Officers slam PM for planning war but not preparing IDF

[bemildred]

Senior officers in the General Staff voiced criticism on Thursday of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's claims before the Winograd Commission regarding his plans for this summer's war in Lebanon and asked, "If war was planned, why was the IDF left unprepared?"

Labor Party ministers also lashed out on Thursday at Olmert's testimonybefore the committee, as reported in Haaretz.

Olmert reportedly said that he made a coalition deal with Labor under which Labor received the defense portfolio, but decided on its own who would fill it, and therefore, Labor is responsible for Peretz's problematic appointment as defense minister. But Labor ministers charged that Olmert has sole responsibility for this appointment, as he and Peretz concluded the Labor-Kadima coalition agreement entirely by themselves, and this agreement, as it was submitted to Labor's central committee for approval, already had Peretz marked as defense minister. In contrast, the ministers said, the other portfolios were left blank, allowing Labor to fill them as it saw fit.

One minister added that if Olmert really did deny responsibility for the appointment, he was essentially admitting to have abdicated his duties, because the prime minister bears primary responsibility for national security, a task which includes appointing a qualified defense minister. Moreover, the minister said, if Olmert really planned for the possibility of war with Lebanon months in advance, as he told the committee, that was all the more reason why he should have ensured that he had a competent defense minister.

Haaretz

[Kagemusha]

1. Personally, I'm amazed he admitted stuff in this unflattering manner

It's hard to spin this positively for him. What he makes up in lack of malice he loses in the competence issue in spades. I'm reminded of what John Amaechi (former NBA player, former & current gay man) said about Penny Hardaway's hard-line anti-gay comments following Amaechi's coming out, when Amaechi was a guest on the daily show: you don't expect people to be stupid enough to SAY IT.

I guess Olmert should've worked a lot harder to block those inquiries. It's certainly done him no favors.

[bemildred]

2. I think he was stuck.

And I don't think he IS a particularly smart man. Clever maybe. He was thrust into the limelight when Jabba keeled over, although he seems to like it there. And it is hard to put a good spin on a failure like the 2nd Lebanon War, success never needs explaining. Ordinarily what you see in the USA is a changing of the topic, "moving right along now". Olmert does not have that option because he lacks the control of the state propaganda organs which Bush has enjoyed here. The Israeli media are far less supine than those in the USA. And the Israeli ruling elites are far less unified, perhaps single-minded is a better term, than those in the USA, it's sort of tribal, although that isn't right either.

And the mess in Iraq and it's consequences are biting harder all the the time now, the margin for error is less than it was ten years ago, so they had to do something, can't just let it go. The next time they have to give a good account of themselves. That is one reason I will be surprised if the IDF heats things up again up North, there really has not been time for the sort of "reform, refit, retrain" effort that would seem indicated.

And all it means is that Hiz'bullah didn't "cause" the war, they just "started" it, and it becomes part of the ongoing conflict, which is what anyone paying attention knew anyway. When the "action" is so disproportionate to the "cause" you know other forces are at work.

And he is clearly a politician, not a manager or a leader, the internal bickering is something to watch.

[Kagemusha]

3. All good points. Hard to argue & not inclined to try.

One just has to wonder how this will further exacerbate the weakness in the Israeli political system because, er, well, it's not like anyone else looks better as a result. (Good one, Peretz! There was a REASON he wanted you to be Defense minister...)

[eyl]

4. Actually, not exactly

I really doubt he made Peretz the Minister of Security in anticipation of having him screw up - as he's finding out now, such fiascos generally tend to splash over on the PM. the problem is the way governments are constructed in Israel.

The largest party is not necessarily the one which establishes the government. Instead, the President assigns the task to a member of the Knesset - in practise, a party leader - who he considers to be capable of creating a government (i.e. creating a coalition which will be approved by the Knesset). While trditionally the first person to be given the task is the leader of the largest party, if he fails to assemble a coalition within 28 days (a period which be extended by up to 14 days) or the Knesset does not approve the proposed government, the President can give the task to someone else - generally the leader of the next largest party.

While AFAIK this has never happened, the possibility can give considerable leverage to potential coalition parties. This is especially true when the largest party is not much larger than it least one of its partners. In such a case, the partner can demand one or more of the "first-tier" - Security, Foreign Ministry, or the Treasury - portfolios as its price.

In this case, Olmert wanted to keep the Foreign Ministry under his control, and really really really didn't want Peretz in the Treasury (which was Labor's initial demand). The post of giving Labor the Security Minister was a compromise, and Peretz got it by default as the senior party memeber. Essentially, Olmert gambled - unsuccessfully - that there would be no serious security problems during the tenure of his government.