Report: Petraeus wants West Bank, Gaza responsibility

[Scurrilous]

General’s CENTCOM vision may become hot-button issue during testimony on Hill

<snip>

"Though the war in Afghanistan will likely be the primary issue when Gen. David Petraeus testifies Tuesday on Capitol Hill, another hot button issue could emerge: the general’s bid to add the West Bank and Gaza to U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility.

Petraeus requested such a move amid concerns that insufficient engagement in the region is having a negative impact on how the U.S. is viewed in the broader Middle East, the international affairs Web site ForeignPolicy.com reported over the weekend.

"Petraeus’ reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region’s most troublesome conflict," Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel stated.

Currently, the West Bank and Gaza fall under the watch of the Stuttgart, Germany-based U.S. European Command.

On Monday, EUCOM declined to comment on Petraeus’ reported request, referring questions to the Pentagon."

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68705

[Scurrilous]

1. (Sometimes the news takes 9 years) ...

...Petraeus says lack of progress for Palestinians is ‘root cause’ of Arab anger

<snip>

"Gen’l Petraeus’s testimony to Congress this morning:

These factors can serve as root causes of instability or as obstacles to security.

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/sometimes-the-news-takes-9-years-petraeus-says-lack-of-progress-for-palestinians-is-root-cause-of-arab-anger.html

[Jefferson23]

2. Good for him, what are the settlers going to do next, make signs that he

is another agent for the PLO like Obama?

[Scurrilous]

3. Conservatives Who Demanded We ‘Listen To’ And ‘Stand Behind’ Gen. Petraeus Now Disregard Him

<snip>

"When Vice President Biden recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s intention to build thousands of new settlements was undermining U.S. interests in the region, he was reportedly conveying the assessment made by Gen. David Petraeus.

Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry reveals that Biden’s concerns about Israeli behavior endangering American troops stem from a special briefing delivered in January at the Pentagon. On January 16, “team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM),” acting under the orders of CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, presented Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen with a “33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing” outlining the concern that “Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.” The presentation “stunned” Mullen. Perry reports “David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

After the Obama administration publicly aired its concerns, leading conservatives began quickly attacking. House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the administration’s admonishments were “irresponsible” and “an affront to the values” of our relationship with Israel. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) accused Biden of a “double standard,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) claimed that the administration was alienating an ally over a protest over a “zoning decision in its capital city,” and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) effectively told “the White House to be quiet on (the issue).”

While conservatives are currently on the offensive against Petraeus’s concerns today, they thought differently in 2007. As the country was heatedly debating our policies in Iraq, leading conservatives demanded that we listen to Petraeus and agree with the views he advocated:

– Boehner said in the Fall of 2007 that Petraeus has “earned” the right to be listened to. In a statement put out condemning a Moveon.org advertisement criticizing Petraeus, Boehner said, “I call on my colleagues to listen to what General Petraeus has to say. He’s earned it.” (9/10/07)

– Cantor said it was important to show that we “stand behind” Petraeus and his advice on Iraq. During an appearance on PBS’s Newshour, the congressman endorsed the “Petraeus plan for victory” and said that supporting him was a way to “send a message to our troops that we stand behind them.” (3/22/07)

– Brownback called Petraeus an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man.” In a press release lauding President Bush’s appointment of Petraeus as the new top military commander in Iraq, Brownback noted that he knows Petraeus “very well” and that he’s an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man” who “will do a superb job.” (1/5/07)

– Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked their colleagues to “listen carefully” to Petraeus’s advice on Iraq. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in September 2007 titled “Listening To Petraeus” the senators implored their colleagues to “listen carefully” to the General’s advice about how to stablize Iraq." (9/10/07)

more

[Jefferson23]

4. The fight for who loves Israel more is getting interesting, and the

"support the troops" will be redefined perhaps.

[aranthus]

5. What would he do with it if he got it?

What would be the mission? What additional resources would he ask for? Why do we need an enhanced military involvement in the West Bank and Gaza as opposed to political?