The Resiliency of the Neoconservatives: General Petraeus and the Kagans

[NoMoreWars_forIsrael]

The Resiliency of the Neoconservatives: General Petraeus and the
Kagans

http://america-hijacked.com/2013/01/11/the-resiliency-of-the-neoconservatives-general-petraeus-and-the-kagans/

Friday, January 11, 2013 7:55 PM

From: “Stephen Sniegoski”

Friends,

My new article, “The Resiliency of the Neoconservatives: General
Petraeus and the Kagans,” illustrates the continuing influence of the
neocons on US Middle East policy despite the fact that they no longer
hold high positions in the government.

Their power is also quite apparent in the current effort to prevent
Chuck Hagel from becoming Secretary of Defense.

My article can be found at the following websites:

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/01/the-resiliency-of-the-neoconservatives-general-petraeus-and-the-kagans/

Shortened: http://bit.ly/VS5Wr5

http://america-hijacked.com/2013/01/11/the-resiliency-of-the-neoconservatives-general-petraeus-and-the-kagans/

Shortened: http://bit.ly/XrkRto

Best,

Stephen Sniegoski

http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/



The Resiliency of the Neoconservatives: General Petraeus and the
Kagans

by Stephen J. Sniegoski



The neocons seem difficult for many commentators to observe. For
example, some neocons themselves, such as David Brooks and Richard
Perle, have claimed that no such thing exists. Others, such as the two
antiwar luminaries of the Left, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein,
grant their existence, but claim they have never had any power in
shaping overall American Middle East policy. And there are many who
admit the neocons did shape American foreign policy during George W.
Bush’s first term, but regard this as something of a short-lived
aberration and that they have since been powerless, especially in this
age of Obama.

See: Abuse of Power: 9/11, War and the Neocons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9stpx6fwC0&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQeEXVSUbG1ZnVIdu2BAJVf

http://tinyurl.com/neoconabuse



One might be tempted to think that, given the policy disaster that was
the neocon-led war on Iraq, the neocons would be thoroughly
discredited and could not possibly return to power. But the fact of
the matter is that the neocons have demonstrated an amazing
resilience. Fundamentally, while in the Bush administration they set a
Middle East (and South Asia) war agenda for the United States from
which President Obama, although lacking any direct connection with
neoconservatives, has been unable to extricate the country. He only
recently removed American troops from Iraq, leaving a fragmented
country on the verge of internecine war, and has yet to pull out
completely from Afghanistan. Under his aegis, the United States
became involved in removing Gaddafi from Libya and in aiding the
rebels in Syria, quite in line with the neocon agenda of eliminating
Middle East dictatorships. The US is now sending some American troops
to Turkey to operate its US-built Patriot missile defense batteries to
allegedly protect that country from a possible spill-over from the
civil war in neighboring Syria. All of this has exacerbated turmoil
in the region portending all-out Sunni-Shiite regional warfare.
Moreover, Obama, with his repeated warnings to Iran, has painted
himself in a corner over Iran, so that he might be forced by
circumstances in 2013 to opt for a military strike to prevent the
Islamic Republic from achieving a real, or imagined, nuclear weapons
breakout capacity.

And the neocons’ influence has far exceeded just the lingering effects
from their past policy decisions in the George W. Bush administration;
rather they continue to energetically work to influence American
policy with more than a little impact. For example, the neocons
surrounding Romney, in conjunction with heavy campaign funding from
ultra-Israel Firster Sheldon Adelson, pushed the Republican
presidential nominee to a more aggressive stance on the Middle East,
which in turn pressured President Obama to likewise tilt in that
direction. Moreover, neocons have been in the vanguard in the effort
to prevent Chuck Hagel, whom they consider too moderate in his views
on Middle East policy and an enemy of Israel, from becoming Secretary
of Defense in Obama’s second term. As the writer who is perhaps the
pre-eminent historian of the neoconservatives, Paul Gottfried,
describes it: “Leading the charge against Hagel has been the neocon
press, with the Weekly Standard out in front of the pack.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/hagel-gets-a-sensitivity-litmus-test-from-the-neocon-press/

But the greatest evidence of direct neocon input in US policy during
the Obama administration comes from their connection to General
Petraeus. On December 18, not long after Petraeus resigned as Director
of the CIA as a result of the his extramarital affair with Paula
Broadwell, a bombshell article by Rajiv Chandrasekaran appeared in the
Washington Post indicating that a neocon couple, Frederick and
Kimberly Kagan, had been shaping Petraeus’ military policy from the
Summer of 2010 to the Summer of 2011 when the general had been
commander of US troops in Afghanistan. Although the twosome were only
private citizens, they served as Petraeus’ de facto senior advisors in
that war zone.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Civilian analysts gained Petraeus’s ear while
he was commander in Afghanistan,” December 18, 2012

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-18/world/35907960_1_petraeus-paula-broadwell-afghan-war

