Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last
week, U.S. CentCom commander General David Petraeus made the obvious
point that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a strategic
problem for the United States. Among
other things, he said "the conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a
perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian
question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments
and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the
Arab world."
Numerous scholarly studies and government panels-including
the 9/11 Commission and the State Department's Advisory Committee on Public
Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World-have reached similar conclusions. It doesn't mean the U.S. should sever
its ties with Israel, of course, and Petraeus never suggested that it did. But that didn't stop Abe Foxman, reality-denying head of
the Anti-Defamation League, from misrepresenting and denouncing Petraeus'
remarks, without offering a shred of evidence to show that Petraeus was wrong.
Meanwhile, a few bloggers have discovered that I was a
member of the committee that supervised Petraeus' 1987 doctoral dissertation on
the U.S. army and counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Before anyone tries to concoct a Glenn Beck style guilt-by-assocation
theory linking Petraeus and me, here's the skinny:
I knew Petraeus when he was a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and I
was a young Assistant Professor there. His original dissertation
committee members were Professors Richard Ullman and Barry Posen, but Posen left Princeton for MIT before the
thesis was completed and I was asked to step in and serve as second
reader. Petraeus and I had a
number of conversations about his work as he wrapped it up and I hope I gave
him good advice, but that was the extent of my involvement in his education.
I've had no contact with General Petraeus in over twenty years. He did visit the Kennedy School last
April, but I was unable to attend his talk. In any case, he hardly needed my help to reach the
conclusions he offered the Armed Services Committee. All you need for that is an open mind.
This is probably a good preemptive move Dr. Walt. I imagine that all of those extreme right-wing commentators that are so eager to pour billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into Israel will try to use this against you. But I'm sure your used to this type of boneheaded jargon by now; you've had to deal with it ever since your latest book came out. Better to strike hard first and defend your record before your "enemies" make the first move.
But how did the dissertation go? I'm thinking of doing the PhD thing eventually, but I hear excruciating stories from my professors about the experience.
Somebody had hinted at the possibility that Petraeus would run for president in 2012.
We now know that it will never happen as the APAC and ADL propaganda machine would label him anti-semite and make sure that his candidacy goes nowhere.
Is neither a luxury even, nor a privilige in the era we live in. It is called a defficiency Prof.Walt. The general and the various committees in the USA have been stating the obvious for a very long time about the Arab feelings towards the US' unequivocal support to Israel. The Arabs have been saying that for many years now, but I suppose, when it comes from a General (ubermensch) as opposed to the Arabs, it takes another dimension. Personally, I would have been very glad had the Genral been influenced by the thoughts of Prof. Walt, though I believe he isn't at all.
khairi janbek.paris/france
[Click here] Please take a look at the American Journalist Jean Mackenzies latest piece here at the FP , and how I in the comments lambasts her for adressing us without knowing the full story about Helmand. She is as such typical of Americans in general, and a shining example of how its journalists often are no better. What we should demand of journalist is that they knew a bit or two about what they were writing about, otherwise it is just a waste of time.
She writes:
It is true that farmers inside the Food Zone, which includes the most fertile and highly populated areas of central Helmand, are reluctant to grow poppy -- perhaps because they will lose the wheat seeds and fertilizer the government is providing, or maybe because of the mandatory jail time.
But as I make clear -- as the first one in America and one of the few in the world right now -- Helmand's soil is ONLY suitable for growing opium poppies, due to the high saturation with salt in the soil, that stems from the Americans failed development-projects in the area beginning in the 1950' es. So can one understand if the locals are sceptical with American development-projects. I ask you Americans: Can one understand it? Yes og no?
That is quite a shock, I thought they were pleased up untill today, THis is nothing new, I think the U.S should have not gone to war in the middle east untill there was peace between Israel and all of it's neighbors.
Why would you bring this point up now? So what, after 15 years of peace talks we don't have peace, you think that is the reason that arab governments don't see the U.S military presence in the middle east in good light. Thanks General you have discovered America for us.
And yes if you have an ally which is in conflict in the region, they aren't going to see you in good light especially when you are fighting a war yourself.
The question is what does the general suggests we do about it? Do we continue supporting our ally or change our policies, I think that general portreas is a great man and I would love to vote for him for president in 2012
I don't doubt you, Professor Walt, but most professors do seem to stay in touch with their doctoral students after graduation, it seems. Maybe in the days of rotary phones and Internet that was nascent, they didn't, and maybe because Petraeus was outside of the academy and not going to APSA, ISA, etc, he was harder to find. Still, tell us the truth: does Petraeus have cooties?
I have little to add, except that Arab countries are not going to significantly reverse its dislike for the U.S. simply because they throw Israel under the bus. Even my dog can name a few things that the U.S. does to antagonize other Arab countries that would not be ameliorated by relinquishing the Israel/US "Special Relationship."
However, I must say that it seems odd that Walt wouldn't keep in contact with a student as illustrious as the HEAD OF CENTCOM. While it would be foolish to dismiss Walt's proactive response to any future criticism (smart move, Professor) as downright lying without any evidence, I can't for the life of me understand why Walt wouldn't have wanted to have the ear of an up-and-coming and already decorated student leaving U.S. Army and General Staff College and who had already completed his MPA at the same school? I mean, come on; if I was a professor associated with such a great institute, I would be apprised of its best students, and especially if I became their mentor.
However, the last comment made me laugh out loud. Good show, Anon.
Most of my jokes are lame, trite and hackneyed, so thanks, Goose.
