You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Petraeus: Ground Forces Needed in Syria to Defeat ISIS
2015-11-13
Bringing this article back once again to address TopRev's concerns as posted at #7 on Thursday:

#7. With respect, Besoeker, and most commenters: you are being unfair to Petraeus and de-contextual with regard to his audience, as pure an anti-national sovereignty group of Globalists as one could find in the USA. Bookings is the sanctimonious face of modern Communist/Globalist/Islam/Democrat-Republican/Progressive post-modern, deconstructed, post-nationalsm. They want USA gone, damn it, GONE, and replaced with just them as all-worthy, unquestioned "practitioners."

Ask yourself why Petraeus would agree to speak to such a gathering. He does not need to. Ask yourself why he agreed to teach for $1/year at CUNY, and get hounded by Commies.

At Brookings he was addressing THEM and their anti-American pretensions and saying what those pretentious involve practically if they are to amount to anything more than hot air and rampant misery. He said no one is going to negotiate outside a military context, aka bad guys are made an offer they cannot refuse. What is more true?

Dave Petraeus has that rare gift of seeing the large picture with all of its moving parts. He is one or two in a generation. The new CJCS may be another such. Anyhow, the gift is rare. And admiration for Petraeus in the Armed Forces, especially the Army, could not be higher.

I am astonished at the febrile expostulations of so many here and at the PJMedia original. Taking Petraeus as a regime champion, a toady, is bathetic, not worthy of these sanctums.

Being "unfair" to the General? Permit me to unpack a bit of "unfair." Unfair is presiding over, or endorsing UCMJ actions resulting in the ruin of officers and enlisted men's careers who mishandled classified documents or participated in adulterous affairs, then excusing one's own quite similar actions by simply saying "I made a terrible error is judgement, here is my check for $100k."

When examining the "large picture" the General might do well to set the privilege of rank aside and endure the penalties and hardships of his actions, as over the course of his career he has insisted others within the ranks do. That would be 'fair.'

Respectfully, Besoeker
Posted by:Besoeker

#4  Anyone above 08 is a political appointee. The shuffle starts at 07. Not to be confused with the careerist shuffle that fully kicks in at 05.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-11-13 07:40  

#3  On 25 April 2011:

“Gen. David H. Petraeus, Commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, visited Pakistan today to meet with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff"

On 2 May 2011 the raid on Abbottabad and the UBL takedown was executed.

On 31 August 2011 General Petraeus trooped the line at Fort Myer for the last time during his retirement ceremony.

On 6 September 2011 General Petraeus becomes Director, CIA.

You do the math.

Link
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-11-13 07:03  

#2  IMO, everything anybody needs to know about General Petraeus is right here.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2015-11-13 01:56  

#1  I'll also beg to differ - Brookings is more establishment/old line/center-left Democrat than "modern Communist/Globalist/Islam/Democrat-Republican/Progressive post-modern, deconstructed, post-nationalsm [sic]."

Now if one was talking Center for American Progress, or Open Society, or even the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that'd be a bit different. Brookings is "Establishment" and more likely to be in tune with Beltway Democrats, including the White House.

As it stands, General Petraeus didn't really break any new ground either. I don't recall anyone from Brookings decrying the use of military force. In fact, it's the opposite. What it sounded like was a "preaching to the choir;" pretty much in line with what the administration is currently doing, albeit in an ad hoc, desultory and amateurish manner.

So is he a toady, a regime champion?? I don't know. I just know what he's done in the past, both good and bad. He didn't say anything at Brookings that was earth-shattering or a revelation, he didn't say anything critical about current political and military leadership. And he didn't face the level of punishment any other officer, civilian or military, would have faced for doing what he did.
Posted by: Pappy   2015-11-13 00:59  

00:00