we also may not be as dumb as many seem to think. Including some Americans...
First, clarification points of which you may or may not be cognizant.
In the US there are those who are committed supporters of Israel and those who wish its destruction. My sensing is that most Americans fall between those poles and are broadly supportive of Israel without being enamored of it, realize that there are errors on the part of Israelis and of Palestinians (and the supporters of both) and really wish the problem would just go away. They realize that it will not and are resigned to that. Make no mistake, supportive does not mean a surrender of US interests. Not at all.
Secondly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is by law an adviser to the SecDef and the President. Neither he nor the service Chiefs are in the chain of command to combatants. That line is Prez-SecDef-Combatant Commander (ala Petraeus for the ME).That is a rather simplistic view that neglects the facts that ADM Mullen (a) is probably not stupid. (b) is aware of Kass' background and loyalties almost certainly to a far greater extent than are Lang Giraldi or the rest of us. (c) has dozens of Advisers, many of whom will be virtually enemies of Dr. Kass and will share the views of you and Lang and quite probably are even more opposed to Israeli influence (and the five billion plus dollars they and Egypt get annually as a result of Carter stupidity). (d) has no command authority, is an adviser himself and thus Kass is advising an Adviser who must defer to the SecDef on all things.My point is that Dr. Kass is Principal advisor on the Middle East. that implies that there is no further filter between Adm. Mullen and her good self.
That SecDef is also advised by dozens of advisers, many of whom will be opposed to Kass' views and one of whom is his direct subordinate for the ME, David Howell Petraeus. Between Kass and CincCent Petraeus, who do you think has more clout with Gates? Consider both proximity and the law -- which will trump proximity.A valid assumption. Do not discount the number of those advisers and the number of alternative views presented. Also, do not discount the by design dysfunctional US political process with numerous checks and balances which severely constrains the actions the Executive may take. Also consider the clout of Petraeus -- I mean, you cited him...I am also making the assumption here that senior commanders rely on the advice of their advisors when making decisions, and that Obama makes his decisions exactly the same way.Here we disagree. First, Lobbyists and advisers work in different ways. Both depend on 'expertise' to an extent but Lobbyists do things for their targets -- advisers do not (there's more...). Second I've been in the position of having numerous advisers provided by the system -- I had to put up with all, I listened to few. I respected even fewer. I also had subordinate leaders or commanders working for me -- their input counted about 50X that of advisers and staff weenies. I also didn't give a few really smart PhD types nearly as much credibility as their position would seem to indicate they deserved due to either their hidden agendas (as I believed) or, more often, their lack of common sense (as duly evidenced).That fact gives advisors enormous power which is exactly why the lobbying industry flourishes.Your prerogative. I live here, worked for that government for over 45 years in one capacity or another and I find fear of an individuals influence in all that bureaucratic milieu almost comical. Each must be considered on his or her own merits. I've considered this one and I'm not at all concerned. You may be so if you wish, of course but I suggest you're letting a perception and possibly a lack of knowledge of the US skew your assessment. Lang does that all the time...I do not buy the argument that Dr. Kass is lost in the noise, or that Dr. Kass is one of many with competing viewpoints that will all balance out and leave a sensible bureaucratic answer.Your presumption is, I think, incorrect. That is not what happened. George W. Bush decided the ME needed a message to stop attacking US interests world wide as they had been doing since 1979. Iraq was selected as though not directly involved in any attacks on the US, it was geographically central in the ME as the point of attack, because it was a pariah state, it would not disrupt the world oil supply and it was presumed it would be fairly easy (THAT was the big intel failure, the WMD bit was actually totally ancillary and solely for public consumption -- Boy, did that dumb Wolfotwits idea backfire as he later acknowledged...).I base that statement on the simple fact that a small group of like minded individuals working together convinced America to invade Iraq when all sane professional intelligence indicated such an act was totally unnecessary.
To put it another way, and I know it is rude, but what if Dr. Kass is another Douglas Feith?
Bush was not a Neocon, he simply saw some value in adopting part of their foolishness to do what HE wanted to do. It was a great strategic move, unfortunately, DoD and the US Army screwed up the execution (mostly due to having poorly navigated all those checks and balance I mentioned above).
I also think Kass is perhaps smarter than was Fido Feith or his leader, Wolfotwits -- neither of whom had nearly as much influence on US policy as they (and the left) like to think. They had some, no question and much of it was not beneficial but they also did a few good things. They just melded into the bureaucracy and got attention due to US domestic politics. Both got where they were due to US domestic politics as did and do many others. US Domestic politics play far too large a part in US international affairs; bad lick, I don't like that but it's not going away. Still, on balance, the system works.Why, by the Byzantine US bureaucracy, of course. Has to be seen or experienced to be believed.Are the conflicts of interest being managed, and if so by who?True, likely would depend on who you talked to at State and his or her personal position on Israel -- and as I said, there are numerous variations on that theme, inside and outside government. Inside State and DoD included. Inside the WH as well...To put it yet another way, I, and others would dearly like to know State Departments view of this matter for obvious reasons, but I am unlikely to find out.
Not that anything would be different if you and those others did find out. this is the US -- it will change in an eye blink in any event...Again we differ. I don't give a fig about what anyone in a political position -- and the CJCS is such a position -- says, I care about what they DO. I care even less about advisers because they are always counterbalanced by others with diametric positions.Some indication that Dr. Kass is not breathing fire and brimstone into the Admirals ear, or news that he has an asbestos Balaklava would be suitable mollification for me.
With regard to the CJCS, I also know what most can do and the numerous constraints on their actions. Further, I know that at those levels, I may disagree with their positions on issues but I also know they aren't stupid (Congress is an exception to that last).
Been my observation that most Four Star Flag Officers have asbestos ears...
Bookmarks