General Petraeus: collection

[slapout9]

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

[davidbfpo]

I was wondering as a non-American observer whether anyone has commented in the US MSM on the implications for the CIA as an internationally active intelligence agency with partners?

Secondly, on the impact of such a resignation as a former general, with a till now intact reputation as a "winner".

Here we know that the CIA and the US military are far more than one man. And realise that human relationships matter, especially when one to one meetings are necessary.

[bourbon]

I was wondering as a non-American observer whether anyone has commented in the US MSM on the implications for the CIA as an internationally active intelligence agency with partners?

Haven't seen any such comments yet, David. I think our partners probably have strong opinions about our secret keeping ability, and this only reinforces such opinions.

I recall reading a book by a Cold War era DGSE chief who held a very poor opinion of the US governments ability to keep something secret.

[Ken White]

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

You're a good cop...

[Polarbear1605]

...the game is afoot...and it smells of all politics...IMO

[carl]

Stop looking at the General and start looking at who benefits and that will lead you closer to the truth.

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

[ganulv]

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

It's like Lenin said, Carl.

[gute]

It's like Lenin said, Carl.

That is funny.

[gute]

Patraeus is the distraction from the real story and that's what was going on at the annex in Benghazi. Was it a spontaneous demostration? A terrorist attack? or a rescue mission? To refer to it as a "flash mob" never made sense to the sensible. What was to be gained by not calling it a terrorist attack? But there is something to be gained by not acknowledging that it may have been a cover for CIA ops. What's to be gained by outing the Patraeus affair? He is still going to testify before Congress. IMO it's timing and never letting a crisis go to waste.

[slapout9]

I am too dense to figure that. What do you mean?

The greatest chemical attack known to man is still.......CHANEL No.5

This is all still unfolding and more will come to light I imagine. But in the meantime the General has essentially been neutralized. No matter if he testifies about Benghazi or run for President in 2016.......he is now damaged goods. This smacks to much like a Political Operation for me to just believe it was spontaneous combustion. The General is a lightening rod and he is drawing and will draw tremendous heat for this. That gives a lot of Political cover for the WH with respect to many items on their agenda.

[carl]

Slap:

Very good. I thought it was mostly revenge and didn't get that this manuvere (sic) has the effect of turning Gen P into a black hole that will draw everything associated with Benghazi into it and make it disappear.

He was a dead man walking the second the FBI found out about this during the summer. They had something that would prove useful and something came up where it could be used. The revenge angle was only a little bit of extra fun they could have while using this for the main purpose.

Ken was right, you is a sharp officer.

[Fuchs]

Whatever officials did against Petraeus is hardly the gist of the story in my opinion.

What's happened is that his rise was tolerated, but considered questionable, by many. He's a public relations genius officer like MacArthur or Rommel, and success-wise rather in MacArthur's league than in Rommel's (who was still a poor strategist, poor logistician and an utter failure as a political person).


Petraeus is falling deep and hard not because he rose so high, but because nobody appears to slow his descent; instead, they appear to accelerate it by distancing themselves from him.
This happens usually to people who rose high with more style than substance. Germany experienced recently how this happened to a federal minister after a quick political rise with lots of good (if not devotional) press.


I therefore second gute's hint about how there are no or few true heroes who deserve as much praise as they get.

[Dayuhan]

I see no need to assume a conspiracy: sometimes people do stupid stuff and sometimes it blows up in their faces. Benghazi was dropping off the headlines and the public radar on its own well before this started; the populace has a short attention span and the media know it.

The story does reveal a few oddities, though... what on earth is an "unpaid social liason", and why does a military base need one?

[Ken White]

The story does reveal a few oddities, though... what on earth is an "unpaid social liason", and why does a military base need one?

Excellent question, scary answer...

Tequila:

I'm not a Petraeus fan or a conspiracy theorist nor a am I a right wing ldeologue. In fact, I believe ideologues on both sides are slightly deranged and Hanlon's razor rules.

Fuchs is right, Petraeus was a self seeker. You're also right; he screwed up (no pun intended). However, while I certainly do not believe that Petraeus is a victim or was set up, I'm cognizant of the fact that a lot of folks in DC play strange games and are quite adept at this: LINK.

As Slapout said, Qui Bono...

A potential threat to one party in 2016 is removed or at least neutered a bit, an outsider is removed from a position of power -- anyone at his level is fair game for many reasons to include nothing more complex than personal jealousy or an over zealous media and our system will pounce on any screw up. That isn't conspiracy theorizing, that's just reality. It's also a feature, not a bug. It helps to keep the system a little honest. Deserved falls from grace are not a bad thing...

[Ulenspiegel]

Whatever officials did against Petraeus is hardly the gist of the story in my opinion.

What's happened is that his rise was tolerated, but considered questionable, by many. He's a public relations genius officer like MacArthur or Rommel, and success-wise rather in MacArthur's league than in Rommel's (who was still a poor strategist, poor logistician and an utter failure as a political person).


Petraeus is falling deep and hard not because he rose so high, but because nobody appears to slow his descent; instead, they appear to accelerate it by distancing themselves from him.
This happens usually to people who rose high with more style than substance. Germany experienced recently how this happened to a federal minister after a quick political rise with lots of good (if not devotional) press.


I therefore second gute's hint about how there are no or few true heroes who deserve as much praise as they get.

The guy who runs Sic Semper Tyrannis and his readers can contribute some details:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s....html#comments

[Fuchs]

At least I have evidence that I didn't fall for his PR:

(Forget about Rommel; he was more a talented self-promoter like MacArthur and Petraeus than a military genius.)

(Too bad; Wayback Machine had not archived it so in theory I might have edited this text. Well, at least google cache has a Nov 4 version, so yes, I did not edit it. )

[Madhu]

....when it's stuff like this, the media chases down every single lead and is insatiable in its curiosity but when it comes to the following:

Was there a foreign government behind the 9/11 attacks? A decade later, Americans still haven’t been given the whole story, while a key 28-page section of Congress’s Joint Inquiry report remains censored.

it is like cricket's chirping except for a few stalwarts?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...11-2011-201108

I am not making a partisan point or falling into conspiracy-mongering or anything of the sort. The very nature of the national security apparatus (think tanks, appointees civilian and military, academics of PhD or whatever variety, journalists, hangers-on, bloggers, tweeters) fascinates and appalls, confuses and disappoints.

11 years and basic questions unanswered, stories about celebrity instead of hard intellectual work and question asking, and even those that saw through the celebrity generals are just as clueless about influence agents that aren't a part of the American scene.

None of which excuses the behavior which is reckless and harmful.


Ugh. What a colossal waste of my time all this reading milblogs etc. has been. I know it's not true entirely but it feels like it.

[jmm99]

ABC News: Petraeus Affair: Who Is Jill Kelley?

A 3-page start on the Khawam sisters, Jill and Natalie.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

A comment from Australia, so slightly tongue in cheek, but points out different standards over time and space.

The bonus is:

Illustrating a more enlightened approach to such matters, I leave you with this Churchill story..

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...-Petraeus.aspx

[Fuchs]

This stuff is becoming entertaining.

I saw graphical presentations of the scandal, with all the social interactions known. The funny thing:

They are growing. A lot.