Obama’s Mideast - An autopsy

First topic message reminder :

It seems like an eternity has passed since the Cairo Speech, in which President Barack Obama said he came “to seek a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world,” was delivered a mere five years ago this month.

Half a decade on, Obama’s vision is in shambles. US interests in the Middle East are imperiled as they have not been for half a century. Disrespect of America is rife among those Obama set out to appease, while America’s allies mistrust Obama. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of Americans – including Democrats – have lost faith in his foreign policy, according to a New York Times/CBS poll published this week.

Back in 2009, Obama delivered more than 5,000 words of sweeping generalizations and pretentious declarations, many of which he now surely regrets.

Quoting the Koran, he preached the merits of truth, apologized to Iran for a US-aided coup in 1953, vowed to close the Guantanamo prison, assured Muslims that America is not “a self-interested empire,” cried “Islam is part of America,” derided governments “dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear,” hailed democracy while equivocating that “no system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by another,” insinuated that the Holocaust was the reason for Israel’s existence, compared the Palestinian plight to that of the American slaves, and, to audience applause, demanded an immediate cessation of settlement building in the West Bank.

Obama’s move was already attacked at the time, most notably by Lebanese- born, Middle East expert Fouad Ajami, who incidentally passed away this week.

“I was in Saudi Arabia,” reported Ajami days after the Cairo Speech.

“There was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste.”

Referring to an earlier statement by Obama, that he wanted American- Muslim relations restored to how they were “30 or 20 years earlier,” Ajami noted that Obama’s imagined idyll actually included the Khomeini Revolution, the standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to America’s enemies, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

Still, at the time the damage of Obama’s speech seemed to be mainly to his image, which came across as frivolous. Critics noted that no plan of action was associated with his lecture, no prior coordination occurred with local allies, and no experts were consulted about the likely results of such high-profile rhetoric in societies unaccustomed to American-style public debate.

Now, with events making a mockery of his vow to help Baghdad build its army and “support and secure a united Iraq,” a consensus is emerging in the West that US strategic interests have been seriously damaged, that American diplomacy fell victim to ignorance, arrogance and naivete, and that policy overhaul is imperative – if not for the sake of America’s interests, then at least for the sake of worldwide diplomatic stature.

THE FAILURE of Obama’s diplomacy is climaxing now in Iraq, but his strategic losses began in Egypt.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s appearance this week in Cairo was a trip to Canossa.

Having previously sided with Egypt’s Islamists, and responded to their ouster by suspending aid to the interim government of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Obama’s emissary this week arrived in Sisi’s chambers and sheepishly restored that aid.

It was a belated recognition that the florid rhetoric of the Cairo Speech had little to do with reality, which is embodied in the elevation of Sisi to president of Egypt. And as has happened repeatedly because of his Middle East hyperactivity, Obama ended up buying the damaged goods and paying double the price.

Obama’s original sin with Egypt was the delivery of his ideas through a loudspeaker in then-president Hosni Mubarak’s living room. There are only two possible explanations for this conduct: maybe Obama did or didn’t understand that he was potentially helping unseat one of America’s most loyal allies. If he didn’t understand such an elementary Middle Eastern dynamic, he was in no position to discuss our troubled region’s problems. And if he did understand the risks, he should have considered how his ideas would come across to locals as betrayal.

As it were, Obama’s treatment of Mubarak resulted in Egypt turning to Russia, which gladly agreed to sell Sisi advanced aircraft and missiles.

That was a strategic bonanza Moscow had never dreamed of, considering the superiority of American weaponry that Egypt had been buying ever since its peace treaty with Israel. Obama, in sum, failed to bring Egypt closer to democracy, lost its trust, and eased its way back to Moscow’s bosom.

This failure to understand the most elementary laws of power-play was repeated in Syria, although in a different way. At stake there was not loyalty and alliance, but enforcement. It would have been one thing for Washington to say that it is neutral on Syria, or to remain mum while President Bashar Assad gassed his people. However, to vow to use force and then fail to deliver on the threat indicates that Obama did not merely play the game poorly – he didn’t even know the rules.

Such conduct calls for bad guys throughout the world to do as they please – which is indeed what they did. The first to test Obama was North Korea, when it violated agreements with the US and conducted a nuclear test, incidentally or not, the week before the Cairo Speech. Obama’s failure to respond to such a drastic provocation was registered by autocrats worldwide, from then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who helped Iran survive sanctions, to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who later prowled Ukraine.

The diplomatic inconsistency displayed in Syria was compounded by the ideological inconsistency displayed to its south.

If US policy was to demand democracy in Cairo, then why not make the same demand in Riyadh, Kuwait City and Doha? And if popular upheaval is to win US support, then why not back the Shi’ite majority’s challenge to Bahrain’s pro-Saudi government? Yes, the Middle East is a very complex place, and no one would have demanded that Obama reinvent it. He volunteered to present himself as the region’s reinventor, and the funeral for this pretension is now taking place in Iraq.

THE TROUNCING of Iraq’s American-built army by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s armed forces would have been avoided had Washington thought historically, and acted creatively.

The underlying assumptions of Obama’s policy in Iraq were that international borders are sacred, its army is reliable and its democracy is viable. Yet any student of Middle Eastern history would have told him that Iraq, like Syria and Lebanon, is an artificial country that European colonialists imposed on rival minorities and faiths.

Americans, who by definition superimpose their citizenship on their religious and ethnic backgrounds, find the Iraqis’ inversion of these priorities difficult to understand.

Yet that is the norm in this part of the world, and this mentality is in fact now reshaping Syria, Lebanon and Libya. To distance himself from the colonialist legacy he decried in Cairo, Obama could have embraced Iraq’s organic divides, and supported their building a future around its three major communities’ well-known identities.

Instead, he enshrined the colonialists’ untenable legacy.

A proper reading of Iraq’s American-led democratization would have led to the conclusion that dissolution is effectively the will of the Iraqi people, considering that they voted, and their politicians ruled, according to sectarian priorities. That is also why the Iraqi army unraveled. Handing Sunni conscripts nice uniforms and new guns did not make them feel closer to those who dressed and armed them than to the tribe and faith that defined them.

