Video: President Petraeus?
posted at 1:15 pm on December 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The party’s hopelessly fractured. In search of a uniter, not a divider, we follow a time-honored American tradition by turning our gaze to the military icon of the moment. Alas, my friends, that gaze is not returned.
It’s just as well. He’s got a lot of work ahead of him in Diyala. Exit question: What’s America’s “Christian leader” going to do when his supporters find out he’s taken money from firms involved in embryonic stem-cell research?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
His for the taking. We have great leaders. They just don’t run. Maybe they are too ethical to make it in DC.
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I worked directly under Gen. Petraeus for most of OIF I and I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
davenp35 on December 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Let the guy do his job
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Petraeus 2012! For now, let him keep up the good work in Iraq.
Big S on December 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
But will the surge work in DC? Lord knows it needs one.
bbz123 on December 23, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Dude.
A little Christmas cheer. Thanks!
I like Tommy Franks too.
Let them eat Petraeus Franks
normsrevenge on December 23, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I’m not for the Huckabee, but I do support stem cell research (not necessarily federal funding for stem cell research). Again, it’s more of a Catholic issue than conservative issue concerning abortion (but it has as much to do with abortion as condoms do which is nothing unless you are Catholic). I consider stem cell research no different than organ donors.
Anyway, the General would never want to be President I’m sure. Why would he want to deal with the whiners with the money on Capital Hill after how they treated this hard worker?
As for 2012 and beyond, I like Bobby Jindal as the best conservative American available. If he cleans up Louisiana even a little bit, we should beg him to run (and I know he’s Catholic).
Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone.
ThackerAgency on December 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Allah, the Huckster story deserves it’s own thread!!!
omnipotent on December 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Shame, he could probably get elected.
amerpundit on December 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Nothing.
Spirit of 1776 on December 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I like a comment over at Aces place about this very subject:
Classic
broker1 on December 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
I’m as opposed to the Huckster as most on this blog are, but this doesn’t exactly seem like a smoking gun. The whole business of putting every campaign contributor under a microscope strikes me as a bit unseemly unless it involves extremes like donations from a criminal fraudster like Hsu (Hillary), knowingly accepting donations from white supremicist neo-Nazis (Ron Paul), or if there appears to be a quid pro quo situation involved.
Hollowpoint on December 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I remember listening to a radio broadcast in NYC some 20 years ago on how the nature of the modern media may be discouraging certain types of leaders to shy away from public office. One comment made was that a DeGaulle, told by a debate moderator that he had exactly two minutes to answer a question, would probably punch out the moderator.
I’m hardly suggesting that the world would benefit from, just for example, a President George S. Patton, Jr., but just that certain very effective leaders would not go down well when every time they bump their head, cough, or scratch their nose with the wrong hand there is some media pundit waiting in the wings to make a front page story out of an inconsequential nothing. Finally, what kind of man or woman really wants to subject themselves and their families to the revolting indignities foisted upon them by an ignorant and often hostile media in the first place?
Petraus’ decline to seek political office suggests, to me, that he has far greater ambitions than to be publically reviled for doing his job. He had enough of that in September.
thejackal on December 23, 2007 at 1:49 PM
discouraging certain types of leaders to shy away from public office
dangit! Should read “discouraging certain types of leaders from persuing public office.”
thejackal on December 23, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Petraeus is making a lot more history now than most presidents ever get a chance to do. I think he knows that.
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Actually, right now I want Gen. Petraeus where he can do the most good–leading our troops and the Iraqi people to victory against AQ and their ilk. We need him in uniform with the troops right now. Later, once we’re done in Iraq, then yes, he can do an Eisenhower and run for the Presidency. But until then, let’s keep our best general where he belongs–on the battlefield winning victories.
Matt Helm on December 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Same as he usually does. Say that criticism of him is an attack on Jesus.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I don’t doubt that, and I certainly think Petraeus is aware of this as well, but I somehow don’t get the feeling that it is a motivating factor for him. Generals like Patton and Montgomery licked up the glory (perhaps), but Petraeus seems more like an Omar Bradley to me.
