Here's who should be running for president

[crustylicious]

General David Petraeus
Great article from a "liberal" rag

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-201005

[Foxxtrot]

Need more detail on his domestic policies

healthcare
2nd A
illegals
global warming and if he thinks it is real
free market economics vs. what our current cabal is up to
taxes and what we should do moving forward

I wonder how he debates, how he looks on TV, how is his family life....since this is what we will see of him presented by the media. Not sure if we need a hawk vs. a smart young conservative that will tackle economic disaster, fiscal spending cuts, and private industry job creation.

 Does Petraeus have this ability to lead the American people out of the dark depression we are currently in?

[teamnelson]

He's many things, but I don't want him as my president. He doesn't know the difference between a carrot and a stick, and has been the instrument of eroding the checks and balances system between policy and strategy in our National Security, Defense and Military strategies. To say that he gets the laurel for OIF and OEF is a gross misrepresentation of what has transpired. Is a he a good man? I think so, only met him personally once. Is he a good soldier? In the New Dawn model, yes, but not in a traditional sense.

I can only glean from military policies affected under his perview some of his moral stands, and his position on DADT and the recruiting waivers extended to even violent felons to keep the numbers up would make me concerned about where he'd fall out in the white house.

[jager]

TN - That's an interesting and informative "take" you have on the "good" General . Sometimes those of us less informed (myself included) confer superlative qualities on people who are noteworthy, or have expertise in one area, to have those same qualities in other areas. (I take it that the "New Dawn model" refers to the "Politically Correct" battlefield of today?) Foxxtrot asks some of the right questions as should have been asked of General Powell and other past "contenders" who hid most of their political agenda behind their uniforms.

[teamnelson]

New Dawn = we send a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, but we officially redesignate them as the 2nd Aid & Assist Battalion, since on paper were not allowed to send "combat" teams anymore.

[teamnelson]

TM7, you of all people would put a General in the White House?!? Please don't let his apparent soft spot for the Islamic world and his one time warning about Israel gloss over the realities that he has been the foreign policy arm of the last 3 presidents. I don't envy his job, but his strategies reek of nwo alignment ... strategies he writes himself.

[Matt]

TM7, you of all people would put a General in the White House?!? Please don't let his apparent soft spot for the Islamic world and his one time warning about Israel gloss over the realities that he has been the foreign policy arm of the last 3 presidents. I don't envy his job, but his strategies reek of nwo alignment ... strategies he writes himself.

+1

[teamnelson]

TM7, my impression of his concern for troops is jaded, I'll admit it up front. His policies on the ground put troops needlessly at risk in order to appease our Iraqi hosts, and I lost several good men (to include my CO) who would not have otherwise lost their lives were it not for the early wave of New Dawn directives between the surge and the draw down. I also know that he determined those policies with a clear understanding of what those risks would entail, and still chose to put the Iraqis in charge of providing our security as a show of good faith in extension of State department agenda. He had other very viable options, of which I am in a position to know and understand, and chose to perpetuate what is now the New Dawn military strategy. A strategy that is most in keeping with your NWO theories than any other option available.

I would personally like a non-interventionist for a change; someone who neither seeks nor fears war. I would not mind a veteran, but preferably someone for whom politics would not be a natural progression of his career as it would be for Petraeus or any of the other flag officers we ushered from the Pentagon to the Capitol as a reward for service to a grateful nation. And they have to know the difference between a carrot and a stick.

[Matt]

Well unless I see some major changes in who gets put in front of us I will vote as I did in 08... "Mickey Mouse in 2012" ... Go Mickey.... I bet he could do a better job....


Matt

[teamnelson]

Were you referring to the late Adm Cebrowski, appointed by Rumsfeld to the Office of Transformation? If you have some interesting links about him, i'd appreciate it.

[scootrd]

I think the best up and comm-er the Republicans have  is Congressman Paul Ryan Wisconsin.
But that's just my opinion. I'd like to see him run for President some day.

[teamnelson]

You seem to underplay arab-moslem concern with Palestinians and israeli's mechanations towards erzatz isreal...indeed, they do not have same impressions as you do.....whole area could explode...

Not underplaying anything; two wrongs don't make a right. The conclusion of the report is wrong - the actionable item briefed to higher is wrong. They did not ask the question why, and that's wrong. Not the fact that Muslims are upset about Palestine - thats true.