IT IS NOT TOO LATE to redefine Washington’s Middle Eastern policy. But it must first ask what its overriding interest in this part of the world actually is.

The Middle East has been, over the centuries, many things to many powers. For Alexander the Great, it was a bridge between civilizations.

For the Ottomans, it was an imperial center of gravity. For the British, it was the passage to India. For US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was an oil field. For the Cold War’s protagonists, it was a wrestling arena. For US president Bill Clinton, it was a peacemaker’s Gordian knot. And for his two successors, it became a field of dreams.

Now, the dreaming is making way for sober watchfulness.

America has only one enemy in the world, and it is not autocracy – it is Radical Islam. Rulers like Putin, Sisi or Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah are bad for their people, but they don’t target America.

Islamism does.

It follows that in the Mideast, the US should play with those who are strong and pragmatic, and focus on confronting the fanatics – be they Sunnis in Mosul and Gaza, or Shi’ites in Beirut and Tehran.

Judging by its acceptance of Sisi, the White House is now beginning to understand this.

The next logical step is therefore to accept Iraq’s and Syria’s dissolution, cultivate the Kurdish Regional Government, accept the emergence of a Shi’ite state in southern Iraq, and help Jordan and Turkey shape a Sunni state between western Iraq and eastern Syria.

No, this will not be panacea.

Western values will remain on foreign to them, and Western interests will still require struggle. However, the struggle’s aim will be clear, and its prospects vastly improved.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/168562/obama-s-mideast-an-autopsy.html

Tommy Monk wrote:I can't stand George bush.

Wise choice, that. As long as you are hating American conservatives, you should include Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney. They were the ones who directed the mission away from anything remotely related to 9/11, and focused on simply taking Iraq...the Neo Con mission.

Tommy Monk wrote:But I'm sure the security services were looking for bin laden before Obama took office.

All you are doing here is highlighting the incompetence of the Republicans. They start a war and then don't know what to do with it. They point to al Qaeda and UBL to rally support, but then end up with a war without a purpose.

Republicans can beat up on tiny third-world nations, sure enough, but they can't even find, let alone capture the one bad guy responsible. This is over a period of eight years. Groundwork, my ass...it's incompetence plain and simple.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I can't stand George bush.

Wise choice, that.  As long as you are hating American conservatives, you should include Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney.  They were the ones who directed the mission away from anything remotely related to 9/11, and focused on simply taking Iraq...the Neo Con mission.

Tommy Monk wrote:But I'm sure the security services were looking for bin laden before Obama took office.

All you are doing here is highlighting the incompetence of the Republicans.  They start a war and then don't know what to do with it.  They point to al Qaeda and UBL to rally support, but then end up with a war without a purpose.  

Republicans can beat up on tiny third-world nations, sure enough, but they can't even find, let alone capture the one bad guy responsible.  This is over a period of eight years.  Groundwork, my ass...it's incompetence plain and simple.

Good evening Quill.

There's been a rumour circulating for years which claims that after 9/11 & while Bin Laden was in Afghanistan,he & his group of henchmen were being closely followed by the SAS.Apparantly,they requested permission to engage him including his acolytes & a kill was certain.

Permission was sought from Downing Street but was refused following consultation with the White House as they wanted him killed by US special forces......Who were unable to muster a team quick enough.

That's incompetence plain & simple.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Wise choice, that.  As long as you are hating American conservatives, you should include Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney.  They were the ones who directed the mission away from anything remotely related to 9/11, and focused on simply taking Iraq...the Neo Con mission.



All you are doing here is highlighting the incompetence of the Republicans.  They start a war and then don't know what to do with it.  They point to al Qaeda and UBL to rally support, but then end up with a war without a purpose.  

Republicans can beat up on tiny third-world nations, sure enough, but they can't even find, let alone capture the one bad guy responsible.  This is over a period of eight years.  Groundwork, my ass...it's incompetence plain and simple.

Good evening Quill.

There's been a rumour circulating for years which claims that after 9/11 & while Bin Laden was in Afghanistan,he & his group of henchmen were being closely followed by the SAS.Apparantly,they requested permission to engage him including his acolytes & a kill was certain.

Permission was sought from Downing Street but was refused following consultation with the White House as they wanted him killed by US special forces......Who were unable to muster a team quick enough.

That's incompetence plain & simple.

And unfortunately untrue.  As the suspected hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, the White Mountains (Safed Koh) were the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.  After UBL left Tora Bora in December, the coalition had no idea where he was.  

The contact to which you allude is mentioned in this passage:

Wiki wrote:It was also reported that in 2007, U.S. intelligence [based upon British intelligence] suspected that Osama bin Laden planned to meet with top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders at Tora Bora prior to the launch of a possible attack in Europe or the United States. Despite a commando operation that killed dozens of militants, bin Laden was not found.

The fact that the Brits had to seek permission from the White House in order for the commando raid in search for UBL is testimony to what pussies the Brit SAS had become.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but they participated in the incompetence every bit as much as Bush.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Quill.

There's been a rumour circulating for years which claims that after 9/11 & while Bin Laden was in Afghanistan,he & his group of henchmen were being closely followed by the SAS.Apparantly,they requested permission to engage him including his acolytes & a kill was certain.

Permission was sought from Downing Street but was refused following consultation with the White House as they wanted him killed by US special forces......Who were unable to muster a team quick enough.

That's incompetence plain & simple.

And unfortunately untrue.  As the suspected hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, the White Mountains (Safed Koh) were the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.  After UBL left Tora Bora in December, the coalition had no idea where he was.  

The contact to which you allude is mentioned in this passage:

Wiki wrote:It was also reported that in 2007, U.S. intelligence [based upon British intelligence] suspected that Osama bin Laden planned to meet with top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders at Tora Bora prior to the launch of a possible attack in Europe or the United States. Despite a commando operation that killed dozens of militants, bin Laden was not found.