Not that I am inferring that you suspect making history or glory are on Pet’s mind in the first place.
thejackal on December 23, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Then you should know his nickname. And no, not the nasty one that rhymes with Petraeus.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM
the moonbats heads would explode if he ran for president: “military dictatorship by the neo-cons”
jp on December 23, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Peaches, or King David?
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Petraeus a neocon?
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
America is not going to elect a General as President. Last time that happened was in 1952 and 1956. Most people reading this were not even born yet.
Now days Americans are much more into those who were not even in the military.
Fact of life.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Not hardly.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Hey, Elmer Gantrabee is an equal opportunity panderer. So what if it’s utter hypocrisy to take money from people on the opposite side of an issue that you’re campaigning on? We already knew that liberals eat, sleep, and breathe hypocrisy, so it’s not as if it’s going to bother the Huckster.
ReubenJCogburn on December 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Nope.
I can’t think of a way to give a hint without giving it away, although in a way you may have it bracketed.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
As President he would be commander in chief. This country needs leaders not Managers, CEOs, or Politicians. A great leader encompasses all three and more. That’s what the U.S Military breeds. Leadership. Screw the media. They are in the sales business. They sell the illusion that they are the experts on every issue and know better than anyone else at all times. All though I can blame them, the fact that our best and brightest will not seek public office is troubling and bodes ill for the future of the our Republic. IMHO. Instead we end up with pulpit carnies like Huckabee.
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
MB4, please don’t give it away. I can live well without it. Thank you,
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Heh. Brilliant!
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM
he’s running the ‘neo-cons’ war isn’t he?
jp on December 23, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Town’s favorite son, a decent guy. If only he would run…but he can’t be in two places concurrently. Too bad for us.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Speaking of our countries great religious leaders, has everyone heard that The Goracle our Oracle’s net worth has reportedly gone from about a million $ in 2000, to over 100 million $ in 2007?
Who says that religion is not profitable.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Only because they fracked it up so bad.
But even he will not likely be able to unfrack it on account of the design flaw in the neo-cons basic plans.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Third party ticket:
Tommy Franks/Lou Dobbs!!!
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM
There are two Americas, those who can create/exploit an opportunity, and those who can’t. The former can also fool the latter. Just ask Messrs Gore, Edwards, Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton too.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM
whats the design flaw you see?
jp on December 23, 2007 at 2:42 PM
jp, you now have officially opened the 2nd Iraq war flood-gates. Be prepared for the flood now.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
So his net worth has increased by the same factor as his weight?
ReubenJCogburn on December 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
No, he is doing his job and managing American forces in an effort to stop an insurgency in Iraq.
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Islam = ROP.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Slightly more, but roughly the same.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM
You don’t suppose that has anything to do with his intransigence on the issue do you? I mean, he’s a saint. Or…the P.T Barnum of Greeeen. To quote Steely Dan…Minute by minute by minute by minute.
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head
And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed
Nothin’ seems to fit
Those raindrops are fallin’ on my head, they keep fallin’
So I just did me some talkin’ to the sun
And I said I didn’t like the way he got things done
Sleepin’ on the job
Those raindrops are fallin’ on my head, they keep fallin’
*
Believing that the “surge” worked is similar to a doctor believing that he succeeding because he has made some significant progress getting an infection under control with an antibiotic, even while the patient he is treating for an infection at the same time has multi organ cancer that is not being significantly addressed. No matter how much work our Soldiers and Marines do and no matter how many tactical successes they may have does not change that.
Some things just can’t be fixed. Not this way anyway.
Trying to promote democracy, anything like what we think of in the west as being democracy, with such things like liberty and humans rights as accompaniments, in Iraq, or pretty much any Islamic country, is like planting seeds in toxic soil.
The seeds will not grow.
If Gillian Gibbons, the British schoolteacher, was not incarcerated somewhere in Sudan, the whole Teddy Bear called Mohamed incident would be comical. But it serves to remind us once again that fundamentalist religion and Western values do not sit together. And it rubs in that we should spend more time promoting secularism around the world
and worry less about spreading democracy.
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern
only in relation to God [or Allah].
The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote, but no less important, that the political
process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.