Frederick Kagan, who had been a major architect of the militant surge
strategy for Iraq, which Petraeus implemented in 2007, is a member of
the staff of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Kimberly Kagan
is the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War.
The couple is part of a neocon family, with both Frederick’s father,
Donald, and brother, Robert, being significant members of the neocon
network. Robert Kagan serves on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
Foreign Affairs Policy Board, so it would seem that neocon influence
is not completely shut out from top foreign policy levels of the Obama
administration. With Bill Kristol in 2009, Robert established the
Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a neocon organization that is
considered a successor to the Project for a New American Century
(PNAC), likewise founded by Kagan and Kristol, which had played a
significant role in the build-up for the war on Iraq. FPI’s first
event was a conference titled “Afghanistan: Planning For Success,”
which sought to implement a “surge” in that country.



At Petraeus’ behest, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan were granted top-
level security clearances, desks in Petraeus’ headquarters and access
to classified intelligence reports. They participated in senior-level
strategy sessions, traveled throughout the war zone, and queried field
officers in order to advise Petraeus how to improve the conduct of the
war. In line with collective neocon thinking on the subject, the
Kagans held that the US should shift to a militant offensive strategy
against the Islamist insurgents in Afghanistan, which would be similar
to the surge in Iraq. The aggressive stance they vociferously
promoted differed substantially from the more moderate approaches
sought by many officers in the field. But the Kagans were in a better
position to influence Petraeus than any of his military advisors since
they, in the words of Chandrasekaran, “were not bound by stringent
rules that apply to military personnel and private contractors. They
could raise concerns directly with Petraeus, instead of going through
subordinate officers, and were free to speak their minds without
repercussion.”



Chandrasekaran went on to report that on August 8, 2011, a month after
leaving his Afghan command to become head of the CIA, Petraeus spoke
at Kimberly Kagan’s Institute for the Study of War’s first
“President’s Circle” dinner, where he received an award. There he
said: “What the Kagans do is they grade my work on a daily basis.” And
he jested: “There’s some suspicion that there’s a hand up my back, and
it makes my lips talk, and it’s operated by one of the Doctors Kagan.”
Though obviously exaggerating, Petraeus was acknowledging that the
Kagans were providing him information and that their relationship was
close enough so that he could make such a jest.



Why would Petraeus be so favorably disposed to these two civilians?
Basically it was a case of symbiosis. He allowed them to have a large
measure of access and even a significant degree of power, while they,
along with their confreres in the neocon network, presented him in a
very favorable light in the media, which certainly helped to establish
and solidify his once-stellar reputation, which was not tarnished
until recently.



The neocons did everything possible to forge a close relationship with
Petraeus. For example, in 2010, AEI conferred upon him its highest
honor, the Irving Kristol Award. (The deceased Irving Kristol is
considered one of the “godfathers” of neoconservatism along with
Norman Podhoretz.) This award is presented at the Institute’s annual
gala dinner, which was attended by 2,000 guests, including leading
neocon figures and financial supporters. In his acceptance speech,
Petraeus would praise the institute effusively: “In the fall of 2006,
AEI scholars helped develop the concept for what came to be known as
‘the surge.’ Fred and Kim Kagan and their team, which included retired
General Jack Keane, prepared a report that made the case for
additional troops in Iraq. As all here know, it became one of those
rare think-tank products that had a truly strategic impact.”

“President Petraeus?,” by Kelley B. Vlahos, May 18, 2010

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/05/17/president-petraeus/



It should be noted that Kimberly Kagan had done much to promote
Petraeus, writing periodic reports from Iraq in 2007 on the progress
of the surge for the neocon flagship publication, The Weekly
Standard. In a September 2009 article “The Two Faces of Kimberly
Kagan,” journalist Kelley Vlahos observed that, despite Kagan’s
obvious conflict of interest regarding a policy developed by her own
husband, “her reports were largely passed off as research, even
journalism, rather than political ammunition, and she wrote a book
about it last year [2008], ‘The Surge: A Military History,’ another
encomium to Petraeus and Co. and the altar of COIN
[counterinsurgency].”



Kimberly Kagan would advocate a comparable “surge” in Afghanistan. As
Vlahos writes: “Kimberly Kagan has increasingly become a spear point
for advancing the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. And why not? She
is young, attractive in that wonky, austere Washingtonian way, and
seemingly unflappable as she discharges fusillades of talking points
like a machine gun. One look at her March 2007 performance on
Washington Journal circa Surge I and it’s clear why Kagan has replaced
the old neoconservative guard as a primary surrogate for the cause.”

“The Two Faces of Kimberly Kagan,” by Kelley B. Vlahos, September 29,
2009

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2009/09/28/two-faces-of-kimberly-kagan/



Considering the prior relationship between Petraeus and the Kagans,
and especially the lavish praise that Kimberly heaped upon the
general, it becomes quite understandable why he would treat them in
such a favorable fashion to the extent of even allowing them a role in
shaping policy. What makes this especially understandable is
Petraeus’ obvious relish for popular acclaim, as illustrated by the
Paula Broadwell affair. Broadwell initially became close to Petraeus
when doing research for what became her hagiographic biography of him.
Of course, the Kagans, along with the other neocons, seek far more
from their connection to the general than personal fame and
advancement–the apparent principal motive for Broadwell–but seek to
use him as a vehicle to advance their group’s foreign policy goals.