The area is going to explode ... that's my disagreement, not underplay-ment ... its looking for an excuse. Not the other way around. The commitment to Iraq's failure to maintain stability is entrenched in the culture. The commitment to Afghanistan's failed nation status is entrenched in the culture. The commitment of the muslim world to always blame Israel for everything wrong or evil in the world is entrenched in the culture. What Mullen and Petraeus continually miss, because like the rest of the intelligensia they believe they know better, is that culture matters.

I took my Dad to the Arizona memorial today ... do you remember the mistake Japan made? The masterminds behind striking the US believed that it would make us afraid to engage in Asia, so they could continue to seek access to resources from their neighbors at the point of a bayonet. Except for one Admiral, who had studied at UCLA, who made the famous comment about waking a sleeping giant. Japan believed they understood our culture, because they looked at us through the lens of our culture and figured everyone thinks like them. Its called ethnocentrism. Mullen, Petraeus ... the Bushs, Obama, and far too many others ... cannot fathom that the world does not see things like them. So our efforts in Israel, and the Middle East, and Africa, and Asia, and Europe ... do not produce the results we seek. The passage of the HC bill did not get a rousing standing ovation from America as Pelosi and Obama expected. Why? Because culture matters, and we do not all share the same culture. If you seek to influence another culture, never ever assume they see things they way you do. Men and women are still trying to figure that one out if the divorce statistics tell us anything.

[ironglow]

  TeamNelson;
  A "thumbs up" to you all the way around.. From my years in the military (and you have more), I don't look at field grade officers the same way I do at other officers and enlisted personnel. True, most field grade officers are doing their job well and not trying to expand their influence, but there is a select group who have eyes on the political field and are playing the "political correctness" game to the hilt.
  For instance, the Navy Seals being tried in Iraq today, for allegedly smacking a captured terrorist/murderer..that situation should never have gone beyond battalion level, much less brigade!
...But here it is, blown into an international case !
       The surge in Iraq worked well because it was still conducted as warfare..perhaps before his name was hitting headlines daily, Gen Petraeus was more concerned with doing his military job, rather than pursuing any political games.
   Some months ago. He warned that casualties in Afghanistan would increase at a steeper rate than had been the case in Iraq. Hmmmm.
  That was just before he brought out the new "rules of engagement", which most in tune to today's military understand...and understand are rules which in reality, trades our troops lives for Afghan lives. Unlike many of us, I guess he figures that to be a fair trade !

    Most Generals do not try to make political/foreign policy statements while still in uniform..but not Gen Petraeus ! We should consider this as a stroke of good news however, since he has tipped his hand and we are forearmed.
   
  The general appears to have it in for Israel..which should cost him millions of non-muslim votes.
  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/17/report_petraeus_warns_joint_chiefs_of

[ironglow]

  As if to add insult to injury, after declaring his antipathy to Israel..he writes a pollitical suggestion to Washington that he be put in charge of the West Bank area and it's settlements. Talk about igniting a powder keg; that sure doesn't seem like sound strategic thinking !

  http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

[teamnelson]

TM7, you clearly prefer any answer that suits your presupposition best. Have fun!

[BBF]

.

............... What Mullen and Petraeus continually miss, because like the rest of the intelligensia they believe they know better, is that culture matters.

 ..........................Mullen, Petraeus ... the Bushs, Obama, and far too many others ... cannot fathom that the world does not see things like them...................... If you seek to influence another culture, never ever assume they see things they way you do. Men and women are still trying to figure that one out if the divorce statistics tell us anything.
[/quote]

Absolute true and very well put.

[teamnelson]

TM7, you seriously do not pay attention to my posts, and spend more time reading into or reading between the lines than you should.
This thread is on whether or not Petraeus is presidential ... not whether or not I believe in a zionist conspiracy or see any relations with Iran. That I can stay on topic in a thread should not be an indication to you that I am avoiding or underplaying any other subject, related or otherwise.

Petraeus issues something called the Rules of Engagement, which would be a good point of research for you. Specifically why the ROE is the way it is. Its tied to strategy. What could the strategic ramifications be of placing indigenous peoples (who are ill equipped, ill trained, and not really motivated) in charge of defending the lives of American troops? And I do mean literally? So when Petraeus talks about Israel/Palestine and its affect on the safety of American lives, you need to perform due diligence and validate that claim. He changed the ROE - why?

The threat only increases when we are not in charge of our own security, when we are not allowed to operate under traditional ROE for troops in combat. 2 excellent officers and 1 amazing Corporal would be alive today, and one of the best SgtMajors in the USMC would have his legs still (and that's just what I know of) under the traditional ROE. But because we are kissing up to the Arab world - not interacting as peers with mutual respect, but literally fawning over them - we put them in charge of security, and deferred to their culture.