- Peter Watson
*
States that rise quickly, just as all the other things of nature that are born and grow rapidly, cannot have roots and ramifications; the first bad weather kills them.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Islam is also the ROS(Religion of Slavery) and oppression and anti-Liberty. If you can get in there, force down the oppressors through our forces and give people a Taste of Liberty, it should in long run lead them away from the polar opposite of it, Islam. Improving literacy would go along way as well.
they said the same thing during the Korean war, “Shintoism isn’t compatible with democracy/freedom”, and those detractors have been proven wrong. Now 50% of Korea is a Christian nation as well, and if you look at the Satellite photo Rumsfeld liked to show we literally turned the lights on in South Korea.
I don’t think they really beleive Islam is the “ROP”, I think its the PR part of the Geo-Political game. plus we have muslim citizens and members of the military.
anyway, the strategy wasn’t their idea so much as what worked so well during the Cold War, which was our ideas. This is what Natan Sharskansky wrote about in his book. Bush buys into that obviously and has stated that Democracy, ideals of Liberty, should naturally, over time and generations begin to catch on. Because they are made in the image of their creator and given certain inalienable rights by this creator.
the only other options I see, aren’t the least bit feasible or realistic. Which is to carpet bomb them, or be isolationist pansies, and build a fort and moat around the country. We’d probably need to get rid of most technology as well
jp on December 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Why not?
Just keeping to Iraq, which is by no means the main problem, what about what has become known as The Biden Plan”?
Bush seems to be tying to, more or less, implement that now anyway, even though he won’t admit it, as “he” is working with local Sunnis and to a lesser degree local Shiites and cutting out the central government more and more.
Maybe we should call it “The Biden/Petraeus Plan”?
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM
well I was referring to carpet bombing all the middle east were we think Jihadist are, then leaving it as is. Because of Oil, not to mention geo-politics, its not possible.
the biden plan is another thing, I’ve read good cases for and against it. But I was talking about how to fight the Jihadist and their Ideology ultimately, and not so much what to do with Iraq from this point. The main thing is for Iraq not to become another Totalitarian police state that is sponsoring Terrorist. And hopefully maintain some sort of democratic rule and balance of powers.
jp on December 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM
The main problem, as I see it, is that Islam seems to be taking over Europe, very slowly, but doing it nonetheless.
Kind of like Mexico with us.
Iraq is a “side game” that has consumed most all of the attention.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM
jp -
No, Islam, as you interpret it, will be reinterpreted in the context of culture and government, is the idea. The belief that Muslims will renounce “Islam” as an identification when given a taste of liberty is remarkably unrealistic. If you think the worst of Islam is immutable compared to other negative religious aspects throughout history, you should probably take MB4’s stance, as he’s quite intellectually consistent in that regard.
MB4-
Oherwise known as Federalism, eventually to be codified by the Provincial Powers law. Except Biden’s plan goes much farther and breaks up Iraq into de facto “Sunni, Shia and Kurd” regions, when Iraq is really so intermixed that his plan is not feasible, especially in the capital, especially since an overwhelming majority of Iraqis hate the idea, and especially since Sunnis are willing to accept minority status. Biden’s plan is as simplistic as the theological analysis that all (or most) Sunnis dislike Shias in Iraq, which is untrue.
Such theological simplifications also advocate abandoning all Iraqis (including secularists) to the whims of the religious extremists among them.
A fact of life is that we have not had a triumphant general who has run for the Presidency since 1956.
So your observation is non-contextual, regardless of whether Petraeus would do well in a race if his military success winds up to be sustainable.
Please explain your comment. You don’t like Petraeus because he is implementing a policy that you disagree with, so you smudge some dirt on him? Your intent is unclear. Thanks.
BillINDC on December 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Some really good morsels (in that torrent, kidding :), the way you put it. However, deceiving as it is, and with the many mistakes that followed the initial effort, I think we’re there for strategic reasons, for the long haul.
jp has a great point regarding geopolitics, and really geoeconomics (until we finally sever our drunken dependency on oil). S/he also makes a valid point about the options. We know that bombing is out and leaving them to their devices we already know what that’s wrought. Besides, no matter what happened so far, we only have forward to look to. I predict we’ll be there for far longer than we’ve been in Germany/Japan/Korea, where we still are, lest someone forget. But, I repeat myself.