The fact that the Brits had to seek permission from the White House in order for the commando raid in search for UBL is testimony to what pussies the Brit SAS had become.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but they participated in the incompetence every bit as much as Bush.

the SAS pussies??

sure pal

they taught your SF guys everything they know

the fact that you are so obsessed with judging the men on the ground by the standards used against politicians is rather sad and shows how stupid you are

even the men who went for OBL needed white house permission before they went in you idiot

The SAS are pussies? that's one of the most stupid remarks I have heard on here,by some one whose own army is crap.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Quill.

There's been a rumour circulating for years which claims that after 9/11 & while Bin Laden was in Afghanistan,he & his group of henchmen were being closely followed by the SAS.Apparantly,they requested permission to engage him including his acolytes & a kill was certain.

Permission was sought from Downing Street but was refused following consultation with the White House as they wanted him killed by US special forces......Who were unable to muster a team quick enough.

That's incompetence plain & simple.

And unfortunately untrue.  As the suspected hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, the White Mountains (Safed Koh) were the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.  After UBL left Tora Bora in December, the coalition had no idea where he was.  

The contact to which you allude is mentioned in this passage:

Wiki wrote:It was also reported that in 2007, U.S. intelligence [based upon British intelligence] suspected that Osama bin Laden planned to meet with top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders at Tora Bora prior to the launch of a possible attack in Europe or the United States. Despite a commando operation that killed dozens of militants, bin Laden was not found.

The fact that the Brits had to seek permission from the White House in order for the commando raid in search for UBL is testimony to what pussies the Brit SAS had become.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but they participated in the incompetence every bit as much as Bush.

Quill....your information is incorrect.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And unfortunately untrue.  As the suspected hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, the White Mountains (Safed Koh) were the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.  After UBL left Tora Bora in December, the coalition had no idea where he was.  

The contact to which you allude is mentioned in this passage:



The fact that the Brits had to seek permission from the White House in order for the commando raid in search for UBL is testimony to what pussies the Brit SAS had become.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but they participated in the incompetence every bit as much as Bush.

Quill....your information is incorrect.

I don't think so, smels. It's spot on.

The SAS has deteriorated, as have the US Army Special Forces. The best in the field are the Navy SEALS and US Marine Recon, who work together (Marines being a division of the Navy). While your boys, harkening to the Bush Administration, ran around looking for their tails, your government was busy kissing the ass of the Republican administration.

It took the Democrats, and the SEALS, to uncover and bring down UBL. We always have to clean up after a Republican administration.

I know it hurts to realize that the once vaunted SAS is now so second-rate, but that's what your Conservative austerity moves have done. The military is the biggest guzzler of cash in any government. Did you think you could only screw the poor?

What a total load of bollocks from someone who knows fcuk all about the SAS, our lads tought your wankers what it means to be THE BEST!!

How old are you, nicky? Times change. The SAS was big in WWII.

You can see how old I am if you look, I think the SAShave done quite a lot since ww2 or don't you read the papers or watch tv.I wont list all they have done because there is not enough room, anyway our special forces don't boast about it, unlike yours!!

Original Quill wrote:How old are you, nicky?    Times change.  The SAS was big in WWII.

Disagree, they have done plenty Quill after WW2 and after the Iranian embassy siege, it was this even more this that capitalized the SAS to be sought after around the world even by the Americans themselves to form Delta Force based off the SAS model. Where America got burnt of Iran with Carter, it was humiliated, and the SAS was seen by many nations as the best in the world to trains their elites and bodyguards

nicko wrote:You can see how old I am if you look,  I think the SAShave done quite a lot since ww2 or don't you read the papers or watch tv.I wont list all they have done because there is not enough room, anyway our special forces don't boast about it, unlike yours!!

Well, my complaint is not with your SAS. This isn't about tactics, but policy. Your government tied the SAS to mediocrity by virtue of playing puppy dog to the American Republican administration.

I'm merely saying when the Democrats took over in the US, the mediocrity stopped over here. Now, here's hoping the same happens over there.

PS your Delta Force and your SEALS came to the Brecon Beacons In Wales to train with the SAS, not one of them could finish the course.

nicko wrote:PS  your Delta Force and your  SEALS came to  the Brecon Beacons In Wales to train with the SAS,  not one of them could finish the course.

One who served with the SBS did and won an award for action with the SBS, who are seen as even more better than the SAS in Afganistan at battle for Qala-I-Janghi.

I don't let anyone run down the British Military, I served a total of 25 in service, 4 in the Australian Army [with really tough blokes] the rest in the British army,3rd Battalion The Parachute Reg; There no other army as good as ours.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Quill....your information is incorrect.

I don't think so, smels.  It's spot on.

The SAS has deteriorated, as have the US Army Special Forces.  The best in the field are the Navy SEALS and US Marine Recon, who work together (Marines being a division of the Navy).  While your boys, harkening to the Bush Administration, ran around looking for their tails, your government was busy kissing the ass of the Republican administration.

It took the Democrats, and the SEALS, to uncover and bring down UBL.  We always have to clean up after a Republican administration.  

I know it hurts to realize that the once vaunted SAS is now so second-rate, but that's what your Conservative austerity moves have done.  The military is the biggest guzzler of cash in any government.  Did you think you could only screw the poor?

navy seals and marine recon??

  

your navy seals are just the same as standard royal marine recce troop, they have better kit but dont do much of a different job

its only seal team 6 or whatever they call themselves now that do the dirty jobs

your marine recon is the same as our old BPT, they are good make no mistake but they aren't SF

US SF are probably on the same level as SAS/SBS only now and only because they have worked so closely together and been elevated by the British SF

you can keep dreaming quill, but ive worked with your military and im not impressed

you have the numbers and the tech but that's all

we have a saying in the british forces to describe the yanks - "all the gear no idea"

All the gear, no idea. spot on smelly.

