Sunday, April 25, 2010

FSM INTERVIEW WITH DIANA WEST ABOUT GEN. PETRAEUS

Ruth King interviewed Diana West for Family Security Matters about her problems and disagreements with General David Petraeus. I'm decidedly presenting it here because, although the aforementioned leftard Mark Perry may have been instrumental in distorting info about Petraeus and what he said about Israel, West's argument makes me wonder: did we miss something here?

I guess that's why it's best to let others judge for themselves, and West does have some things to consider, including this:
Why the reticence?

I think I know the answer. I've already mentioned some of my thoughts above on counterinsurgency doctrine. Well, Petraeus wrote the book on COIN -- literally. He is the lead author on the COIN manual that has guided the Pentagon in the execution of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iraq in particular being a war that most conservatives and certainly all neoconservatives take immense pride in as a victory for the ages -- another delusional fantasy, in my view (see three part series on whether the "surge" was a success in Iraq here).

Some of them have even acted as consultants or architects of this same, again, in my view, utterly disastrous war policy.

What I think is impossible for them to face is

1) the possibility that their policy has achieved nothing of lasting value for the United States, and

2) the policy has instead done much to reorient our foreign policy around Arab-Islamic objectives in the COIN pursuit of Arab-Islamic hearts and minds.

For what else is the effort, for example, to assuage the "Arab anger over the Palestinian question" as Gen. Petraeus put it to to the US Senate, than the effort to win Arab(-Islamic) hearts and minds?
On the subject of Iraq, she may have a point, which is: if all allied forces could do in Iraq is liberate from its previous tyrant, yet spectacularly fail to confront the problems with Islam itself, and introduce Iraqis to better forms of life, then how can they expect the victory to hold up?
at

1 comment:

  1. Reliapundit3:54 PM

    WRONG. COLOSSALLY WRONG.

    THE SO-CALLED NEOCON AGENDA IS THE UNFINISHED AGENDA OF FDR AND WW2.

    WE HAVE GAINED A LOT FROM THE IRAQ WAR - AND THE AFGHAN WAR.

    MY MAJOR CRITICISM IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING WITH ONE HAND BEHIND OUR BACK: WE SHOULD HAVE NUKED TORA BORA IN 2001.

    FDR USED EVERY WEAPON IN OUR ARSENAL AND FOUGHT TOTAL WAR.

    WE NEED TO DO THE SAME THING.

    AND ANOTHER THING;

    AFTER NUKING TORA BORA, IF I WAS POTUS, THEN I'D'VE SENT A TELEGRAM TO ALL ARAB AND MUSLIM LEADERS:

    "YOU BETTER WIPE OUT THE EVIL-DOERS ON YOUR TURF, BECAUSE IF WE GET WHACKED BY ANYONE LINKED TO YOUR NATION WE WILL NUKE YOU."

    OUR MILITARY ROLE IN WW4 WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

    THEN, I'D HAVE FORCED THE UNSC TO PASS ANTI-ISLAMO-MISOGYNY RESOLUTIONS SHUNNING ALL NATIONS WHICH PERMIT VIOLATIONS OF THE UN'S UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

    IF THEY BALKED, THEN I WOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN FORM THE UN AND STARTED A LIBERTY LEAGUE MADE UP OF FREE NATIONS WILLING TO SHUN THE SCUM NATIONS LIKE SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN ETC.

    WE'D HAVE HAD FAR FEWER TROOPS IN HARMS WAY AND GOTTEN BETTER QUICKER RESULTS FOR A HELLUVA LOT LESS MONEY.

    I'D'VE ALSO URGED ISRAEL TO ANNEX THE SO-CALLED OT, AND EXPEL ARABS - AS EUROPEANS DID TO GERMANS AFTER WW2.

    LOSERS SUFFER. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY OF WAR.

    ARABS LOST THE WARS, YET SEEM TO THINK THEY CAN DICTATE TERMS.

    I SAY: EFF EM. THEM AND THE EUROWEENIES WHO DO THE ARABS' BIDDING - OUT OF FEAR, DHIMMITUDE.

    BOTTOM-LINE: IT'S HOW WE'VE FOUGHT WW4 AND NOT OUR WAR AIMS THAT HAVE SUCKED.

    BUSH WAS A WIMP; AS I OFTEN BLOGGED: DUBYA STANDS FOR WIMP!

    ReplyDelete