Syria’s neighbors, including the re-emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, he determined that the U.S. should help them build up their military abilities. He said the assistance would not involve sending U.S. combat troops into Lebanon or Iraq.

The U.S. last week left about a dozen F-16 fighter jets in Jordan, where they will be flying and conducting training operations. The Pentagon also left a Patriot missile battery there, bringing the total number of American forces in Jordan to about 1,000.

U.S. officials said the increased show of military might in Jordan was a signal to Syria that it must confine its civil war within its borders. The officials said it is meant to show that the U.S. was committed to its defense relationship with Jordan and that America intended to maintain a strong presence in the region. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the planning publicly.

Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to provide any additional information about U.S. plans to provide weapons to Syrian rebels, other than to say that the U.S. military has no role so far in that program.

According to officials, the CIA was coordinating the effort to arm the rebel groups.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

The U.S. waffles

In a continuation of the hazy wording of the G-8 communique on Syria, U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he could not and would not reveal the exact forms of military aid his government would be supplying to the opposition. This lack of transparency smacks not of secrecy but of indecisiveness, confusion, misdirection and miscommunication.

From day one of the Syrian uprising, the Americans have flip-flopped and zigzagged on all their words, an approach – if you can call it as much – which epitomizes that of all of Bashar Assad’s alleged foes.

First, the “red line” with which the U.S. said it would decide on whether or not to arm the rebels has shifted back and forth, apparently as much as control of the Damascus-Aleppo highway has shifted between the regime and the rebels.

An important measure was once said to be the use of chemical weapons. But defining this in itself proved tricky enough for the U.S. administration, with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in April saying officials had “varying degrees of confidence,” that Assad’s government had used them.

Following French and British “confirmation” of the use of sarin gas by the regime, the U.S. last week echoed this sentiment. The red line had been reached, once and for all. Or had it? The government then announced that it would provide military support to the opposition, and seemed to imply this would be in a different form than the previously announced non-lethal military aid, the majority of which has yet to arrive.

But Obama refused Wednesday to specify the exact kind of military aid that it now intends to provide to the rebels, and dismissed rumors that the U.S. was about to enter into a new war in the Middle East as “overcranked.”

It is clear there is one camp in the U.S. administration who wishes to intervene on the ground, and it is this team which disseminates news of a no-fly zone plan being drafted. But there is likely another camp in possession of the opposite view.

In 2003, the U.S. scrambled for reasons to intervene in Iraq, a war so misguided and badly managed that now, a decade later, it is working every possible argument not to intervene in Syria. The U.S. is suffering from collective post-traumatic stress after the disaster of the second Gulf War, and it is now clearly unable to make the right decisions in this region.

Decisions on how best to help Syria – a country witnessing increased bloodshed and destruction by the day – are not easy, and the situation is certainly not black and white. But the dithering on the part of the Americans is only aiding and abetting the Syrian regime.

If the Americans do not intend to help the rebels, they are best to say as much, and refrain from using the war as a political tool against Russia. To continue to dangle the option of military aid in front of opposition fighters is not only cruel, it is prolonging this horrific conflict.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on June 20, 2013, on page 7.