How Petraeus could swing thinking on Israel

How Petraeus could swing thinking on Israel

www.salon.com

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of United States Central Command, may or may not have asked to add the West Bank and Gaza to the 4.6 million square miles of land and sea comprising his Area of Responsibility (AOR).

With regard to the plight of the Palestinians, Petraeus says that this is emphatically not the case. Here, he believes, U. S. and Israeli interests diverge -- sharply and perhaps irreconcilably.

(visit the link for the full news article)

How long the United States can tolerate the denial of Palestinian self-determination is one question demanding urgent attention. Yet behind that question there lurks an even larger one: Is the progressive militarization of U.S. policy in the Greater Middle East -- entrusting ever more authority to proconsuls like Gen. Petraeus and flooding the region with American troops -- contributing to peace and stability? Or is it producing precisely the opposite result?

I find it refreshing that even the top US brass is starting to get fed up with Israel's shenanigans. One has to wonder if they are feeling the heat over there, now that even Mommy is refusing to take care of their continued fussing?

www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The latest Petraeus remarks signal much more than just the fact that relations between the USA and Israel are in dire straights. What General Petraeus signals is the one thing many should remember from invading Iraq to get those weapons of mass destruction. As a reminder I will briefly explain.

Right after going into Iraq to get Saddam Hussein and those weapons of mass destruction there was a lot of negative press coverage that Bush and others were having to contend with because while they had a good plan to bomb infrastructure to make Saddam surrender, after we got control of Iraq, there was no plans that had been made in regard to what to do with the Muslim religious indifference and or for rebuilding water plants, electrical stations and the gambit of things that the population needed when we finally got control and were 'In Control".

With so many without shelter, water, electricity, food, medicine and no way to get it, it was felt that too much emphasis had been placed on getting into Iraq but with no planning for taking care of or addressing infrastructure issues that impacted the indigenous population after the war was over.

This lack of planning for infrastructure and what to do to control the many different groups withing the indigenous population after the war became a big DOD issue as a result of all the chaos and trouble that was coming from Iraq because no one had planned that far out to think what came after winning the war.

Well, this latest General Petraeus disclosure actually states that he and others at his level of command are apparently looking at Israel and Palestine as some kind of planning concern that has General Petraeus and others planning away and being open about it.

With this in mind this blatant signal states that someone thinks Israel and Palestine is going to be in need of serious infrastructure planning and what to do with those that survive the aftermath of whatever General Petraeus and others think might happen in the Middle East is apparently what is being planned right in front of everyone to see. At least I can see it and I don't consider myself special. I'm just an average citizen that can see that the DOD is doing some planning for the Middle East and that of course leads me to think, why now, why the Middle East? While I don't berate the effort, it does signal much more to those that are keeping up with current tensions between Israel and the Obama regime.

While tension exists between the Obama regime and Israel, this General Petraeus public statement says much more than what is being discussed in public or in the press.

For those interested in that time frame in the war with Saddam Hussein in Iraq can Google and get plenty of information relative to this planning shortfall that befell US forces in Iraq right after we supposedly won the war. While some will remember of what I speak, others that don't have a clue can get informed by using a search engine and begin reading away.

Anyway, this is my view of this latest press release.

Thanks for the posting.

Mark my words, what we're seeing here is just the next step in trying to get Iran into war.

America doesn't like going into war as the aggressor. Meaning, TPTB don't like the public seeing acts of aggression.

It's a fact, currently, that Israel can not strike Iran without implicating the USA. If Israel was to strike we would have to give clearance. If we give clearance, we're partially to blame as aggressors and Iran can attack us.

Now, if we "move" away from Israel, we can say that Israel didn't have clearance to strike Iran. Iran won't buy this, but the US public will for the most part. Iran tries to attack us, and succeeds, which may or may not be a false flag attack, and tada!

You have Israel and the US at war with Iran, without the US being seen as an aggressor.