What will Petraeus tell the Senators?
US General David Petraeus has been a big topic of conversation on this blog since Sunday. A lot of people have expressed doubt whether Petraeus said what former Arafat aide Mark Perry claimed he said in the article I blogged at that link. Others believe that Petraeus said what Perry claims he said, but have tried to explain why Petraeus is wrong or is telling half a story (as I tried to do). Tuesday, Petraeus gets his chance to speak for himself.Petraeus will testify on Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It should be an interesting day. Here are the members of that committee:
DEMOCRATS
Carl Levin (Michigan)
Chairman
Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Jim Webb (Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Kay R. Hagan (North Carolina)
Mark Begich (Alaska)
Roland W. Burris (Illinois)
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)
Edward E. Kaufman (Delaware)
REPUBLICANS
John McCain (Arizona)
Ranking Member
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)
George S. LeMieux (Florida)
Scott Brown (Massachusetts)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
David Vitter (Louisiana)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
Laura Rozen explains what's at stake:
What's the meta here? The alleged views of two of the biggest guns in the U.S. military, who command wide respect in GOP and Washington hawk circles, on the imperative of the peace process to advance U.S. security interests in the region are being telegraphed as Israeli leaders may be feeling out a campaign to beat up on the American administration for calling Israel on perceived provocations that would set back fledgling peace talks. Some Israeli leaders, for their part, tend to believe the Arab states respect force and power and are more prepared to make peace with Israel and work with it because Israel is strong, not because it's willing to come to the peace table. And one suspects Mullen's alleged message is one they have heard variations of from their American friends many times before, although perhaps not with the same sense of urgency given the international and regional alliance the U.S. is trying to bolster to pressure Iran, the 200,000 plus U.S. troops the U.S. has in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the paralyzed state of the peace process for the past year.There's a lot of disappointment here with the US handling of Iran. Are Petraeus' comments an expression of fear that Israel will take matters into its own hands regarding Iran? Maybe.
What's the meta meta? There seems to be more in the ether in recent days suggesting a diverging of perceived U.S. and Israeli interests in the region, even as much of the region shares anxiety about Iran.
By the way, you can get a better idea who Mark Perry is by reading this.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:10 PM
2 Comments:
"Are Petraeus' comments an expression of fear that Israel will take matters into its own hands regarding Iran?"
Petraeus understands when Israel hits Iran, their wars are lost. He understands greater wars will erupt. So I ask you, will the military risk loosing wars for more wars in favor of Israel? My answer is NO.
As a consequence of that be assured there is no way our conservative senators will back Israel and reject the generals. It just is not going to happen. That being a direct consequence of the myth we have friends anywhere, even conservative ones.
I am going to specifically track how many Republican senators and prominent Republican hierarchy come out against a general especially one with the kind of status Pertraeus enjoys.
Post a Comment
<< Home