I’m glad Saddam and especially his sons are gone, and that international forces border Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don’t believe a liberal president will end anything there either, contrary to any yammering for political gain.
We’re not that far apart at this point, though might have been on going there, as we fought it out in the past. However, the options going forward are not simple and will not differ much, regardless of who is/will be president. We’re all just going to be observers.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Now this is some stuff worth reading. Steak with A-1 sauce, sauteed mushrooms, and a nice bottle of champagne. I salute you.
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM
yeah, Europe is screwed but its mostly their own fault for their nanny state entitlements. They need these immigrants which happen to be islamic.
I’m not sure I can be convinced Saddam didn’t need to be taken care of, the Marshall Plan part of it is the challenge. So the jihadist and minority loyal to Saddam have made it hell via IED’s. I guess if Iran ends up getting a nuke it’ll be more of not more so.
I’m not so sure much of the IED’s and bombings in Iraq, weren’t to get us bogged down and distracted so Iran could get its Nuke.
jp on December 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Here is the Biden plan, this is not what is currently being implemented in Iraq.
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I believe this is a misinterpretation. MB4, please do not give away the nickname. Respectfully,
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Anyone know what Storming Norman is doing these days ?
William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Sorry to cherrypick one phrase from your thinking, but would you mind expanding a bit on this characterization?
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Not true Iran turned very western under the Shah. The only problem was we turned our backs on our allies and the Mullahs were our reward
William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I agree in short term, which if you can make Jihad go dormant again it ‘ll be a good thing. What I’m talking about is long term, not this generation but down the road through baby steps. I look at what happened in Korea over the last 60 years to base much of that, and much, but not all, is based in hope. Problem is I fail to see what the alternatives are. Appeasing them is out(isolationism) and carpet bombing is a doomsday scenario.
I guess there is a third option, which is what we are being acccused of wrongly by the Left and Paultards, which is Imperialism/Empire building, or some form of it. Take over the bad countries and have a puppet, pro-western dictator to take care of business with the Terrorist in the region. It’ll take another 9/11 for that to be a potential option, and its one that makes me very uncomfortable for alot of reasons. Too many unintended consequences, though better than Jihad winning, and a betrayl of our ideals as a nation.
jp on December 23, 2007 at 3:45 PM
The Biden plan is not being/going to be implemented in Iraq.
RushBaby, yes, it’s high time that we go with alternate energy, which we have or have the capability to invent, were it not for the oil-lobbies. And yes, I do know that most of our oil comes from South America, some from Africa and some from our home. Still, this is a cogent thought and needs another time/thread.
It has always unnerved me that the Middle East has so much over us due to the oil, which is greatest part Europe depends on, and we defend Europe, as a gentle reminder.
Still, I’m not fighting with you, just explaining, per your request. With the same love,
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM
He’s a musician. What would you expect?
Griz on December 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Absolutely true – I know this from people intimately familiar with Iraq, and its complicated history. Iraq will not separate into 3-4 parts and new leaders will emerge. I just wish it would be sooner. It’s not going to be a democracy like ours, but it will not go back to a Saddam-state either. Yes, I know some will question “was the rish, the loss and the investment worth it?”. I ask myself that every day too, and don’t know yet.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 3:51 PM
No fight perceived. Looking forward to unpacking it in
Faithfully yours,
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 3:52 PM
BOCA RATON, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Multi-Media Productions (USA), Inc. announces that World Business Review Television, hosted by General Norman Schwarzkopf, is currently available for viewing via video streaming on the WBR website: http://www.wbrtv1.com.
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I should add the “islam I’m interpreting” is what I would call orthodox islam, or fundamentalist. Much like Orthodox Christianity and Liberal Christianity, there are different factions that are entirely different. The Muslims that reject Jihad for example and don’t adhere to Islam as the complete foundation of their lives and worldview and thus borrow from other worldviews, whether Christian or Secular, are different.
or as Mark Steyn put it: “There are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam”
jp on December 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Not so fast.