He watches too many war films where all battles are won by yanks!

nicko wrote:All the gear, no idea. spot on smelly.

its not all of them though

dont get me wrong i do like the yank forces and think some of the way they do stuff is good, but overall i dont rate them, i think they rely too much of their resources and technology as an alternative to good soldiering

the brits on the other hand dont have the tech or the resources or the manpower to waste and therefore are forced to be good soldiers

the crackpipe quill is sucking on must be going into meltdown if he thinks seals and marine recon are anywhere near the equivalent of the SAS/SBS

Oviously the SAS guy wins

There's a basic misunderstanding in the question, D:

The SAS are NOT the UK's equivalent of the Navy SEALs.
The SAS are the UK equivalent of Army, not Navy, Special Forces.

Although the SAS do include small units of amphibious warfare specialists, the UK's Royal Navy Special Forces are the SBS: the Special Boat Service.
These guys would be the UK's closest SEAL-equivalent unit.

The vast majority of SBS come from the Navy's Royal Marine Commando regiments - the originators of the Green beret, and the unit with the longest basic training course of any in the world. So they're already pretty hardcore before they're even considered for the SBS.

The SBS have been among the most active covert operations units since World War II... yet they have remained one of the most secretive.

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boa...

And some operational details:
http://www.specialboatservice.co.uk/sbs-...

Hope that helps!

nicko wrote:He watches too many war films where all battles are won by yanks!

...and you got the cheek to claim I'm an ass kisser Nicko, at least I would never be a rabid RW racist little ass kisser like you, and for all the dirty stuff the US has done over the years, the British have equalled it, both countries used slaves, especially Africans and treated them despicably....

Lets not pretend the British have been any better Nicko.

EVERY post you make shows you up as an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about . That last post proved it. Go away and come back when you grow up a bit.

Joy Division wrote:

nicko wrote:He watches too many war films where all battles are won by yanks!

...and you got the cheek to claim I'm an ass kisser Nicko, at least I would never be a rabid RW racist little ass kisser like you, and for all the dirty stuff the US has done over the years, the British have equalled it, both countries used slaves, especially Africans and treated them despicably....
Lets not pretend the British have been any better Nicko.

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-arab-slave-trade-and-200-million-non-Muslim-slaves-of-all-skin-colors/



A friend of mine was from zanzibar, mother black, father Arab, and he said his family made their money in the slave trade years ago....

The British were the main instigators in bringing an end to the slave trade, but you knew that didn't you???

While in 3rd world countries the slave trade still exists....

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Quill....your information is incorrect.

I don't think so, smels.  It's spot on.

The SAS has deteriorated, as have the US Army Special Forces.  The best in the field are the Navy SEALS and US Marine Recon, who work together (Marines being a division of the Navy).  While your boys, harkening to the Bush Administration, ran around looking for their tails, your government was busy kissing the ass of the Republican administration.

It took the Democrats, and the SEALS, to uncover and bring down UBL.  We always have to clean up after a Republican administration.  

I know it hurts to realize that the once vaunted SAS is now so second-rate, but that's what your Conservative austerity moves have done.  The military is the biggest guzzler of cash in any government.  Did you think you could only screw the poor?

Quill.you need to keep on taking the pills love.That's because your latest post does not relate to what we were discussing.

You appear to have difficulty with remaining on topic......Is it an age thing? Early signs of dementia maybe?

Read my earlier post.....'read it' & then respond accordingly if you can.

Dear,dear.Some people on this forum need to be in a care home.

Shady wrote:

Quill.you need to keep on taking the pills love.That's because your latest post does not relate to what we were discussing.

You appear to have difficulty with remaining on topic......Is it an age thing? Early signs of dementia maybe?

Read my earlier post.....'read it' & then respond accordingly if you can.

Dear,dear.Some people on this forum need to be in a care home.

You are half-right, Shady. I believe I already mentioned that the issue is with policy, not tactics or tactical units such as the SAS. But you Brit RW'ers think with your dicks, not your minds, so that went way over your heads.

I have no idea which earlier post you mention, because y'all were so busy defending the size of your dicks that the original intent of the thread was lost. We had to wait the muscle-heads out before returning to the subject.

But if you are through with your collective hard-on for knives, spears and grenades, maybe we can get back to policy. Now, where were we: (1) UBL started this latest round by the events of 9/11; (2) RW'ers the world over were totally impotent in finding UBL, let alone killing him; (3) RW'ers chased around like the Keystone Kops looking for 10-years, looking for UBL and found nothing; (4) finally, at last, a thinking LW administration comes into power in the US, and the acts of cleaning up the mess(es) start; (5) said thinking LW administration ends the crisis started by RW'ers on Wall Street, end crises in Banking industry by re-imposing safeguards created by the Great Depression, averting next Depression, start pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan that were the result of the RW dickheads of the Republican administration, reverse the turn in business in the world by posting record stock market soars, reversing the depression by adding to jobs and the economic upturn in employment, bringing unemployment down to about 6%, created and established a wildly popular healthcare program in America...and captured and killed UBL.

Obama's image deserves to be carved on Mt. Rushmore.

But what I really like about Obama is his agility on the chessboard.  He is a genius.

Given the McConnell/Boehner doctirine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power), Obama can depend on the Republicans doing nothing.

Ergo: he can propose any sort of measure to Congress, confident in the fact that it won't be done.  Imagine the prospects that gives him.  If he proposes LW proposals that are popular with the general public (eg, employment, immigration) he can blame the RW for the unpopularity of government measures; or, if he proposes RW proposals that are popular with the RW (eg, more wars and military intervention), he can depend on them not getting done.

I tell you the man is a genius.

Original Quill wrote:But what I really like about Obama is his agility on the chessboard.  He is a genius.

Given the McConnell/Boehner doctirine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power), Obama can depend on the Republicans doing nothing.

Ergo: he can propose any sort of measure to Congress, confident in the fact that it won't be done.  Imagine the prospects that gives him.  If he proposes LW proposals that are popular with the general public (eg, employment, immigration) he can blame the RW for the unpopularity of government measures; or, if he proposes RW proposals that are popular with the RW (eg, more wars and military intervention), he can depend on them not getting done.

I tell you the man is a genius.

such a genius he chose to be born black

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But what I really like about Obama is his agility on the chessboard.  He is a genius.

