Tel-Chai Nation

Ruth King interviewed Diana West for Family Security Matters about her problems and disagreements with General David Petraeus. I'm decidedly presenting it here because, although the aforementioned leftard Mark Perry may have been instrumental in distorting info about Petraeus and what he said about Israel, West's argument makes me wonder: did we miss something here?

I guess that's why it's best to let others judge for themselves, and West does have some things to consider, including this:

Why the reticence? I think I know the answer. I've already mentioned some of my thoughts above on counterinsurgency doctrine. Well, Petraeus wrote the book on COIN -- literally. He is the lead author on the COIN manual that has guided the Pentagon in the execution of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iraq in particular being a war that most conservatives and certainly all neoconservatives take immense pride in as a victory for the ages -- another delusional fantasy, in my view (see three part series on whether the "surge" was a success in Iraq here). Some of them have even acted as consultants or architects of this same, again, in my view, utterly disastrous war policy. What I think is impossible for them to face is 1) the possibility that their policy has achieved nothing of lasting value for the United States, and 2) the policy has instead done much to reorient our foreign policy around Arab-Islamic objectives in the COIN pursuit of Arab-Islamic hearts and minds. For what else is the effort, for example, to assuage the "Arab anger over the Palestinian question" as Gen. Petraeus put it to to the US Senate, than the effort to win Arab(-Islamic) hearts and minds?

On the subject of Iraq, she may have a point, which is: if all allied forces could do in Iraq is liberate from its previous tyrant, yet spectacularly fail to confront the problems with Islam itself, and introduce Iraqis to better forms of life, then how can they expect the victory to hold up?

Labels: Iraq, islam, Israel, United States