Center for a New American Security

By this standard, shouldn't Turkey also be in CENTCOM? Doesn't that switch make even more sense?

I know this is pedantic, but I have a difficult time taking seriously a report that makes such a hash of terminology that's central to the story. Perry writes that "UCP means 'unified combatant command,' like CENTCOM." Well, no, actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It means "Unified Command Plan," which is the document that geographically delimits each Global Combatant Command's AOR. Moving Israel to CENTCOM would require an alteration to the UCP.

In any event, it's not going to happen. If you think the formation of AFRICOM has freaked people out about U.S. military ambitions, just wait until Israel and Palestine are included in what's generally understood to be the American warfighting command. I recognize that GEN Petraeus finds it inconvenient to have problems that bear on his mission not included in his AOR, rendering him impotent to address some of the fundamental issues that drive conflict there... but them's the breaks.

Despite what Robert Haddick alleges are recent positive trends in civil-military relations, this, for me, is an example of the harmful erosion of the dividing line between Combatant Commander and regional potentate. Appreciating that the Israel-Palestine conflict bears on other American security interests in the region, and that Israeli actions have the potential to inflame America's enemies in the region, this isn't a problem for the military to solve.

"...without looking comprehensively at U.S. strategy toward Israel and the Palestinians..."

Why would you consider tying anything of strategic and real importance to what is essentially only of rhetorical importance. In particular when it's intractable. A total loser. Unless the side that can win gets sick of f*cking around and wins it. Otherwise it ends only when the Buffalo are dead--kill UN aid, involvement, and threaten to cut off all outside aid. Worked for our tribal problems in USA, will work there. Economists call this "the constraint of the stomach".

Hmmm... does this mean military aid to Israel would then come under the purview of CENTCOM?

USCENTCOM and its Area of Operations: Cooperation, Burden Sharing, Arms Sales, and Centcom's Analysis by Country and Subregion

Yes, I bet the Israeli right-wingers are pleased about CENTCOM"s overall strategic position in the Middle East...

The briefing also suggests, however, that the U.S. has broader goals. It must seek a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace with the grim understanding that it may not be successful in the near term. It must recast its approach to the war on terrorism to strengthen cooperation with regional states, while also correcting the widespread impression in the region that the U.S. is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and sees reform more as a way of creating friendly regimes than of helping local governments and reformers address the underlying causes of terrorism.

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/081128-cordesman-centcom.html

Had to go build your little settlements as part of Operation Lebensraum, didn't you, Bibi? Off to the woodshed, little Napoleon. Iran with nukes? Bibi with nukes? I'm having a hard time seeing the difference, you know? Like Glen Beck with nukes, you gotta worry...

Maybe we should force Israel to go public about its nuclear arsenal while we're at it... arrogance and stupidity go hand in hand - a bad combination in a nuclear state. $50 says Israel's next arms purchase from the U.S. will be unaccountably delayed - although I doubt the same will apply to any other CENTCOM allies.

I was just gobsmacked by the article on CERP fund effectiveness in Iraq.

What the heck could this study possibly mean other than garbage in/garbage out?

What about the correlation between SIGACTS and the number and intensity of patrols which, as a trailing factor, resulted in increased CERP funding?

In January 2008, I was asked about a request for generators in a handful of villages in Northern Iraq, so I asked the dumb question: How many were placed there in prior years? Answer: Don't know. We just got here last month, and only have a few records from the prior units.

Literally, some of the ideas and projects were so bald-faced stupid and unproductive that you wondered whether it would be easier to just load skids of US greenbacks into the back of a C-130 and scatter it to the winds. Did they measure whether it mattered whether the spending was for valuable vs. stupid projects? Whether the millions of spending for "phantom" projects and purposes was also effective? What about the money that was just outright stolen: was that productive, too?

The most valuable spending was really nothing more than necessary post-stabilization assistance for which no other appropriate humanitarian relief systems were provided. Have we analyzed what alternative mechanisms could have provided the same results through a less costly and ineffective means than just throwing money out the back of a gun truck? What is the measure for effectiveness?