Given the McConnell/Boehner doctirine (shut down the government until a Republican is in power), Obama can depend on the Republicans doing nothing.

Ergo: he can propose any sort of measure to Congress, confident in the fact that it won't be done.  Imagine the prospects that gives him.  If he proposes LW proposals that are popular with the general public (eg, employment, immigration) he can blame the RW for the unpopularity of government measures; or, if he proposes RW proposals that are popular with the RW (eg, more wars and military intervention), he can depend on them not getting done.

I tell you the man is a genius.

such a genius he chose to be born black

Yes, brilliant isn't he? The rub that keeps on rubbin 'em...

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

such a genius he chose to be born black

Yes, brilliant isn't he?  The rub that keeps on rubbin 'em...

have you ever thought about getting his face tattooed onto your face??

then you can pretend to be inside him all the time

is this you quill??

Don't go for tats, smels. Obama is a smooth thinker, a great speaker, and as a tactician he runs circles around the RW.

One of the most intelligent and saavy presidents we've had. You'd be a fan too, if y'all had such a good candidate.

see above for great speaker

  

smelly_bandit wrote:

3:24 is a doozy

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, the West in general, and America in particular were targeted by the jihadist movements. Some consisted of Al‑Qaeda and the Taliban, and others consisted of a different type of jihadism: the Iranian regime.

At the time of the USSR's collapse, the American public knew about Iranian and Hezbollah threats. There had been attacks on American targets since the early 1980s -- such as those in Beirut, Lebanon, and the Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia -- by America's Iranian "allies."

What Americans did not know much about, however, were jihadist Salafi movements – even after two declarations of war by Osama bin Laden: the first in 1996, and again in 1998. If Bin Laden's first declaration of war was not clear, his second statement was -- a 29‑minute‑long speech in Arabic, publicized on Al Jazeera.

The next day I thought, "Surely the President of the United States is going to rush to Congress and say, 'We are at war with Al‑Qaeda.'" But it did not happen that way. What did happen was that the New York Times, on page 7,000, said there was a Saudi dissident who declared war against America. The newspaper had its own explanation: "He is a Saudi dissident. He is frustrated with the Arabian royal family. He is a reformer, and he is really not happy with us backing that regime."

That was also the explanation given at the time by the Middle East Studies community in American universities. American scholars looked upon the jihadists who came back from Afghanistan as frustrated, disenfranchised, and then they criticized -- themselves.

What we have as foreign policy today, in blaming America for everything,was actually the stance of academia in the 1990s.
Classroom to Newsroom

It was stunning to see, coming to this country, that members of the U.S. academia were not informing their students about reality, especially about who these jihadist movements are and their goals. When, in 1998, bin Laden finally declared a war against Jews, Christians, crusaders, infidels, and Americans, the reaction in the mainstream media was... almost no reaction.

But people in the media are produced where? In the classroom. They graduate, then go from the classroom -- to the newsroom. Graduates then also find their way into -- the courtroom. This pattern reveals why we also have judges who do not understand how to distinguish jihadists from non‑jihadists. The problem, however, does not end in the classroom or the newsroom or the courtroom. It eventually ends up in the war room.

This was a war of ideas and our entire elite had been misinformed, miseducated and misled on the forthcoming terror.
Minorities Rise in the Middle East

The 1990s also bore witness to the rise of civil society in the Middle East. People saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and understood the liberation of Eastern and Central Europe. In the late 1990s, I began to look at websites and deal with NGOs. In Beirut, I had a magazine, Mashrek International. [Mashrek means "The East."] That magazine, founded in 1982, focused on the struggle of these minorities.

The first type of civil society that arose basically consisted of marginalized minorities who were bringing to light the issues facing ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East. [1] There was a world of minorities moving -- pushing back against both oppressive regimes and against jihadi regimes.

While examining these ethnic and religious minorities, we found other segments of society that were also frustrated and suppressed, such as women in the Middle East and the youth.

What had made these minorities more visible was technology.

On the eve of 9/11 -- the end of the 1990s and into the next decade -- the internet had become available to more and more people, so more writings about these changes were becoming available, along with the ideas of the people writing them.

Immediately after the attacks of 2001, the few who were working on this problem were called upon by members of Congress to "come up with answers."
Looking for Moderates

Most will remember that after 9/11 there were many questions. One was, "Where are the moderates?" Others included, "Where are the anti‑jihadists? Why don't they express themselves?" My argument at the time was that we needed to "meet them halfway." That experiment had been tried in Sudan and Lebanon, when I had worked with the administration on UN Resolution 1559, passed by the Security Council, to ask the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon. But by 2010, a lot had changed in the Middle East. Civil societies had reached a level of intolerance regarding their suppression.

By early 2010, civil societies -- youth and minorities and all of those who are anti‑jihadist in the region -- saw several developments which, ironically, prepared them for both the good news and the bad news that came from the Arab Spring. First, when the U.S. brought down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (we can have a long discussion if this move was "good" or "bad," move, but that is irrelevant here), and its military was able to maintain a status quo -- meaning that we were not militarily defeated in Iraq or Afghanistan, although we would eventually assure defeat by withdrawing from both -- the real question became: "What do we leave behind us? Who do we leave behind us? Who will replace us and continue confronting the terror forces?"

When the Taliban was removed, not everything in Afghanistan turned rosy.

We do not have a democracy in Afghanistan. But in the eyes of many other people in the Middle East, instead of the Taliban, there is now a parliament where women are allowed. To us, this change is not significant. But to those in these societies, that change is most significant.

In Iraq, instead of having one political party, that of Saddam Hussein, we have now a parliament where people choose among multiple political parties, maybe even throwing shoes at each other. Iraq has changed, and is changing.
Two Revolutions Before the "Spring"

Two more events were going to convince many youths in the region that they needed to act. One was the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005, when from 1.5 to 1.8 million people took to the streets of Beirut. They were nonviolent; they were from diverse communities; they included many women; they represented many languages. But there was one desired outcome: To get the Syrians out of Lebanon.