So if Petraeus really cared about American lives he would in fact repeal the current ROE and enforce one more conducive to combat. But that would definitely put him at odds with his masters ...

So answer for me why Petraeus, Mullen and others are distancing themselves from zionist Israel ... and I mean really? You're good at digging deeper ... look deeper on this and don't just use the "because they're Jews" response; unlike others, I don't think that's what you're really about. I'm not necessarily opposed to that movement if its part of a larger strategy to put us on equal footing with the rest of the world, but we moved from one subservient relationship to another (Muslim World). What do we possibly have to gain from placing the worlds most powerful nation at the beck and call of the most repressed tribal cultures in history? And why is Petraeus so willing to endanger the lives of American troops needlessly to make them happy?

[teamnelson]

We shall see in time, but the muzzies are the least of your worries.....

Yep. I've said this before.

Explosion of hostilities are likely. Actual threat of those hostilities to US troops would be mitigated by reversing trend of subordinating American security to our Iraqi and Afghani hosts. Vast majority of contractors never leave the wire.

Petraeus serves himself, the same master Obama & Bush serve.

[teamnelson]

TM7, sorry, I had thought I posted a response from my mobile, but guess it didn't send. Yeah, the Nuremberg principles are interesting, but as you know their applicability and jurisdiction is most often the point of debate, rather than their philosophical value. I tend to stay within the Jus Ad/En Bellum conversations within the US. To whit ... in an article about Fallon (which I would happily send you), the author characterizes Petraeus as a "pleaser" who was very early on identified by the neocons as preferable to Fallon, who had a tendency to speak his mind. Of course Fallon actually was well respected (even liked) by Arab leadership, and was probably mainly if not chiefly responsible for much goodwill that existed between the US and Arab sovereignties (some, not all) prior to and in the early days of the "war on terror." But his contrarian voice was not well received and he was ousted, and his memory cast in shadow. Why? Well because he knew his business, IMO. Petraeus comes along and not only does he live to please, he is philosophically aligned to whichever administration serves his purpose, and ... to your Nuremberg discussion ... not a strong student of Jus En Bellum (the "right" conduct of war) which also lends itself well to the current administration.

US Military Science/Doctrine has traditionally held that there are 2 ethical conversations that occur relative to war: 1) Is the war Just? Right motive, right justification, right cause ... etc. It is the job of the elected Government as representatives of the people to determine if declaring war in particular is right. This is called Jus Ad Bellum, which you may already know. This is not the a priori discussion of whether war in and of itself is just ... which is the question of crimogening warring against peace. The US has accepted that war is necessary some times, but traditionally we go to great pains to ensure its not entered into lightly.

The 2nd ethical conversation is: 2) How do we wage war "justly" or "rightly", in keeping with the morals of our nation? This is the job of the military to implement and enforce within its ranks. And it covers the questions usually brought up in war crimes trials (Nuremberg), discussions about torture, and the treatment of prisoners, detainee status, etc. In the most recent case of the Seal who was found not guilty, that's an example of the military enforcng Jus En Bellum. I've been party to several such investigations as ethical advisor to the battlefield commander. This is where we keep our honor clean.

The problem with the current and previous administrations, probably starting with Clinton as I observed Bush Sr. to be the last of a kind in this regard, is that they blurred the 2 conversations together. Which is why you have a couple of really dumb ideas floating around today. One example, Bush should be tried for war crimes because the war on terror is unjust. This is trying him for a violation of Jus En Bellum, when what he was involved in was Jus Ad Bellum - two different things. An example from the other end of thr spectrum is that once a war has been declared to be just, then any means necessary to win is okay because the war itself is just. This is fallacious thinking; Jus Ad Bellum does not automatically mean Jus En Bellum occurs. No moral person would agree that a nuclear response to China's sinking of an American fishing boat would be equitable or reasonable. Petraeus' leadership seems characterized by a lack of ethical dialogue, the higher philosophical discussion that serves as a check and balance in the translation of national policy into military strategy, and I think this fits well into his desire to please. I do not think him immoral, but amoral, and that is someone who very likely would commit crimogenic warring against peace were he president.

I appreciate you taking it to a philosophical conversation as that is what is sorely lacking these days. Both sides of the political spectrum have descended to barbarism ... might makes right, or win at any cost ... so what is won may not actually be worth defending. Personally, a moral nation is worth dying for, not an immoral one.