The capital has actually been segregated to a pretty fair degree.
And as I recall, I doubt that I could find the link, Iraqi support for division had gone from the teens to the thirties between around 2004 and 2006. Don’t know what it would be now. It may have increased or decreased.
I think that the main reason that most Iraqis are not for it is that both Shiites and Sunnis think that they can prevail in the future in a “United Iraq”. Obviously both can’t, but that is not what they think.
Besides with America doing the heavy lifting why should they get to decide?
Working with the Sunnis, and to a lesser degree with some non central government Shiites, and cutting the central government out seems to be going in that direction to me.
Bottom line – the so called “Biden plan” and what is going on now both increase emphasis on local and decrease emphasis on central.
They are at least first cousins.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Ah, but we agree, to some extent. But the “baby steps” you are referring to are the reinterpretation of Islam so that mainstream minimizes extremism in the context of culture and government …. not renouncing “Islam.” The word will exist, but it will mean something radically different than it does for the takfiri or their implicit supporters. At least that’s the idea, and at least the best bet.
There is a false equivalence that folks use when they say the worst aspects of Judaism, Christianity, etc., make them the same as Islam and its expression today. But what is not a false equivalence is that those faiths have adapted (radically) in the context of modern culture and society. “Islam” will never die with a billion plus self-identifying adherents … but it could change, despite the MB4/Robert Spencer thesis that admonishes at every Muslim who strays from the worst or most orthodox doctrine as a religious hypocrite.
Culture, religion, government, etc., are tied together, but there is plenty of opportunity for other elements (together or alone) to hold more sway than violent theological aspects.
BillINDC on December 23, 2007 at 3:57 PM
You are getting very cold.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Exit question: What’s America’s “Christian leader” going to do when his supporters find out he’s taken money from firms involved in embryonic stem-cell research?
I think the real question is what will the Christian leaders supporters do when they find out he took money from the firms involved in embryonic stem cell research. The principle of Christ having mercy on all sinners will justify many people comprimising their position against this type of contribution and make them look like hypocrites. A kind of hippy-crite if you will.
sonnyspats1 on December 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM
SECOND LOOK AT PETRAEUS!
Allahpundit on December 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Keep looking AP, as he’s not available, not now.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:05 PM
agreed. But some of this is reversing and could be to a greater degree. And there are still many portions that are 70/30 or 80/20.
Iraqis who previously didn’t give a crap about the lineage of Mohommed were forced to care when extremists started setting up checkpoints and murdering people with Sunni or Shia names.
The fact remains that the vast majority do not want to split. Many Sunnis think they are the key to Iraq, as do Shia, but America brokering successful power sharing with minority and majority representation, and these impulses will be sublimated into non-violent political expression. The sunnis at least, at the present juncture, recognize this. The Shia remain a bit paranoid.
The litmus test will be the passage of a provincial powers law and provincial elections by summer.
If the Sunni Awakening is not funneled into provincial power by granting them elections by that time, you may officially regard me as worried.
Can’t comment much more today, so Merry Christmas, etc.
BillINDC on December 23, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Read the plan I linked to. You are missing a lot of it if you think that is what is being implemented in Iraq right now. For one thing, all provinces currently have IA units and IP units in them and they are not there just to protect the borders.
bnelson44 on December 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Well, I’m aware of three of the man’s nicknames beyond “Betrayus,” one negative, one jokingly negative and one positive, so I simply find your comment enigmatic. I assumed the negative one.
Glad I’m cold, however.
BillINDC on December 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
This
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM
So you think that Saddam ruled all by himself?
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Just wish those moderates w/b way more vocal.
Merry Christmas BillINDC, and you’re not cold :)
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:13 PM
It was a very forced “western”.
As you say yourself, look what happened.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:15 PM
General Petraeus would out-shine all that trailer trash infesting the halls of Washington. I would hate to see him rolling in the mud with the Reids, Kennedys and Klintons. After all, the mud is their element. They love rolling in the mud. They deserve living in the mud.