This revolution became known there as the Texting Revolution, after the mobile phone text messages that allowed one million people to come together.

The Cedar Revolution may not have been successful -- Hezbollah continues to control Lebanon. But four years later, in Iran, came the Green Revolution. Another two million people took to the streets. The numbers were revealing: 60% of those who demonstrated were under the age of 20. The regime understands what that means. The future was rising up. These were not senior citizens demonstrating, nor the allies of the Shah. These were people who were born two regimes after the Shah. One‑third of those under-20-demonstrators were girls and women, at least in the first few days of the revolution. Of course, when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard took to the streets against them, they fled.

That revolution was known as the Twitter revolution. Without the means, there can be no mobilization. Ideas may be present and strong, but the means and the networking were crucial.
First Waves of the Upheaval

In mid-2010, I wrote a book, The Coming Revolution. When we spoke to, the publisher, he said, "Are you sure? This is a very daring title." I said, "Yes, the revolution is coming. I don't how it is coming or when it is coming. But it is coming." You could read the chat rooms, follow what the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Lebanese, and the Iranians were talking about. They were actually waiting for an opportunity. I thought, perhaps, the revolution might begin in Algeria with the Berbers. One could see that there was a thin wave of civil society that would rise up. It might not be effective, it might not win -- and in the West, especially in America, we have a microwave mentality: it has to be quick, it has to be successful, or it will not be on TV.

There are some rebellions -- efforts at revolution -- that will come and that will not be successful, but even those open the path for a massive change. In Egypt, the Copts would be the trigger. It was, in fact, a Coptic student demonstration in Cairo after a blast against a church that came first. This bold move encouraged the non‑Christian youth in Egypt to begin their own demonstrations. It also triggered a Facebook page highlighting the response in Egypt. In three days, the page got 85,000 "Likes." From those 85,000 Likes, thousands took to Tahrir Square.

When the first waves of revolution hit Tahrir Square, or Tunisia, or Libya, or Syria, there was a moment in which the United States -- if it had had the right leadership or a leadership that wanted to act, or at least a leadership that did not want to partner with the other side -- could have aided the cause of freedom tremendously. If we had sided with civil society, it might have stood a chance.

In 2011, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria -- and Yemen to a point -- were all experiencing revolutions or civil wars. Tunisia changed quickly, but in Egypt, the first 80,000‑100,000 people were in Tahrir Square and they did not leave. That had never happened before.

In Washington and around the United States and the West, many were arguing, "We should stick with Mubarak." My closest friends were telling me, "It's too risky to abandon Mubarak." My view, however, was if the Islamists are the ones who are rising, yes, of course, we will stay with Mubarak, but if members of the civil society are rising, then we had better immediately link up with them so that if we let go of Mubarak, they are not overwhelmed later by the Islamists.
Washington's Wrong Choices

Unfortunately, the administration did just the opposite. So, when those youths took to the streets and the international community said, "Okay, it is acceptable," the Muslim Brotherhood, who were watching, simply waited -- and actually said on Al Jazeera, "We did not go until we made sure that Tahrir Square is protected, that Mubarak is not going to launch his army."

This made sense: the Muslim Brotherhood had a long history of being suppressed by Mubarak. The administration was basically siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. We were watching those demonstrators growing in the tens of thousands. The narrative coming from the White House was, 'We are going to wait and see how this is going to settle down.'"

It was only when members of the Muslim Brotherhood moved from the edges into Tahrir Square and secured themselves as part of this demonstration that the statements changed in the White House and the State Department, and they finally said, "Mubarak, you leave."

The entire administration may not even have known what was happening, but those who are in charge of the Egypt situation or the State Department's Egypt Desk knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted to secure the future leadership of Egypt after Mubarak as one made up mostly of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The same scenario occurred in Libya and Syria, where the situation turned immediately into civil wars -- again because of miscalculations or false calculations from the administration.

In Libya, in the early weeks, secular ex‑Gaddafi bureaucrats, judges, former diplomats, and military men -- and students --rose up against Gaddafi. With them, on their side, were also jihadi Islamist militias, some of whom were actually released by Saif al‑Islam, Gaddafi's son.

In Washington, both the administration and, unfortunately, some members of Congress said, "Well, these are the rebels, so this whole party must be 'the rebels.'" The U.S. did not distinguish, within the rebels, who were the potential partners we needed to work with,and who were the jihadi Salafists.

In Libya, we beat Gaddafi's forces so quickly that the only organized force on the ground was that of the Salafist jihadists. They seized the eastern part of Libya and parts of Tripoli, and that, strengthened by even more forces averse to U.S. interests, is where Libya is today.
Syria's Drama

In Syria, the early waves of revolution that we saw on TV were made of demonstrators from Daraa in the south, to Aleppo and Damascus. So, between March 2011 and January of 2012, we really had a popular uprising. This was a golden opportunity to do something about Syria.

There are sometimes windows of opportunity that if missed, force you to wait for another. The opportunity was there simply because we were in Iraq. By looking at a map, one can understand that by being in Iraq, the U.S. served as a wall, disconnecting Iran from going into Syria. So as long as we and our allies were in Iraq, the Iranian regime was not yet able to connect strategically with the Assad regime.

Also, Hezbollah was not yet heavily inside Syria for the first six to seven months. Al‑Qaeda had not yet penetrated deep into Syria. A better policy would have been to use situation -- even if we might have had to stretch our presence in Iraq a few more months -- to leave Iraq with an ally force and Syria with a non‑Assad regime. Instead, we had to stick with the schedule -- the very political schedule -- of leaving Iraq on December 31 at midnight, regardless of what might happen later.

The Iranians, of course, could and would wait for us to leave. What were they going to do on January first and second and third? Start connecting strategically with the Syrian regime. When the Iranians moved in, Hezbollah moved in. When both moved in, Al‑Qaeda moved in. When everybody was in, that was the end of the civil demonstrations.

Those events take us to 2012, the midst of a presidential campaign: "We do not do foreign interventions." Nobody wants to risk anything unless it will be completely successful in three days and then they can take the credit through to November.