The caveat that more study is needed seems like nothing more than an open pitch for more cash to fund more studies, but, at what point does this kind of gratuitous research, not based on an actual analysis of the subject matter, get appropriately restyled as PR?

What does it mean?

The idea that Israel and the Gulf States need to have a separate command and 4-star is also repeated with India (PACOM) and Pakistan (CENTCOM). I'm not sure that the current geographic combatant command boundaries for EUCOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM make sense. State divides the world differently (often by shared languages such as Arabic), and Israel and the Arab states have the same Assistant Secretary, as do India and Pakistan.

That said, suggestions by career officials/military officers on making any changes to the U.S. - Israel security arrangements (including noting the current Israeli government's policies and actions make achieving USG objectives in the Arab world and Afghanistan-Pakistan more difficult) are a third rail with Congress, Israel's supporters in the U.S., and certain media outlets. U.S. - Israel policy is a blood sport in Washington, and as the comments show, often produce more heat than light.

Interesting Fnord:

The logic behind the argument is that the US feels it needs to maintain the pro-Western Arab block for the scheduled withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in August, and then later from Afghanistan, and that this block will crumble without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gilboa said.

“This is not the case,” he argued. “This logic ignores the interest the pro-Western Arab countries have in maintaining good relations with the West, and in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

That's some cold-nosed realpolitik, isn't it? We'll just keep pushing the Palestinians out of Jerusalem and the West Bank using every dirty tactic in the book, while claiming they're the ones undermining peace, and the Gulf Arabs will have no choice but to go along with it, or risk an Iranian takeover! The U.S. just has to be really strict with the Gulf Arabs, is all!

Everyone knows Israel has a hundred plus nuclear weapons, and that's a major destabilizing influence in the region.

As far as "speaking for all Jews" - Foxman is full of it. Take a look at these guys, for example:

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/demonstrations/20100102.cfm

The irrational behavior by the Netan-yahoo neocon element is harming U.S. troops by providing more ammunition for the Taliban and Al Qaeda recruting efforts - any idiot could see that. That PR line has worn out.

Took a quick peek at Eli's presentation. Have not read it all,but I can see your comments about quantitative analysis. I will have to look at what he is trying to say with the math. The effectiveness of CERP funding depends on your objective. That is what Eli is saying and it a 1 + 1 = 2 conclusion (motherhood statement). I know for a fact that truck loads of $100 bills all neatly stacked on pallets were brought in to IRAQ to pay contractors in cash (Not sure if it was all CERP). Not to rehash all of Eli's paper, I really question if it makes sense to inject so much money into a system with out making the system sustainable. It was never the US plan to make IRAQ the 51st state! For the US to leave, IRAQ has to sustain itself (ditto on the cash for loyalty program in Afghanistan) . CERP was a tactic, not a strategy. How we did CERP IRAQ would make a good discussion for the effective use on tax payer dollars. That discussion on Afghanistan is coming up in our near future (always happens post war). The FOCUS should be on what happens when your forces leave, CERP has to be knited in to stategy and looked at from that perspective.

My two cents on CENTCOM.

I can see the arguments about making Israel part of CENTCOM. At the same time, you are making a statement about how all the "COMS" interact with each other. Think about it. If the interaction was seamless, there would not be an issue except the perception of people outside the system. Tampa would love the business. Seeing that the space center is slowing quickly, Florida would enjoy any jobs it creates.

Think I would consider the idealogical differences of the region. If Isreal is put in the same "COM" as the rest of the ME pack, that COM is right in the center of any regional disputes. Now this is were we all say, "isn't that the whole point". Well consider this. Who do you want to do your foreign policy? CENTCOM or the State Department/POTUS.

"...Literally, some of the ideas and projects were so bald-faced stupid and unproductive that you wondered whether it would be easier to just load skids of US greenbacks into the back of a C-130 and scatter it to the winds.."

Perhaps you've never heard of the US Congress. Or the Federal Reserve?

Apparently, to call the policies of Jewish State "Operation Lebensraum" is not considered "hateful, intended to intimidate or harass". Sometimes you just need one peek.