Submit your comments on this article | ||
Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
Petraeus: Ground Forces Needed in Syria to Defeat ISIS | ||
2015-11-13 | ||
#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."
| ||
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 |