This scenario did not happen. In 2013, once the elections were over, everything in Syria had changed. The map had changed: Iran was in Syria. A short while ago, there was a statement by the head of the al Quds force, the Iranian central force, and the President of Iran, saying, "We cannot leave Syria. We cannot let Assad go."

Hezbollah is also now deeply entrenched in Syria, and Al‑Qaeda has seized, probably, about 40% of Syria's opposition. The Russians -- now even more than before -- have put in their veto, and the Chinese have as well.

Remember when the administration was considering striking Syria for using chemical weapons? That was the final test. We urged Assad, and then we threatened Assad not to cross the red line. He crossed the red line. We ordered our battleships to go -- and then we stopped and asked the Russians to take the problem to the United Nations.

What was behind that, as far as I learned, was that the administration asked the U.S. military and the national security group of analysts, "What is going to happen if we engage or if we strike against the chemical weapons system?" The reports came in: "There is no such thing, in this configuration of forces, as a limited strike." A limited strike in Vietnam did not work, right? We had a 20‑year war against three Communist nations: North Vietnam, China, and Russia. A limited strike in Syria in 2013 or 2014 could mean possible retaliation by four regimes: the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Iraq's Maliki regime, and Iran.

The message was: "President Obama, if you want to do a military strike in Syria, you will be fighting four regimes." In 2011, the U.S. was encircling Assad; he was almost gone. But as soon as the U.S. lifted that option into an agreement with the Assad regime -- which gave Assad every green light he needed to continue his warfare and has actually aggrandized Al‑Qaeda further -- ten or fifteen days later, Washington announced that it had an "interim deal" with Iran.

When the president was considering striking Syria for using chemical weapons, what did he do? He sent that decision to Congress. Since when does a president send his decisions on national security and defense to Congress? But when he cut a deal with the Iranian regime -- after 31 years of the standing U.S. policy, Republican and Democrat alike, of isolating of that regime -- he did not send it for review in Congress.

It seems now, however, that the reason the administration did not strike Syria is not just that it meant engaging those four regimes.

The decision had already been made, a year ago, in the discussions with the Iranian regime, that a deal would be cut with the Iranian regime. If one has a deal to be declared with the Ayatollahs, one is not going to enter a war with the allies of the Ayatollahs. That would kill the deal.
The Administration's Two Tracks

It seems now that the administration, since 2009, had two tracks for its Middle East policy. Track number one, from Morocco to Gaza, would be to partner with the Muslim Brotherhood. On what grounds? Because the academic elite and the advisors for the administration have convinced senior decision makers that the Muslim Brotherhood is a force for "change." This is how the administration sees the Brotherhood. The people of Egypt see the Brotherhood as Fascists, as neo‑Nazis, but to the elite here -- the academic elite -- which, by the way has been generously funded by the Brotherhood, or at least inspired by the petro‑dollars coming under the office of the Brotherhood -- it makes sense that the Brotherhood is a force we can count on. The Brotherhood will secure all of this space, and then civilized business can be done with them, and then they will be secured as a loyal wing.

The other track would run from Beirut to Syria to Iraq to Iran -- if the behavior of the Iranian leadership can be successfully changed.

That these were the current Middle East politics tracks is based on information not hard to find. It is in the papers of the academics who are advising the administration. It is simple to go to the libraries and read what the advisors have been writing for so many decades and then deduce what the current policy is.

These advisors and the pro‑Iranian lobby in Washington are not made only of Iranians, as some of my colleagues believe. They are made of financial interest groups who have been waiting to do business with Iran because for all these years, there has been the idea that if we cut a deal with the Iranian regime, the Iranian regime will stabilize Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Thus the grand design becomes apparent.

And where were the first indicators of that grand design? Look at the 2008 Obama campaign and read what the contributing intellectuals were saying about the Middle East. And then in June of 2009, the president went to Cairo and delivered his speech. Actually, one of the speechwriters went to Egypt and bragged that she was part of the writing of this speech -- and that she has been an advisor in the White House and close to the Muslim Brotherhood. The speech was designed to tell the Muslim Brotherhood that the United States will eventually be changing its policy and that there will be a new day.

All these words were in the speech. The speech was designed not just for the Muslim world, but for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose representatives the White House invited to sit in the front row.

President Obama waves to the crowd attending his June 2009 speech in Cairo. The White House invited Muslim Brotherhood representatives to sit in the front row. (Image source: The White House)

There was also a letter, sent in early June to the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, in which was expressed an intention to engage in dialogue. There is nothing secret about this policy. From the early stages of the administration, there was an approach to partner with the Muslim Brotherhood, even before it came to power, and to unfreeze the relationship with the Iranians.

The Arab Spring seems to have come as a surprise to the administration, although many of my colleagues are now saying the administration was behind the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring caused the administration to scramble in choosing which partners they were going to be working with in North Africa and, of course, later on, in Iran.

The administration did not predict the Arab Spring. When it happened, the U.S. corrected its own policy to meet the partners it really wanted to work and cut a deal with. Now, one of the administration's policies, the partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood, is essentially being dismantled -- not by us, but by the Egyptian people.
Egypt's Real Revolution

On June 30th, 2013, 33 million Egyptians rose up. Many in Washington, especially in the administration, immediately called the change of regime in Egypt a "coup." If 33 million demonstrators are a coup, we have to change political science. No, it was not a coup; it was a revolution. Egypt's General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi or Field Marshal Tantawi or any leader without 33 million people on the streets would have never conducted any change, would never have dared tell Mr. Morsi, "stay at home." They would have been removed immediately; the United States would have called them rebels, and they would have been taken to The Hague. Even before the revolution, there had been a petition signed by 22 million people in Egypt.

In the Middle East studies field, academics have been saying, "But Morsi was elected." Well, Benito Mussolini was elected and Adolf Hitler was elected. Half of the voters for Morsi were simply protest voters against the other candidate, who was a relic from the previous regime. Actually, the number of voters for Morsi was about six million. But 22.5 million signed a petition. That is a recall. If I were Morsi, I would have resigned or asked my government to resign. That is what is done in liberal democracies. Think France. If there is an election in France, and the president loses the majority, what happens? The government changes.