Another neocon who has a close connection to Petraeus is author and
commentator Max Boot, who happens to be the Jean J. Kirkpatrick senior
fellow in national security studies at the prestigious Council on
Foreign Relations and is described as a military historian because of
his books, though he apparently lacks a Ph.D. in any field. Petraeus
took Boot on numerous Department of Defense-funded trips to Iraq and
Afghanistan. Like the Kagans, Boot became a fawning supporter of
Petraeus. He co-authored an op-ed piece, “How to Surge the
Taliban,” with Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, appearing in the New York
Times (March 12, 2009), that advocated a “surge” in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/opinion/13boot.html?_r=1



An inside view of the Petraeus-Boot personal relationship came to
light when email correspondence from March 2010 between the two was
made public later that year. It revealed that the general had relied
upon Boot to maintain a cozy relationship with pro-Israeli Jewish
Americans. Petraeus’ email correspondence with Boot was attached
(presumably accidentally) in an email response to the indefatigable
Israel lobby sleuth and critic, James Morris, which the latter later
provided to Philip Weiss of the noted Mondoweiss blog.

“Petraeus emails show general scheming with journalist to get out pro-
Israel storyline,” July 6, 2010, http://tinyurl.com/2dvpb2o



The background for this episode was the publication, initially in the
alternative media, of part of a prepared statement presented by
Petraeus to the Senate Armed Services Committee that focused on the
negative impact of the Israel-Palestine conflict on US forces in the
Middle East—a fact which should be self-evident to any objective
observer. Once this information started to gain traction in the
mainstream media, Petraeus sought to forestall any negative reaction
from the Israel lobby by professing that his presentation had been
distorted and that it did not imply that Israel was any type of
liability for the United States, and he asked Boot to help him remain
in the good graces of pro-Israel American Jewry. He queried Boot:
“Does it help if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at
our quarters last Sun night? And that I will be the speaker at the
65th anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camps.” Boot,
acting as if he understood the collective mind of the pro-Zionist
American Jewish community, assured Petraeus that publicizing this
additional obeisance was unnecessary, and that he would take care of
any misconceptions. Petraeus responded with a “Roger” and a smiley-
face.



Very shortly thereafter, Max Boot posted an article on the neocon
Commentary Magazine blog, titled, “A Lie: David Petraeus, Anti-
Israel.” (March 18, 2010) In it, Boot lambasted the “misleading
commentary that continues to emerge, attributing anti-Israeli
sentiment to Gen. David Petraeus.” He dismissed the prepared
statements depicting Israel’s actions as harmful to US military policy
as the work of “Petraeus’s staff,” not Petraeus himself. In an effort
to show that Petraeus personally held a contrary view, Boot selected
some of Petraeus’ oral testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee in which the general downplayed the Israel-Palestine
conflict as a cause of hostility to U.S. forces in the Middle East.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/03/18/a-lie-david-petraeus-anti-israel/



It must be stressed that this correspondence indicated not only
Petraeus’ close, personal tie to and political dependence on a neocon
journalist, whom he referred to familiarly as “Max,” but also that he
had political aspirations and perceived the pro-Israel American Jewish
community to be very powerful politically.



When Petraeus departed from the government in November 2012, Boot’s
panegyrics for the general would soar to astronomical heights in a Los
Angeles Times op-ed (November 13) entitled “Petraeus: the necessary
man.” It began: “ ‘The graveyards are full of indispensable men,’ it’s
often said, meaning that few are genuinely indispensable. David H.
Petraeus was one of the few, which is why his loss for the U.S.
government, after his admission of adultery, is so tragic.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/13/opinion/la-oe-boot-petraeus-20121113



The obvious significance here is that Petraeus realized that the
neocons were a group with significant power. That Republican
presidential nominee Mitt Romney surrounded himself with neocon
advisors also illustrates the fact that their power is recognized by
those in, or seeking, the highest levels of the political arena. And
Obama, despite receiving no direct political advice from any neocon
advisors, still continues a militant agenda in the Middle East and
South Asia that, as indicated earlier, has the stamp of neocon
thinking. While the neocons do not possess the degree of power to
shape policy that they held during the George W. Bush administration,
especially during his first term, they remain major players in shaping
US Middle East policy. In short, the neocons, because of the power
resulting from their interconnected and extensive network, which
Janine Wedel describes at length in her book The Shadow Elite (2010),
are a perennial power. Even when outside of government, they still
exert influence with those who possess political power and shape
government policy. And should the optimal situation arise in the
future, they are well-prepared to once again grasp the reins of
government power.