 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
October 10, 2008
PETRAEUS ENDORSES TALKING TO U.S. ENEMIES.... One of the few areas of substance that John McCain has engaged Barack Obama on is diplomacy with unfriendly rivals. McCain believes it would serve our interest to give countries like Iran the silent treatment, while Obama, bolstered by most of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, believes the opposite. As it turns out, Gen. David Petraeus spoke to the Heritage Foundation this week and was asked, in reference to a discussion between the presidential candidates, about the utility of diplomacy with rivals. Petraeus said he hoped to steer clear of "domestic politics," but nevertheless said, "I do think you have to talk to enemies.... I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable." Petraeus, as Spencer Ackerman reported, added some caveats, noting that it's "necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors." By any reasonable measure, Petraeus' position is practically identical to Obama's position. Greg Sargent noted the significance of the context: "[T]he question Petraeus was asked was basically the same as him being asked whose views he endorsed when it comes to the two men's very public disagreement. Petraeus' own joke about not wanting to wade into 'a minefield' and his allusion to not getting 'involved in domestic politics' would suggest that that's how he saw the question, too. And Petraeus more or less picked the Obama argument." I'd just add that Petraeus' background on this is highly relevant. As part of his policy in Iraq, Petraeus reached out to Iraqis who were literally responsible for killing Americans. Forget bluster and bravado from guys like Ahmadinejad and Castro; Petraeus negotiated with those who had American blood on their hands, precisely because he kept the bigger picture in mind. And in this sense, McCain's position is even further from the foreign policy mainstream. —Steve Benen 10:18 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)Comments
How far we've fallen when such a statement is controversial or politically loaded. Posted by: Grumpy on October 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKThe republican response will be, "Oh, but he's even lower than the Sec State. Obama said he would conduct the negotiations personally." Posted by: danp on October 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKI wonder how the Gen. Patraeus "fans" on the right will spin this... Posted by: gang green on October 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINKUnlike in Iraq, where the four competing parties may be able to reach some sort of compromise that lets them function as a country, we have no option that will lead to peace in Afghanistan. It's important to remember a little recent history in Afghanistan. When the Soviets left, the warlords, bandits and drug lords that made up the Mujahideen took their private armies with their American-supplied weapons and began to battle for territory. The battles reduced much of what was left of the Afghan infrastructure to rubble. In desperation, the Afghan people turned to the Taliban, who offered a way to end the fighting through Islam. The people didn't like the rule of the Taliban, but at least they weren't living in a war zone. So when the Bush administration decided to to overthrow that Taliban government, who did they decide to ally with? The same warlords that the Afghan people had rejected in favor of the Taliban. And just like the Bush senior did in 1989 when the Soviets left, as soon as President Hamid Karzai was elected president, Bush junior turned his attention elsewhere. Now the Afghan people say that the Karzai government has lost its legitimacy. The Afghan people live in fear because the police forces are more like organized crime. And there is far more than the "accepted amount" of corruption in the Karzai government. So the United States and our NATO allies have no good options. The Karzai government is going to fall, the Taliban is unacceptable and the warlords will return Afghanistan to anarchy and continual violence. We may actually have to stay there for a hundred years before the country is stable. Thanks Dubya. Posted by: SteveT on October 10, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINKRepublicans believe that discussions should be held with Iran only after their capitulation. This makes perfect sense because this strategy has been effective in Republican negotiations with Democrats. Posted by: Nat on October 10, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKPetraeus? Whada hell kinna name is that anaway? Posted by: Michael7843853 on October 10, 2008 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKMan, I wonder how McCain will react when Obama brings this up at the next debate. You know he will, what with McCain having practically sainted Patreaus. The way he talks about him, you wonder why he didn't choose him for VP. Posted by: Kevin on October 10, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINKSo did General Petraeus endorse PRESIDENTIAL level talks with our enemies, without preconditions, which is Sen. Obama's plan... or did General Petraeus endorse the Bush administration's current policy of using the State Department in discussions with enemies of the United States? That's a very important distinction! Posted by: Tony King on October 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINKSo did General Petraeus endorse PRESIDENTIAL level talks with our enemies, without preconditions, which is Sen. Obama's plan... No, it isn't; at least, the "presidential level" bit isn't part of his "plan". That's just a lame face-saving gambit by the McCain campaign after the "without precoditions" objection proved to be buffoonery. Buffoonery you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. or did General Petraeus endorse the Bush administration's current policy of using the State Department in discussions with enemies of the United States, without preconditions? Fixed it for you. As fixed, you can see that Bush has adopted Obama's plan of dropping the asinine preconditions -- it may work in business when you hold the cards, but it was an epic fail when they tried it in doplomacy. That's a very important distinction! No, as I made clear, it's a distinction without a difference. Posted by: Gregory on October 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINKDoesn't this just out Petraeus as a snake who doesn't want his next boss to shit-can him and replace him with a less ambitious guy who will, you know, take orders from his CINC? It's certainly not Petraeus' job to give order to the damned State Department. Sheesh. Posted by: Jon Coit on October 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINKPetraeus? Whada hell kinna name is that anaway? The name is Greek and Greece is situated near Turkey, which has a Muslim population. Muslims, a relgious cult bent on destroying US Freedom. If Turkey is next to Greece, Turkey is a Muslim state, and Muslims hate America, doesn't that make Petraeus a Muslim by association? You betcha! Does Patraeus hate US Freedom? Do you think this would go unnoticed Patraeus? Stop palling around with terrorists. Posted by: Mick on October 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKDoesn't this just out Petraeus as a snake? It's not his job to tell the CINC, President-Elect, or State Department how to do their jobs, and certainly not at some think tank. I read this as "don't fire me, Pres. Obama." Sheesh. He's already made public his ambitions to run for President. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/13/petraeus-president-2/ Posted by: Jon Coit on October 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINKPetraeus is one smart talented general, but he also has thinly disguised political ambitions. Could this in part be positioning for coming post Bush era? Posted by: fafner1 on October 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINKThe big players in the military know which way the wind is blowing here. What we are seeing is the beginnings of the realignment of the CW in military circles in anticipation of an Obama presidency. As everyone favorite Englishman, Sir Winston Churchill once said, 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war.' Bring on the negotiations; they couldn't help but be more helpful than whatever you'd call the 'strategies' taken over the past 8 years. -Z Posted by: Zorro on October 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