Zorro on December 23, 2007 at 4:16 PM
“Look what happened” – if I’d have been in charge of matters at the time we’d have gotten rid of the Ayatollah in France. Alas, I wasn’t and the rest is rotten history.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM
I never had any problem with taking care of Saddam.
Think about the Marshall plan though – we did not let the Germans keep their Nazism.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Again, I’m not sure what that means.
I do know that I’ve spoken to a lot of Baghdadis, folks from the belts, Mosul, Iraqi Army and police who are intermarried, work in mixed offices with those of the other sects, or bristled when you asked them whether they were Shia or Sunni. (”I am Iraqi,” was a common response).
This is not to say that a significant division exists, but it is to no small degree cultural (former ruling vs. underclass) as your comment might(?) suggest, and it is not critically important among large swaths of the population.
Gotta run. Take it easy.
BillINDC on December 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
He was very cold on guessing the answer.
About 3200 mils out.
Actually that could be a very good clue.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Every time we have a successful military commander someone wants to elect them to high office.
Maybe down the line, but let’s keep him where he is most needed right now doing the fine job he is doing.
Even he would have a hard time herding that bunch of cats in DC.
If he continues as well as he has I would rather see him as head of JCS down the line. That would all be about how well he works with all the other services.
He is in charge in one area of the conflict. Next step up is an area wide command then up the line to bigger stuff.
CommentGuy on December 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
But you can take any low temperature and it’s the season.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Actually:
There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.
- Ibn Warraq (ex-Muslim author)
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
There’s a market for
.
When and if oil becomes scarce enough that allocating it to Hummer limousines forces them off the market, then economics will have caused it to be so. Hummer limos are virtue-neutral. Free market economics determining the allocation of scarce resources is a cornerstone of virtue.
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
You dont think the Ayatollah didnt get help form the soviet block ? They wanted the Shah gone and took the chance on the Ayatollah.
William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn searching.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for
unicorns in the forest.
- A_Plague_on_Both_Houses
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Not much, and I don’t think that is why so many Iranians welcomed him back.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Dear General Petraeus, cross the Rubicon. Rome needs you.
ronsfi on December 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I think that they are very much pro Saudi.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Persuasive in every word. Probably definitive. Until someone else like Ataturk comes around.
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Not always so virtuosos.
I am old enough to remember my parents generation talk about how American businesses sold scrap metal to the Japanese that they used to bomb us at Pearl Harbor with.
MB4 on December 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM
How does that refute the virtue of economics? The US had an embargo on selling scrap metal to the Japanese. If some American businesses defied the embargo, the blame rests on men who made those decisions. Not on the principles of economics.
RushBaby on December 23, 2007 at 4:48 PM
OT, to each’s own – but they are also incredibly ugly. Every time I see one, I want to ’scalp’ the inventor/s.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Much as I love him, the situation in Turkey is not so rosey today. They’ve regressed much, in spite of his brilliance and his good intentions for Turkey and the (moderate) world.
Don’t take me wrong – I’d love for each of those backward countries to have one of their own.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Baloney. The KGB was fully behind the Ayatollah. Thats why the current Russian regeme has so many deals with Iran.
Do you really believe that the IRanian military has gotten so sophisticated that they produce such effective IEDs to destroy US military vehicles ? Iran was mostly a western built army until the shah left and it fell into weakness.
Now all of a sudden they are effective enough to cause the US such trouble ?
The real truth is the Russian military is using the Iraq war to feild test their equiptment via their Iranian counterparts
William Amos on December 23, 2007 at 4:52 PM
No one should refute the “principles of economics”. Same principles would dictate a lesser dependence on oil. Again, another thread…
Also, I don’t believe that we’ll be there for so long for oil alone, no way. It’s strategically feasible to be there, especially now, and into the next 20-50 years.
Entelechy on December 23, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Look for MSM (and MoveOn’s ilk) to undertake a relentless campaign of personal destruction against Petraeus, once they pervceive him as a prospective Presidential candidate.
The way it looks, Petraeus is snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. The lefties hate him bitterly for it. Far from watching him run for President, they’ll destroy him first if they can.
petefrt on December 23, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »