‘Arab-Israeli conflict hurts US’

[bemildred]

WASHINGTON – US Gen. David Petraeus charged Tuesday that the Arab-Israeli conflict hurts America’s ability to advance its interests in the Middle East, fomenting anti-American sentiment and limiting America’s strategic partnerships with Arab governments.

Petraeus called the conflict one of the “root causes of instability” and “obstacles to security” in the region – which aids al-Qaida – and argued that serious progress in the peace process could weaken Iran’s reach, as it uses the conflict to fuel support for its terror group proxies.

Petraeus, commander of the US military’s Central Command, a zone that ranges from Egypt to Pakistan, but excludes Israel and the Palestinian Authority, offered the assessment in a prepared testimony for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” he said in the written testimony. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171255

[applegrove]

1. Neocons have ruined the Israelis. The right wing in Israel thinks they

can have a 'sympatico to settlers' US Administration in the next election so they slam the Obama administration. Hoping somehow Lieberman gets the presidency next. What a bunch of fools.

[bemildred]

2. I have peen predicting that US and Israeli "interests" would come into conflict

for some time now, mainly as a result of Bushite war policies in the Middle East, so this makes me feel vindicated in that opinion.

It is, if you read it right, and admission of US weakness, we can no longer afford to ignore the I/P situation because we are not in as strong a position as we once enjoyed diplomatically and militarily, thanks mainly to Bushite overreaching.

[Jefferson23]

3. I found this to be an interesting viewpoint:

Would Gen. Petraeus Run as a Democrat?

Mar 17 2010, 10:00 AM ET

General David Petraeus can't even travel to his home state of New Hampshire anymore without raising another round of "Will he run for president in 2012?" talk. It's not hard to see why. As chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Petraeus oversees all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, giving him the executive experience governors only dream of and the gravitas of five senators. Military officials generally join up with the GOP if they enter politics, and Petraeus is indeed registered as a Republican.

A 2012 run would be unlikely. Anyone in the military can tell you it would go against core military beliefs for a serving general to campaign against his commander in chief. For an officer to challenge the authority of his superior is insubordination; to try to unseat that superior is mutiny. But the general is only 58 years old. He still has plenty of time to retire and enter the 2016, 2020, or 2024 presidential contests.

If we're going to play Washington's favorite parlor game, we might as well ask the inevitable question: Would Petraeus really run as a Republican? Testifying Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he articulated policy positions on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Bagram detention facility that sounded like planks of the Democratic, not Republican, platform. That's just the beginning of his surprisingly liberal politics:


•Says "the time has come" to consider repealing don't ask, don't tell.
•Opposes sending Guantanamo detainees to the Bagram facility in Afghanistan.
•Supports closing the prison at Guantanamo.
•Opposes "enhanced interrogation" methods like waterboarding.
•Condemns Israel's behavior in the Palestinian conflict as undermining U.S. regional interests.
•Soft on drugs: Has made combating Afghanistan's massive opium trade a low priority.
•Soft on crime: Supports reconciling with Taliban leaders and backed Sunni militias in Iraq's Sunni Awakening.
•Worst of all, he's a big-government liberal: His strategy in Iraq relied on numerous population-centric strategies that are called counterinsurgency when deployed inside a war zone but, if implemented in the U.S., would be called social welfare programs on the scale of FDR's Works Progress Administration or Johnson's Great Society. Petraeus uses government resources to put unemployed locals to work on massive infrastructure projects, he works hard to secure fair political representation for aggrieved minorities, and he builds strong, public social services like hospitals and schools. President Reagan's edict, "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem," doesn't seem to hold for Petraeus in Iraq. Would it hold for Petraeus in Washington?
Of course, some of the general's Democratic policies could simply reflect that the president is a Democrat and Petraeus respects the chain of command. But it's worth considering that this potential one-day Republican presidential hopeful might be hopeful, and he could even be presidential, but he doesn't look so Republican.

Photo: General Petraeus in Baghdad with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in September 2008. By Jerry Morrison, courtesy U.S. Army.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/would-gen-petraeus-run-as-a-democrat/37595/

This gave me a chuckle anyway.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I think the last explanation is probably key...

'some of the general's Democratic policies could simply reflect that the president is a Democrat and Petraeus respects the chain of command.'

In any case, was it seriously suggested that Petraeus would run for president of either party? I remember it being suggested re Colin Powell, and that Wesley Clark ran in the Dem primary in 2004; but I don't remember it with regard to Petraeus - but it might just have not made the news over here.

[Jefferson23]

5. In his home state, yes, he has support. I think the author is just

having fun with the prospect, I know I enjoyed it!

The GOP is a mess, and I have no idea who they think will carry the day for them. If they were smart, at some point they may
want to approach this man, but as we are learning, he doesn't exactly fit the GOP list of must haves. And especially now, with his report
and concerns about the Israel/Palestine conflict...that's a no no for Republicans.