Petraeus betrays us
And now we have the background for why Biden went berserk on Tuesday. On January 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief JCS Chairman Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow...and too late."Read the whole thing.
The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command - or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.
The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama Administration decided it would redouble its efforts - pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with Chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" - as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.
Three comments:
This is why Generals are supposed to stay out of politics. What did Petraeus think the Arabs would say if he asked them the question? They will be satisfied with nothing short of the end of the Jewish state.
And why did Petraeus repeat what the Arabs said at face value without trying to analyze it?
Sorry, but Israel is not going to roll over and die because the Arabs are unhappy with us.
UPDATE MONDAY 2:07 AM
I have been informed by insiders that the author of this piece, Mark Perry, is a former adviser to Yasser Arafat and is now director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates talking to Hamas and Hezbullah. In other words, he has an agenda.
I have also been informed that Petraeus' people deny the story completely, although my source for that is a high profile blogger who heard it from a reporter.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:21 PM
8 Comments:
"America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now. "
Therein lies the rub.
Israel/Jews will never be more important then American soldiers. Obviously the decision to not bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz was a perfect example.
Make no mistake however, every bad decision by the previous President in regard to Israel related to the importance of Israel.
By the way:
There will not be peace in the ME until Palestinian statehood.
Guess who said it?
Do you understand why?
I stated last week Israel was headed for more trouble then anyone can imagine. If the US wishes, they can and will wipe their hands of Israel. No spare parts, no veto's, etc., etc., etc., nothing. No compunction.
The lives of American soldiers are at risk because of the incompetence of their Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, and commanders who clearly have no understanding of the region, possess shoddy intelligence, and a crumbling chain of command. Arabs have hated Jews long before Bush stupidly invaded Iraq so he could line Haliburton's pockets instead of finishing off the Taliban. Patraeus blaming Israel is a cover for his own ineptitude. The United States was unprepared for what would happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Yeah, that's Israel's fault. Whatever.
Shtuey. Well said!
Right on target.
Believe me, I supported the Iraq campaign. I am happy Saddam was overthrown. I have to say looking back at all the circumstances in making of the phony democracy of Iraq provided a way to scapegoat Israel. From that moment the peace of the ME was firmly laid at the feet of Israel. The comment, There will be no peace in the ME until Palestinian statehood was birthed. For that I believe the reason Bush turned against Israel was to keep the Arab world off his back. I don't believe he meant for that to happen however. My heart of hearts tells me he started genuine. Politics always trumps righteousness. And for sure when it comes to who gets sacrificed, it is always a Jew/Israel.
American Power tracked-back with, 'Mark Perry, Hezbollah Flunky Apologist, Writes Petraeus Hit Piece at Foreign Policy'.
"Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding."
Where does this say the US is perceived as weak because it isn't standing up to Israel? And notice how Iran is not mentioned once? Do you really think that none of the Arab diplomats had anything to say about Iran, and what was the US going to do about it? Who do you think Arab countries are more concerned with just now, Iran or Israel?
I smell a rat. Mark Perry clearly has an agenda which involves confirming the prejudices of the Obami, and this comes off as a filtered story, which just maybe ignores real complaints about Iran to focus on boilerplate complaints about Israel. And remember that Obama invited complaints about the I/P conflict by over-promising and under-delivering. This complaints would be more a function of Obama's raising false hopes, than of real passion about I/P.
I won't believe this rendition of the story unless I hear it confirmed from more reliable sources.
Quran confirms the Torah and attacks the Talmud:
http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html
Let's stick to the point.
Israel carried out our policies for years and now our policy is changing for the better. Fact israel palestine issue is a concern for arabs in the region and must be settled. I'm glad an american general made a statement the majority of the world including the us wants a two state solution and we will have one or israel will find itself alone.
Stop settling on occupied territory now.
James Abney
Portland, OR
Its obvious the us understands the region otherwise we wouldn't be there. We've been there since WWII. Iraq was stupid but creating israel in that part of the world after wwii was more stupid. The israel palestine issue is paramount to peace and it appears that we finally have an adminstration willing to address it. The american people support it and does the us military. Israel fp will change with us fp. BTW, Israel enjoy my tax dollars why you can.
Post a Comment
<< Home