But that is not the whole story in Egypt. Early this year there was a referendum. In international law, the last referendum is the last reflection of what people want. 22.5 million showed up for the referendum and rejected the proposed Muslim Brotherhood constitution. This referendum was what opened the path for presidential elections and parliamentary elections. This is the path Egypt is taking.
Tunisia's Struggle

In Tunisia, the Ennahda party, the Islamist sister-party of the Muslim Brotherhood, was smarter. Its leaders understood what happened in Egypt. The opposition in Tunisia is even stronger. They are also secular. Women in the opposition are strong women. The labor unions are strong. Tunisia is a bit more advanced than Egypt.

It seems that the Ennahda government got advice from Europe and from the U.S. to make concessions, to allow changes, to have a national unity cabinet, and to go again for elections. That saved their skin. Those are smart Islamists. Ennahda did not reform. Ennahda conducted a tactical withdrawal. My recommendation in dealing with Islamists has been that the measure by which you know the Islamists have transformed themselves into something else -- Muslim Conservative, Muslim Democrat, etc. -- is that they declare, within their own party, that they have changed, just as when the Communist Parties declared that they were now Social Democrats. We do not usually believe them, but at least they make these declarations.

Nothing of this sort has happened in Tunisia. And in Syria, every day, it is still just going from bad to worse.
Conclusion

Today the region is still witnessing a race between the Islamist forces and the secularists, moderates and liberals.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been struggling to maintain its influence in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as well as within the Syrian opposition in Jordan and in Iraq.

In the Levant, the Iranian Khomeinists have the upper hand in Tehran, and, through the Baghdad government, in Damascus and in Beirut. In the other camp, a diverse web of NGOs, secularists, women, and minorities are struggling to advance pluralism and democracy.

This race has been affected and will continue to be impacted by Western and U.S. policies and preferences. If Washington continues to give advantage to the Islamists, the Islamists will resist reform, and civil societies will have hard time implementing change toward progress.

But if the U.S. and its Western allies lend their support to civil societies, the culture of reform could take root in the region.

It is my projection that civil societies and secularists will eventually shift the balance of power towards their ideals, but it may be generational. As we see in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, the secularists are pushing forward. In the Iranian-dominated Middle East, opposition is also growing against the Ayatollahs. So far it has been a lost Spring, but this is only one season. Another is coming soon, and we need to be prepared for it.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4377/us-policy-middle-east

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Quill.

There's been a rumour circulating for years which claims that after 9/11 & while Bin Laden was in Afghanistan,he & his group of henchmen were being closely followed by the SAS.Apparantly,they requested permission to engage him including his acolytes & a kill was certain.

Permission was sought from Downing Street but was refused following consultation with the White House as they wanted him killed by US special forces......Who were unable to muster a team quick enough.

That's incompetence plain & simple.

And unfortunately untrue.  As the suspected hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, the White Mountains (Safed Koh) were the location of the December 2001 Battle of Tora Bora.  After UBL left Tora Bora in December, the coalition had no idea where he was.  

The contact to which you allude is mentioned in this passage:

Wiki wrote:It was also reported that in 2007, U.S. intelligence [based upon British intelligence] suspected that Osama bin Laden planned to meet with top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders at Tora Bora prior to the launch of a possible attack in Europe or the United States. Despite a commando operation that killed dozens of militants, bin Laden was not found.

The fact that the Brits had to seek permission from the White House in order for the commando raid in search for UBL is testimony to what pussies the Brit SAS had become.  Believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but they participated in the incompetence every bit as much as Bush.

  

THE BRITISH and other allied forces over there weren't operating as autonomous units...

THEY all took their orders from that General Petraeus, and his predecessors, didn't they ~ who had control of the war zone; and whose job in turn was enacting their political leaders policy statements..

THE SAS and SBS forces in both Britain and it's former colonies remain the standard setters for "special forces" operations everywhere. Even the US Navy Seals in their modern day format were originally based on the British 'SBS' (Marines) squadrons..

"THE BUCK STOPS" with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney and their war cabinet, their 'Big Oil' buddies, and their 'lapdogs' Blair, Howard and company, over this Middle East mess - however anyone wants to spin it after the event.   

smelly_bandit wrote:
It seems like an eternity has passed since the Cairo Speech, in which President Barack Obama said he came “to seek a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world,” was delivered a mere five years ago this month.

Half a decade on, Obama’s vision is in shambles. US interests in the Middle East are imperiled......


THE FAILURE of Obama’s diplomacy is climaxing now in Iraq, but his strategic losses began in Egypt.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s appearance this week in Cairo was a trip to Canossa.................

The next logical step is therefore to accept Iraq’s and Syria’s dissolution, cultivate the Kurdish Regional Government, accept the emergence of a Shi’ite state in southern Iraq, and help Jordan and Turkey shape a Sunni state between western Iraq and eastern Syria....................


No, this will not be panacea.

Western values will remain on foreign to them, and Western interests will still require struggle. However, the struggle’s aim will be clear, and its prospects vastly improved.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/168562/obama-s-mideast-an-autopsy.html

  

THIS Turkish commentator/columnist sounds just a wee bit biased and bigoted there...

AND trying to rewrite recent history to suit his own apparent conservative/Islamist agendas..   

I know, Bee...The so-called failure in Iraq is in having meddled in the first place.  That started a fire that the originators have not been able to put out.

The obvious--only--answer, is to let it burn out.  In 2006 I wrote an opinion piece in which I predicted the only outcome possible was a Sunni-Shiia civil war in the region.  Do I feel sad I was right?  Obviously.  Do I feel vindicated?  Obviously.  This die was cast in 2003, and everything has been inevitable ever since.

BTW, General Petraeus was not instated as Commander until July 4, 2010, and served for only a year and four (4) days.  Admittedly, however, Petraeus is one of the idiots about whom we speak.  The only one with any sense was Gen. Colin Powell, and he voluntarily resigned.