I still do find it a bit odd that Professor Walt never, ever, ever came into any contact with General Petraeus over the years. Again, I can see why - they exist in two different social networks, one being the Army, the other being academia. And I don't doubt Professor Walt, and am glad he's holding Glenn Beck et al off at the pass, but a more credible story to me would be something along the lines of, "I was on his dissertation committee, and had contact with General Petraeus since then, but it was infrequent and intermittent, and ceased long before he became a general officer. General Petraeus has been far too busy to take my phone calls or return my emails for a long, long time, and we barely knew each other both outside and within the dissertation supervisor/writer context."
As an aside, and maybe this is stepping over the line, but I wonder if Professor Walt stays in touch with Paul Yingling.
- A former student of Professor Walt's, who trusts him, and respected what a nice and decent person he (Professor Walt) was to him (i.e., anon_anon), and who wears the same brand of Merrells as Professor Walt.
Very interesting. I wont re-reveal your name, but if you indeed are who you say, I have read a few of your articles in Small Wars Journal; impressive work. Also, I found Petraeus' thesis, and in the acknowledgement section, he writes: "As my second faulty advisor...Professor Walt offered numerous sound suggestions and comments. Like Professor Ullman, he displayed tremendous competence not only as an academic, BUT AS A TEACHER AS WELL."
When Petraeus was getting his PhD, he wasn't as firmly entrenched in the military world as now of course. However, don't you think that you'd stay in at least sporadic contact with somebody who you viewed as a very competent mentor and teacher, and was already rising in his respective profession? If I was either actor -- a very cerebral student or top-notch professor -- I would maintain SOME form of correspondence. This is especially true if he was rising in the military ranks and would naturally have some quality, albeit confidential, tips as to some minor operations or flaps. As someone who knew Walt personally, you would be much more familiar with the protocol, but I think you get the point.
Very interesting. I wont re-reveal your name, but if you indeed are who you say, I have read a few of your articles in Small Wars Journal; impressive work. Also, I found Petraeus' thesis, and in the acknowledgement section, he writes: "As my second faulty advisor...Professor Walt offered numerous sound suggestions and comments. Like Professor Ullman, he displayed tremendous competence not only as an academic, BUT AS A TEACHER AS WELL."
When Petraeus was getting his PhD, he wasn't as firmly entrenched in the military world as now of course. However, don't you think that you'd stay in at least sporadic contact with somebody who you viewed as a very competent mentor and teacher, and was already rising in his respective profession? If I was either actor -- a very cerebral student or top-notch professor -- I would maintain SOME form of correspondence. This is especially true if he was rising in the military ranks and would naturally have some quality, albeit confidential, tips as to some minor operations or flaps. As someone who knew Walt personally, you would be much more familiar with the protocol, but I think you get the point.
###
ScottGoose: I've commented on, but never published any articles on SWJ. In other words, I'm not who you think I might be (READ: I AM NOT PAUL YINGLING.). I don't care to be pejorative, but I'd rather not write anymore.
Very interesting. I wont re-reveal your name, but if you indeed are who you say, I have read a few of your articles in Small Wars Journal; impressive work. Also, I found Petraeus' thesis, and in the acknowledgement section, he writes: "As my second faulty advisor...Professor Walt offered numerous sound suggestions and comments. Like Professor Ullman, he displayed tremendous competence not only as an academic, BUT AS A TEACHER AS WELL."
When Petraeus was getting his PhD, he wasn't as firmly entrenched in the military world as now of course. However, don't you think that you'd stay in at least sporadic contact with somebody who you viewed as a very competent mentor and teacher, and was already rising in his respective profession? If I was either actor -- a very cerebral student or top-notch professor -- I would maintain SOME form of correspondence. This is especially true if he was rising in the military ranks and would naturally have some quality, albeit confidential, tips as to some minor operations or flaps. As someone who knew Walt personally, you would be much more familiar with the protocol, but I think you get the point.
###
ScottGoose: I've commented on, but never published any articles on SWJ. In other words, I'm not who you think I might be (READ: I AM NOT PAUL YINGLING.). I don't care to be pejorative, but I'd rather not write anymore.
I unsure what you gain by alluding to being a fairly obscure Iraq veteran and U of Chicago Grad...but ok? Wasn't trying to spin conspiracy web's or anything; Petraeus could have just been saying that out of courtesy or meant it, and neither imply any clandestine correspondence between the two. Just pointing out an odd occurrence that a former student of Walt could relate to, so naturally I was curious.
It appears that Mr. Walt understands the APAC and ADL need to tune in to channel 2010. The key words: "reality-denying" correctly reflect the overworked positions of the above groups. The Scale of Realism has tilted in the Middle East. General Petraeus and Dr. Walt happen to be two who get it.
General Petraeus seems reasonable. A small fragment of his statement was blown out of proportion. Military aid to Israel is less than 0.5% of the US DOD budget and about 1% of the Israeli economy. Were that aid eliminated, both countries would do fine. If appearances are sufficiently problematic as to interfere with actual US foreign policy, aid can and should be ended. Israel is suboptimal with respect to civil rights; but sanctions are solely in place for the Sudan, Iran and North Korea, if memory serves. The difficulty would, of course, be ensuring the viability of the Suez Canal.
The most pressing concerns for General Petraeus would seem to be Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Such suffice for more than one person. His request to include Gaza/Israel as part of his plan indicate nothing about his opinions of the problems there. Perhaps the general had some concern about weapons shipments from the Taliban and Al Qaeda to persons in the area. Perhaps the general had heard something about particular Iranian threats to the area. Perhaps he simply wanted to be able to visit Jerusalem for vacations.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(18)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE