The Story of David and Antasari

The Story of David and Antasari
by Sando Sasako
Jakarta, 4 February 2017 15.20

Someone becomes big as they say and claim it to be. The buzzwords becomes words of mouth. The media may have exonerated it according to the interests of news anchor, editor, owner towards the scotoma they want to present to the public, the audience. They may be independent or embedded. It can be and is labeled with propaganda as the content is highly one-sided, disguised. You may call it false flag (op).

The media is the one you must sleep with. As you gain the benefits and advantages of what media blows and exaggerates, the media gains the voices that they want people to know. The voices are the ideology that they want to communicate. Ideology comes second after Money in the MICE concept. In Quantico, latest episode, season 2, episode 10, the instructor Owen added the D word, Doubt, in the MICE concept.

Doubt is internally doubt within the group. Doubt can present within the category of integrity, ethics, chain of command, rules of the games. When the parties involved are many, greater, uncounted, unaccountable, there the D word takes the precedence and stand. As there are many parties involved, there are many players, with their own games played and agenda executed.

Signs of inobedience, malign, divertion may have been identified at every steps on/of the way. Clash of words reveals some level of conflicts of interests. Likewise the expressions of the eye, face, nose, lip, body language. The tale. Some dissatisfaction may accumulate the grudges. The enemies within are somewhat easy to handle or hard and difficult to dismantle.

These loose-ends may have retaliated, in no time spared, and/or when the time presents the opportunities. The time comes, particularly, when you think you are safe and in a comfort situation, there the devil is or get in, hops in, sneaking through your backdoor, the unguarded ones, stabbing you, either in the back, or in front of your naked face, blatantly.

The communicator is and shall be considered with many names and labels. Competent, reliable, credible. It is as is. It is as the communicator has its weight. The weight can be the (military) ranks, given jobs and/or assignments, holy tasks. As the title is given, the title can be ripped off, too. As you are no longer entitled to the jobs, assignments, and tasks, what makes you worth?

What makes your voice will be considered? Do you want a justice or some justification? Have you done something just? For the people, the public, or the ones who had paid you? You are a pathetic. You have no leg. You have no root. You are nobody. You let yourself uprooted. You should always have known that justice still depends on the color of one’s skin.

If you think you have some followers, why don’t you grab them, and get yourself bonded. Make your own move. And be consistent about it. The law enforcers, the police, the prosecutors, the judges, and the courts are all part of the world’s most powerful criminal enterprise. Either under the influence or some brainwashing of politicians, religious fanatics, corporations.

Rather to put yourself to the ground and get yourself do the dirty works and jobs, building something from a scratch, you let yourself drowned and sucked into the reigning political party, that will and is burying you alive and get yourself humiliated by yourself. How poor and dumb Antasari Azhar is.

David Betrayus Petraeus is another story to tell. He had been sleeping with the media. He knows the ultimate power of the media. Once you knew how it works, you can get the media manipulated easily.

How you stand, how you speak, what you speak, reveals of who you are, what you are, what you are implying, what you are up to. And everything suddenly becomes an open book.

David Betrayus Petraeus becomes a highly decorated four-star general, , serving over 37 years, in the US Army, Commander of the US CentCom, Commander of the ISAF. Poor short s-licker. I rest my entry. 22.03


19521107, born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York, the son of Miriam (née Howell), a librarian, and Sixtus Petraeus, a Dutch sea captain from Franeker, Netherlands.

20070210-20080916, Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I).
20081013-20100630, the 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM).

First demotion:
20100626, downgraded from Commander of United States Central Command, which oversees the military efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and Egypt.
to Commanding General of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

20100704-20110718, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A)

20110630, Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA by the U.S. Senate 94-0.
20110718, Petraeus relinquished command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
20110831, Retired from the U.S. Army.
20111106, Director of the CIA.
20121109, General Petraeus resigned from his position as Director of the CIA, citing his extramarital affair.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/10/petraeus-scandal-media-military
Petraeus scandal is reported with compelled veneration of all things military
Glenn Greenwald, Saturday 10 November 2012 16.21 GMT

The reverence for the former CIA Director is part of a wider religious-like worship of the national security state.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/9/1352497031529/ecac89eb-fbf7-4ddd-b54e-2acf510d1d6e-460.jpeg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=f03c1788344276d18ebe841ef69371a0
David Petraeus
2011: Holly Petraeus (left) holding a bible as David Petraeus is sworn in as CIA director by Vice President Joe Biden. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

(updated below [Sun.])

A prime rule of US political culture is that nothing rivets, animates or delights the political media like a sex scandal. From Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, and Eliot Spitzer to John Edwards, Larry Craig and David Vitter, their titillation and joy is palpable as they revel in every last arousing detail. This giddy package is delivered draped in a sanctimonious wrapping: their excitement at reporting on these scandals is matched only by their self-righteous condemnations of the moral failings of the responsible person.

All of these behaviors have long been constant, inevitable features of every political sex scandal – until yesterday. Now, none of these sentiments is permitted because the newest salacious scandal features at its center Gen. David Petraeus, who resigned yesterday as CIA Director, citing an extramarital affair.

It has now been widely reported that the affair was with Paula Broadwell, the author of a truly fawning hagiography of Petraeus entitled “All In”, and someone whom Petraeus, in her own words, “mentored” when he sat on her dissertation committee. The FBI discovered the affair when it investigated whether she had attempted to gain access to his emails and other classified information.
In an interview about Broadwell’s book that she gave to the Daily Show back in January, one that is incredibly fascinating and revealing to watch in retrospect, Jon Stewart identified this as the primary question raised by her biography of Petraeus: “is he awesome, or super-awesome?”

Gen. Petraeus is the single most revered man in the most venerated American institution: the National Security State and, specifically, its military. As a result, all the rules are different. Speaking ill of David Petraeus – or the military or CIA as an institution – is strictly prohibited within our adversarial watchdog press corps. Thus, even as he resigns in disgrace, leading media figures are alternatively mournful and worshipful as they discuss it.

On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell appeared genuinely grief-stricken when she first reported Petraeus’ resignation letter. “This is very painful”, she began by announcing, as she wore a profoundly sad face. Her voice quivered with a mix of awe and distress as she read his resignation letter, savoring every word as though she were reciting from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

On the Rachel Maddow Show later that night, Mitchell began her appearance by decreeing that “this is a personal tragedy” and said she was particularly sorrowful for “the men and women of the CIA, an agency that has many things to be proud about: many things to be proud about” [emphasis in original].

Christiane Amanpour of CNN and ABC made Mitchell look constrained by comparison as she belted out this paean on Twitter:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/10/1352558717052/amanpour.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=ab570950b4aeb95f2b55aa4ec4870d36

For good measure, she then added:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/10/1352559327877/amanpour2.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=3295c1f9155129c2928a57f959a1e0ef

What does all that even mean? From which glorious “battlefield” is the CIA Director now absent, and how and why are we “at a time when we need them most”? But Amanpour is reciting something akin to a prayer here, and it’s thus insusceptible to rational inquiry of that sort.

Meanwhile, Michael Hastings – whose Rolling Stone cover story ended Gen. McChrystal’s career by including numerous intemperate quotes and, in doing so, revealingly prompted widespread animosity among his media colleagues for the crime of Making a General Look Bad – was on MSNBC yesterday with Martin Bashir.

Hastings explained how the media has been devoted to Petraeus’ glorification and thus ignored all the substantive reasons why Petraeus should have received far more media scrutiny and criticism in the past. In response, Bashir – who has previously demonstrated his contempt for anyone who speaks ill of a US General – expressed his anger at Hastings (“That’s a fairly harsh assessment of a man who is regarded by many in the military as an outstanding four-star general”) and then quickly cut him off just over two minutes into the segment.

Then there’s the Foreign Policy Community, for which David Petraeus has long been regarded with deity status. Foreign Policy Magazine Managing Editor Blake Hounshell, under the headline “The Tragedy of David Petraeus”, gushed that “Petraeus’s downfall is a huge loss for the United States,” as “not only was he one of the country’s top strategic thinkers, he was also one of the few public figures revered by all sides of the political spectrum for his dedication and good judgment.” He added: “He salvaged two disastrous wars, for two very different presidents.”

Also at Foreign Policy, Thomas Ricks, formerly of the Washington Post, argued that Obama should not have accepted his resignation: “So the surprise to me is that Obama let him go. But the administration’s loss may be Princeton’s gain.” Like most people in the media, Ricks has long been an ardent admirer of Petraeus, even turning his platform over to Paula Broadwell in the past for her to spread her hagiography far and wide.

There are several revealing lessons about this media swooning for Petraeus even as he exits from a scandal that would normally send them into tittering delight. First, military worship is the central religion of America’s political and media culture. The military is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the US population – a dangerous fact in any democracy – and, even assuming they wanted to (which they don’t), our brave denizens of establishment journalism are petrified of running afoul of that kind of popular sentiment.

Recall the intense controversy that erupted last Memorial Day when MSNBC’s Chris Hayes gently pondered whether all soldiers should be considered “heroes”. His own network, NBC, quickly assembled a panel on the Today Show to unanimously denounce him in the harshest and most personal terms (“I hope that he doesn’t get more viewers as a result of this…this guy is like a – if you’ve seen him…he looks like a weenie” – “Could you be more inappropriate on Memorial Day?”), and Hayes then subjected himself to the predictable ritual of public apology (though he notably did not retract the substance of his remarks).

Hayes was forced (either overtly or by the rising pressure) to apologize because his comments were blasphemous: of America’s true religion. At virtually every major sporting event, some uber-patriotic display of military might is featured as the crowd chants and swoons. It’s perfectly reasonable not to hold members of the military responsible for the acts of aggression ordered by US politicians, but that hardly means that the other extreme – compelled reverence – is justifiable either.

Yet US journalists – whose ostensible role is to be adversarial to powerful and secretive political institutions (which includes, first and foremost, the National Security State) – are the most pious high priests of this national religion. John Parker, former military reporter and fellow of the University of Maryland Knight Center for Specialized Journalism-Military Reporting, wrote an extraordinarily good letter back in 2010 regarding why leading Pentagon reporters were so angry at WikiLeaks for revealing government secrets: because they identify with the military to the point of uncritical adoration:

“The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe – interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity – and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds.

Top military officers have their s*** together and it’s personally humbling for reporters who’ve never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters’ innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon – justifiably in their minds – their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically. . . .

“Pentagon journalists and informed members of the public would benefit from watching ‘The Selling of the Pentagon’, a 1971 documentary. It details how, in the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon sophisticatedly used taxpayer money against taxpayers in an effort to sway their opinions toward the Pentagon’s desires for unlimited war. Forty years later, the techniques of shaping public opinion via media has evolved exponentially. It has reached the point where flipping major journalists is a matter of painting in their personal numbers.”

That is what makes this media worship of All Things Military not only creepy to behold, but downright dangerous.

Second, it is truly remarkable what ends people’s careers in Washington – and what does not end them. As Hastings detailed in that interview, Petraeus has left a string of failures and even scandals behind him: a disastrous Iraqi training program, a worsening of the war in Afghanistan since he ran it, the attempt to convert the CIA into principally a para-military force, the series of misleading statements about the Benghazi attack and the revealed large CIA presence in Libya. To that one could add the constant killing of innocent people in the Muslim world without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight.

Yet none of those issues provokes the slightest concern from our intrepid press corps. His career and reputation could never be damaged, let alone ended, by any of that. Instead, it takes a sex scandal – a revelation that he had carried on a perfectly legal extramarital affair – to force him from power.

That is the warped world of Washington. Of all the heinous things the CIA does, the only one that seems to attract the notice or concern of our media is a banal sex scandal. Listening to media coverage, one would think an extramarital affair is the worst thing the CIA ever did, maybe even the only bad thing it ever did (Andrea Mitchell: “an agency that has many things to be proud about: many things to be proud about”).

Third, there is something deeply symbolic and revealing about this whole episode. Broadwell ended up spending substantial time with Petraeus when she, in essence, embedded with him and followed him around Afghanistan in order to write her biography. What ended up being produced was not only the type of propagandistic hagiography such arrangements typically produce, but also deeply personal affection as well.

This is access journalism and the embedding dynamic in its classic form, just a bit more vividly expressed. The very close and inter-dependent relationship between media figures and the political and military officials they cover often produces exactly these same sentiments even if they do not find the full-scale expression as they did in this case.

In that regard, the relationship between the now-former CIA Director and his fawning hagiographer should be studied in journalism schools to see the results reliably produced by access journalism and the embedding process. Whatever Broadwell did for Petraeus is what US media figures are routinely doing for political and especially military officials with their “journalism”.
Other matters

Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, formerly with the Bush justice department, has an excellent analysis explaining why “one important consequence of President Obama’s re-election will be the further entrenchment, and legitimation, of the basic counterterrorism policies that Obama continued, with tweaks, from the late Bush administration.” He explains why an Obama presidency will strengthen these policies far more than a Romney presidency could have (as a former Bush official, Goldsmith is understandably delighted by this fact).

In Seattle tonight, I’m delivering the keynote speech to the annual Bill of Rights dinner for the ACLU in Washington; there are still a few tickets left for the event, which begins at 7:00 pm, and they can be obtained here.

Finally, I participated, along with ABC’s Jake Tapper and Lisa Rosenberg, in a report by NPR’s “On the Media’ on Obama’s first term record on transparency. My participation is in the first four minutes or so and can be heard here. I was also interviewed yesterday by NPR’s local Seattle affiliate for about 30 minutes on Obama’s foreign policy and civil liberties record, and that segment, which was quite good as it included several adversarial calls from listeners, can be heard here.

UPDATE [Sun.]: CORRECTION

I wrote above that Petraeus “sat on [Broadwell’s] dissertation committee”. This is inaccurate. Petraeus was one of Broadwell’s “dissertation advisers”.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure.


http://nypost.com/2012/11/11/he-betrayed-us-on-two-fronts/
He betrayed us on two fronts
By Michael Goodwin, November 11, 2012 | 5:00am

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/11-1n011-goodwin1-300×300.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=300&h=300&crop=1
With wife, Holly, last year. AP

Mother always said the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If ever there was any doubt, the stunning case of CIA boss David Petraeus dispels it.

The most important and celebrated military leader of our time has fallen from the sky with a thud that is shaking all of Washington. His personal life and career are in tatters, but that is not the whole story. Not by a long shot.

Petraeus, once talked about as presidential timber, played a big part in the administration’s misleading narrative surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. That we now know he was under investigation by the FBI for an affair and a security breach when he told congressional leaders that the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video adds a level of intrigue that is extraordinary even for the spooky world of the CIA.

Before that briefing, the State Department had evidence that the attack was carried out by an al Qaeda offshoot, a fact that led some members of Congress to suggest Petraeus was parroting the White House political line. His confession of the affair and the FBI probe give that suggestion new meaning because he could have had an ulterior motive for being a team player.

The timing of his departure is also more than a little curious. How convenient for President Obama that, the White House says, he was “briefed” on the matter only Thursday – two days after he won re-election.

Is that when he first learned of it? Having a scandal of this magnitude emerge during the campaign would have been bad for the president, so he and his team had a motive for delaying the resignation.

Timing also figures into the matter of Petraeus’ scheduled testimony about the Benghazi attack to Congress next Wednesday. It’s unlikely that will happen now because he is so tainted that his credibility is shattered. Again, how convenient that he will be silenced.

Still, questions about his conduct could make the congressional probes into the Sept. 11 anniversary attack extra contentious. Before this, even some top Senate Democrats signed on to demands that the administration come clean about what it knew and when it knew it.

The Benghazi attack was already a major national security scandal, and the Petraeus bombshell could cast a shadow over the start of Obama’s second term.

“I believe everything. And I believe nothing. I suspect everyone. And I suspect no one.”

So said Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. His zany approach turns out to be a perfect guide for getting to the bottom of the horror in Benghazi and the flameout of David Petraeus, former hero.

With wife, Holly, last year

Blueblood Bloomberg has ice in his veins

Tommy Lasorda, the colorful former manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, once proclaimed his team loyalty by saying, “If you cut me, I bleed Dodger blue.”

Mike Bloomberg can make no similar claim about New York. The mayor clearly loves the city and has done many good things for it, but his lack of emotional connection to everyday New Yorkers keeps coming back to haunt him. The missing link reveals itself at the worst possible times.

Bloomberg’s performance during the aftermath of Sandy has ranged from mediocre to awful. The marathon debacle was in a class of its own, but his daily briefings have a droning quality and offer little more than process points and updates others have given him. He is acting more like a clearinghouse of information than a leader of a wounded city.

There is no fire, no anger, no show of emotion. His matter-of-fact approach is business-as-usual for him at a time when the extraordinary is required.

It’s not just a matter of style. All his moves seem to be behind the curve, as though he doesn’t have enough information or he is waiting until public anger boils over.

This is not a call for him to be somebody he’s not. It’s too late in his life for that.

But would it hurt to show some emotion about what has happened in Queens and Brooklyn and Staten Island? The death and destruction, and the continuing suffering of people who lost everything except their lives, marks an event that will live on forever in Gotham history.

It is impossible to imagine the great mayors seeming so small in such a big crisis. La Guardia, Koch and Giuliani, whom I regard as the best modern mayors, all had a visceral connection to the city. Their voice was the voice of New York and when they were cut, they bled New York blood.

Mike Bloomberg doesn’t have it in him.

It’s MetroCard monte

A great salesman once explained his approach. You never ask a potential customer if she would like a tube of lipstick, he said, you ask her which color she likes best. When she answers, she has done the selling for you.

The MTA must have heard the same explanation. At its hearings on proposed fare hikes, the agency is asking riders to pick their favorite poison.

It wants to see which of the four fare plans it offered is the most popular. Each plan would raise prices, but in different combinations. The monthly MetroCard, for example, would go from its current $104 to anywhere from $109 to $125, depending on how other rides are priced.

No fare hike at all? That’s not one of the choices.

Dems DA breaks

New York state voters proved again they are slow learners. Four Democratic state senators, including the infamous Pedro Espada Jr., were indicted or convicted in recent years, but New Yorkers responded by rewarding the party with four more seats. Dems will likely have 33 of the 63 seats, although some may caucus with the GOP to allow it to keep control.

Whether the results show New Yorkers to be softhearted or softheaded, the bottom line is the same. All the bellyaching about Albany has come to nothing. Soon enough, voters will be complaining again, but they’re getting the government they deserve.

O: Keep your lips SEALed

So some SEALs got punished for leaking details of the Osama bin Laden raid to video-game makers. They should know better. Only President Obama’s inner circle is allowed to leak classified information, and only for his benefit.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-sins-of-general-david-petraeus?utm_term=.iy0Y3z09q#.es8l76D0O
The Sins Of General David Petraeus
Michael Hastings, Nov. 12, 2012, at 10:43 a.m.

Petraeus seduced America. We should never have trusted him.

The fraud that General David Petraeus perpetrated on America started many years before the general seduced Paula Broadwell, a lower-ranking officer 20 years his junior, after meeting her on a campus visit to Harvard.

More so than any other leading military figure, Petraeus’ entire philosophy has been based on hiding the truth, on deception, on building a false image. “Perception” is key, he wrote in his 1987 Princeton dissertation: “What policymakers believe to have taken place in any particular case is what matters – more than what actually occurred.”

Yes, it’s not what actually happens that matters – it’s what you can convince the public it thinks happened.

Until this weekend, Petraeus had been incredibly successful in making the public think he was a man of great integrity and honor, among other things. Most of the stories written about him fall under what we hacks in the media like to call “a blow job.” Vanity Fair. The New Yorker. The New York Times.

The Washington Post. Time. Newsweek. In total, all the profiles, stage-managed and controlled by the Pentagon’s multimillion dollar public relations apparatus, built up an unrealistic and superhuman myth around the general that, in the end, did not do Petraeus or the public any favors. Ironically, despite all the media fellating, our esteemed and sex-obsessed press somehow missed the actual blow job.

Before I lay out the Petraeus counter-narrative – a narrative intentionally ignored by most of the Pentagon press and national security reporters, for reasons I’ll soon explain – let me say this about the man once known as King David, General Betray-Us, or P4, by his admirers, his enemies, and his fellow service members, respectively.

He’s an impressive guy, a highly motivated individual, a world-class bullshit artist, a fitness addict, and a man who spent more time in shitty places over the past 10 years than almost any other American serving his or her country has. I’ve covered him for seven years now, and he’ll always have my respect and twisted admiration.

So it’s fair to say that P4 probably deserves something a little better than the public humiliation he’s about to endure. Sources who long feared him have already begun to leak salacious details; one told me this weekend that he took Broadwell along with him on a government-funded trip to Paris in July 2011. And questions about his role in the Benghazi debacle are also likely to deepen.

And Broadwell, too, is about to get slandered in a way no woman deserves. She’s the Pentagon’s Monica Lewinksy – and, despite Team Petraeus’ much advertised lip service to courage and integrity, it didn’t take long for his allies to swarm the press with anonymous quotes smearing the West Point graduate and married mother of two: that she wore “tight clothes,” as The Washington Post reported, or that she had her “claws in him.” In other words, how could Old Dave have resisted that slut’s charms?

Pretty shitty behavior, all around. As Petraeus ally and counterinsurgency scholar Dr. Andrew Exum might put it, stay classy!

But the warning signs about Petraeus’ core dishonesty have been around for years. Here’s a brief summary: We can start with the persistent questions critics have raised about his Bronze Star for Valor. Or that, in 2004, during the middle of a presidential election, Petraeus wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting President Bush and saying that the Iraq policy was working. The policy wasn’t working, but Bush repaid the general’s political advocacy by giving him the top job in the war three years later.

There’s his war record in Iraq, starting when he headed up the Iraqi security force training program in 2004. He’s more or less skated on that, including all the weapons he lost, the insane corruption, and the fact that he essentially armed and trained what later became known as “Iraqi death squads.” On his final Iraq tour, during the so-called “surge,” he pulled off what is perhaps the most impressive con job in recent American history. He convinced the entire Washington establishment that we won the war.

He did it by papering over what the surge actually was: We took the Shiites’ side in a civil war, armed them to the teeth, and suckered the Sunnis into thinking we’d help them out too. It was a brutal enterprise – over 800 Americans died during the surge, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives during a sectarian conflict that Petraeus’ policies fueled.

Then he popped smoke and left the members of the Sunni Awakening to fend for themselves. A journalist friend told me a story of an Awakening member, exiled in Amman, whom Petraeus personally assured he would never abandon. The former insurgent had a picture of Petraeus on his wall, but was a little hurt that the general no longer returned his calls.

MoveOn may have been ill-advised to attack the general as “Betray Us” in Washington, but there was little doubt that many in the Awakening felt betrayed.

Petraeus was so convincing on Baghdad that he manipulated President Obama into trying the same thing in Kabul. In Afghanistan, he first underhandedly pushed the White House into escalating the war in September 2009 (calling up columnists to “box” the president in) and waged a full-on leak campaign to undermine the White House policy process. Petraeus famously warned his staff that the White House was “fucking” with the wrong guy.

The doomed Afghanistan surge would come back to bite him in the ass, however. A year after getting the war he wanted, P4 got stuck having to fight it himself. After Petraeus frenemy General Stanley McChrystal got fired for trashing the White House in a story I published in Rolling Stone, the warrior-scholar had to deploy yet again.

The Afghan war was a loser, always was, and always would be – Petraeus made horrible deals with guys like Abdul Razzik and the other Afghan gangsters and killed a bunch of people who didn’t need to be killed. And none of it mattered, or made a dent in his reputation. This was the tour where Broadwell joined him at headquarters, and it’s not so shocking that he’d need to find some solace, somewhere, to get that daily horror show out of his mind.

(This past summer, there were more attacks in Afghanistan than in the summer before the surge, a devastating statistic. I could keep going, but if you’re interested, check out The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America’s War in Afghanistan.)

How did Petraeus get away with all this for so long? Well, his first affair – and one that matters so much more than the fact that he was sleeping with a female or two – was with the media.

(For the record: Who really cares whom P4 is sleeping with? The idea that the FBI was investigating his sex life says more about the FBI and our absurd surveillance and national security state than it does about King David’s morality.)

Petraeus’ first biographer, former U.S. News and World Report reporter Linda Robinson, wrote a book about him, then went to CENTCOM to work for him. Yes – a so-called journalist published a book about him, then started getting a paycheck from him soon after. This went largely unremarked upon.

Another huge supporter was Tom Ricks, a former Washington Post journalist who found a second career as unofficial press agent for the general and his friends. Ricks is the ringleader of what I like to call “the media-military industrial complex,” setting the standard for its incestuous everyday corruption. He not only built Dave up, he facilitated the disastrous liaison between Broadwell and Petraeus. Ricks helped get Broadwell a literary agent, a six-figure book deal, and a publisher.

Broadwell was sold to publishers as much for her looks as what she was writing – she was an attractive package to push Petraeus and his counterinsurgency ideas. Little, Brown editor Geoff Shandler once told me how “hot” he thought Broadwell was after she came in to meet him at his office, and indicated to me that Broadwell had made him somewhat aroused. Intellectual integrity all around, to be sure.

Ricks blurbed her in All In, and earlier had promoted her content on his blog – the oddly titled Travels With Paula, a headline he slapped to a story about the U.S. military’s total destruction of a small village in southern Afghanistan. Broadwell described the ultra-violent wipeout in favorable terms – and when she was confronted with an angry villager whose house had been destroyed, she wrote that the Afghan’s tears and anger were a “a fit of theatrics.”

This was the kind of bullshit Ricks and Broadwell had been pushing – and it not only wasn’t called bullshit, it was embraced as serious work. Ricks wasn’t the only offender, of course – Petraeus more or less had journalists from many major media outlets slurping from the Pentagon’s gravy train. The typical route was to have all the cash and favors funneled through a third party like the Center for a New American Security.

CNAS was a Petraeus-inspired operation from its inception in 2007, and it made its reputation promoting Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plans. No problem, right? Except that it put the journalists who were covering those same plans and policies on its payroll. For instance, New York Times Pentagon correspondent Thom Shanker took money and a position from CNAS and still covered the Pentagon; Robert Kaplan, David Cloud from the Los Angeles Times, and others produced a small library’s worth of hagiographies while sharing office space at CNAS with retired generals whom they’d regularly quote in their stories.

But Petraeus’ crash is more significant than the latest nonsense sex scandal. As President Obama says, our decade of war is coming to an end. The reputations of the men who were intimately involved in these years of foreign misadventure, where we tortured and supported torture, armed death squads, conducted nightly assassinations, killed innocents, and enabled corruption on an unbelievable scale, lie in tatters.

McChrystal, Caldwell, and now Petraeus – the era of the celebrity general is over. Everyone is paying for their sins. (And before we should shed too many tears for the plight of King David and his men, remember, they’ll be taken care of with speaking fees and corporate board memberships, rewarded as instant millionaires by the same defense establishment they served so well.)

Before Dave fell for Paula, we fell for Dave. He tried to convince us that heroes aren’t human. They are human, like us, and sometimes worse.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/12/how-petraeus-betrayed-us.html
How Petraeus betrayed us
By Michael Goodwin Published November 12, 2012 New York Post

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2012/11/12/how-petraeus-betrayed-us/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-1.img.jpg/876/493/1422006894404.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Mother always said the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If ever there was any doubt, the stunning case of CIA boss David Petraeus dispels it.

The most important and celebrated military leader of our time has fallen from the sky with a thud that is shaking all of Washington. His personal life and career are in tatters, but that is not the whole story. Not by a long shot.

Petraeus, once talked about as presidential timber, played a big part in the administration’s misleading narrative surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. That we now know he was under investigation by the FBI for an affair and a security breach when he told congressional leaders that the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video adds a level of intrigue that is extraordinary even for the spooky world of the CIA.

Before that briefing, the State Department had evidence that the attack was carried out by an Al Qaeda offshoot, a fact that led some members of Congress to suggest Petraeus was parroting the White House political line. His confession of the affair and the FBI probe give that suggestion new meaning because he could have had an ulterior motive for being a team player.

The timing of his departure is also more than a little curious. How convenient for President Obama that, the White House says, he was “briefed” on the matter only Thursday – two days after he won re-election.

Is that when he first learned of it? Having a scandal of this magnitude emerge during the campaign would have been bad for the president, so he and his team had a motive for delaying the resignation.

Timing also figures into the matter of Petraeus’ scheduled testimony about the Benghazi attack to Congress next Wednesday. It’s unlikely that will happen now because he is so tainted that his credibility is shattered. Again, how convenient that he will be silenced.

Still, questions about his conduct could make the congressional probes into the Sept. 11 anniversary attack extra contentious. Before this, even some top Senate Democrats signed on to demands that the administration come clean about what it knew and when it knew it.

The Benghazi attack was already a major national security scandal, and the Petraeus bombshell could cast a shadow over the start of Obama’s second term.

“I believe everything. And I believe nothing. I suspect everyone. And I suspect no one.”

So said Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. His zany approach turns out to be a perfect guide for getting to the bottom of the horror in Benghazi and the flameout of David Petraeus, former hero.

This column originally appeared in the New York Post. For more, click here

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.


David Petraeus: The General’s Betrayal – Vol. 78 No. 22
David Petraeus: The General’s Betrayal
By Sandra Sobieraj Westfall, November 26, 2012 at 12:00pm EST

Holly Petraeus was at work in Washington, D.C., posting mortgage advice on her military-families blog. Jill Kelley was home in Tampa, readying a party for one of her three young daughters. For Paula Broadwell it was a big day: In a tight red dress, she was celebrating her 40th birthday with her husband, Scott, and three friends at a special table at Virginia’s Inn at Little Washington. “Everyone was in a good mood, very jovial,” says an observer.

The scene was unremarkable, save for the fact that just hours earlier on that day, Nov. 9, news broke that Gen. David Petraeus, 60, had resigned as the head of the CIA because he had cheated on Holly (his wife of 38 years) with Broadwell (his biographer) and was forced to admit it as a result of an FBI investigation into disturbing e-mails sent by Broadwell to Kelley (a family friend).
Having known about the investigation, which began in early June, the women were prepared for the admission. The rest of the country, however, was aghast. And the four-star general was “filled with remorse,” says his former chief of staff Peter Mansoor.

He may not be the only one feeling that way. Just days after President Obama accepted Petraeus’s resignation, it was revealed by the Pentagon that his former deputy, Gen. John Allen, 58, a married Marine Corps general who is currently the top commander in Afghanistan, is under investigation, reportedly for inappropriate communication with Kelley.
Some 20,000 to 30,000 e-mails and other files were being reviewed, says a source close to the investigation. This caused the President to halt Allen’s confirmation to head NATO forces in Europe. A Pentagon official says Allen denies any wrongdoing.

“What are they thinking of? What is going on? Guys are fighting and dying, and these generals are acting like characters from Dallas,” says Army veteran Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal.

Petraeus, credited with turning around the war in Iraq, was tapped last year to run the CIA; his name had been mentioned as a possible presidential contender. Not only are those ambitions dashed, but he, along with Broadwell, is now being examined for possible illegal activity: whether the affair was conducted while serving in the field and if there were security breaches-plus, in the case of Broadwell, whether her e-mails to Kelley constitute criminal cyber-stalking.

FBI agents made a nighttime search of her Charlotte, N.C., home on Nov. 12, and, while not at home, she is said to be cooperating. “There will be congressional hearings,” a D.C. legal source tells People. Petraeus, already under scrutiny after four U.S. diplomatic personnel were killed in Libya, “will be asked-as a matter of potentially compromised national security-whether there were other women and when.”

Broadwell, who has spent 15 years in the military and, like Petraeus, graduated from West Point, first approached him in 2006 for help with her doctoral dissertation on counterinsurgency. “I thought it strange that he gave her the access he did,” says Mansoor. “A lot of journalists wanted to embed with us. We talked about it and decided it was not good to give him that kind of exposure. Along comes Paula.”

In an arrangement that officials describe as extraordinary, Broadwell was allowed hours of the general’s time over the course of months she spent in Afghanistan, the two of them bonding over their passion for academics and athletics. “He likes to run. She’s a gazelle,” says Mansoor. On reflection, he says, “I didn’t warn him about her. I wish I had. It’s surprising he didn’t have the personal discipline to say no.”

Broadwell, who lives in Charlotte, N.C., with her radiologist husband, Scott, and two sons, then wrote All In, a laudatory 2012 biography, with a Washington Post journalist. With Scott in tow for a Daily Show appearance, she defended her book’s gushing praise of Petraeus, telling Jon Stewart the general has “no dirty secrets.”

Although Broadwell was first embedded in Afghanistan with Petraeus in 2010, sources insist to PEOPLE that the affair didn’t begin until after he left the Army in August 2011. If true, it is unlikely he’ll be prosecuted for adultery under military law. Mansoor suspects the transition to civilian life was difficult for Petraeus, who felt “lonely and vulnerable.”

He launched his career at the CIA with a speech urging agents “to conduct our mission in a way that is worthy of the values of our great Republic.” The general tells friends that the affair with Broadwell, said to have ended four months ago, was his only lapse into “extremely poor judgment.” But his wife is “beyond furious,” says Mansoor. “She and David are going to move forward as best they can.”

Before Petraeus broke off from Broadwell, Jill Kelley, 37, who knew the general and his wife through her work as an unpaid liaison at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, mentioned to a local FBI agent that she was receiving stalking e-mails. That agent started an inquiry, which he was later taken off of, partly because he sent personal photos of himself to Kelley; he later flagged the investigation to House majority leader Eric Cantor.

Because the anonymous e-mails displayed knowledge of both Petraeus’s and Kelley’s comings and goings, the messages “raised questions about whether Jill’s or her friends’ e-mail accounts were being hacked,” says a source close to Kelley familiar with the investigation. The FBI traced the notes to Broadwell and, in doing so, stumbled upon sexually explicit messages between her and Petraeus.

Those who know Kelley don’t question her friendship with the Petraeuses. The couples were so close that Kelley hosted a surprise party for Holly, 60. “I can’t see Jill betraying her husband or her kids either,” says a neighbor. “I can’t see her betraying Holly. I imagine she thought she was helping when she reported those e-mails.”

Adds the source close to Kelley: “Jill and her family are very saddened General Petraeus has resigned because they think of him as a great American leader.” And yet, she is arming herself: Kelley turned to John Edwards’s defense attorney Abbe Lowell, a longtime friend, and crisis manager Judy Smith, inspiration for the TV series Scandal, for help.

Meanwhile Broadwell and her husband were seen looking somber at the end of their getaway weekend. “Paula’s very loving with her children and Scott,” says neighbor Sarah Curme. “My hope is that they can put their family back together.” As for Petraeus, some believe the scandal should not obliterate his 37 years of military service. Says colleague James Carafano, now a national-security expert at Washington’s Heritage Foundation: “His legacy will be what he accomplished.”


https://sofrep.com/40183/petraeus-affair-sad-ignominious-end/
The Petraeus Affair: A Sad and Ignominious End SOFREP Original Content
By Frumentarius 03.04.2015

The denouement in the regrettable tragedy of David Petraeus was not a blockbuster, fireworks-filled, epic courtroom scene as some expected (hoped?) it would be. Rather, it was a whimper, a quiet legal resignation, and a tactical surrender to the legal forces arrayed against the former celebrated general and CIA director.

One of the country’s more sordid political controversies of the last decade, one that indulged perfectly the prurient public’s need for scandal, came to a quiet end, possibly in the back room of a judge’s chambers or in a plush law office conference room. One can almost taste the palpable disappointment of countless political reporters who no doubt looked to further explore the salacious details of the affair.


Filed Under: World News
Tagged With: General Petraeus, General Stanley McChrystal, Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell


http://www.liberty.news/2016-06-22-did-gen-petraeus-betray-us-over-the-issue-of-gun-control.html
Did Gen. Petraeus ‘betray us’ over the issue of gun control?
By: usafeaturesmedia June 22, 2016
By Bob Barr, BobBarr.org.

(Freedom.news) Just a few years ago, General David Petraeus was a highly respected military leader; the commander of U.S.Forces in Afghanistan, and later serving as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Sorrowfully, human foibles undid the Great Man – shamed and prosecuted for revealing classified national security information during an affair with his biographer.

Now, rather than atoning for his betrayal by standing up for the Constitution he swore to defend and the men and women of the Armed Services he failed by violating his oath, the disgraced general is doubling-down on his poor judgement. Petraeus has joined forces with gun-control Leftists, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Astronaut-turned-activist Michael Kelly, and launched yet another gun control advocacy organization.

The Petraeus-Kelly group calls itself the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” However, as with other gun control groups, it is long on misleading rhetoric and painfully short on common sense. The only apparent difference between this new group and earlier gun control organizations, is the veneer about helping veterans; and this is misleading at best and downright harmful to many veterans at worst.

For example, while the group claims to be interested in reducing the suicide rate for veterans, it quickly pivots into the familiar gun-control mantra about keeping guns out of the hands of “dangerous people” – a non-sequitur it attempts to bridge merely by pointing out the truism that veterans know “first-hand the incredible power of firearms.”

Petraeus’ resume, spanning leadership roles in both military and national security settings, could have provided him with a platform from which to do real good for veterans; on public safety issues as well as those involving health care. After all, who better to take up the cause of reforming the broken Veterans Administration, which arguably is responsible in some measure for suicide rates among veterans?

Perhaps of even greater relevance in the wake of the mass shooting this week in Orlando – who better understands the threat posed by ISIS and other Islamic terrorists and how to meet that threat, than the man who oversaw the very war against those terrorists in their “homeland?”

Yet, sadly, Petraeus took the easier path of joining the chorus of liberal do-gooders who fear and misunderstand the role firearms play in the natural right to self-preservation. His approach reflects more a philosophy of retreat in the face of danger, rather than of self-reliance and initiative.

Fundamentally, the principle around which the Petraeus group has concocted its mission has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of evil individuals, much less preventing a mass shooting like that in Orlando. Petraeus’ “solution” fails to articulate the deeper, true nature of what we face. The tragedy in Orlando was as much as a clash of ideologies as it is a terrorist attack; actually, two clashes of ideologies.

The more obvious of the two clashes is that of freedom versus religious tyranny (a conflict well-known to true students of American history). The concept of personal liberty at the foundation of the United States is antithetical to the crushing tyranny of radical Islam. What we witnessed in Orlando is a stark reminder of the unbridgeable chasm between these two world views; a reminder seemingly lost on Petraeus.

The other clash is between individual responsibility – the obligation to defend oneself – and reliance on others to protect you – passivity. This clash is something we routinely see in government efforts to limit the ability of individuals to defend themselves with a firearm – a limitation now championed by groups like Petreaus’. We also see this defeatist ideology reflected in companies and businesses that prohibit people from defending themselves when they enter those establishments.

This ideology of passivity invites incidents such as occurred in Orlando; where an individual (or individuals, in the case of the San Bernardino shooting) intent on mayhem, know that such facilities offer a concentration of unarmed victims in an environment in which they – the terrorist(s) – are able to maintain a high degree of control.

Indeed, there is no more protected of environments for such cowards than those that essentially guarantee a disarmed and fearful universe of victims – relying not on self-defense as a response, but on waiting for the authorities to arrive and take action (which, as we saw in Orlando, may take literally hours).

Until our nation’s leaders, and we as a society, recognize the obligation we have at a personal level to ensure our own self-preservation, terrorists and other criminals will use this passivity against us with ruinous consequences. Gen. Petraeus is not helping us, and his timing could not be worse.


http://www.businessinsider.com/investigation-leak-sex-scandal-david-petraeus-2016-11?IR=T&
The Department of Defense is investigating leaks involving the sex scandal of former CIA director Petraeus
Ted Bridis, Associated Press, Nov. 28, 2016, 5:51 PM

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/583cae27ba6eb67d058b6774-2400/undefined
David Petraeus Lucas Jackson/Reuters

The Defense Department is conducting a leaks investigation related to the sex scandal that led to the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, The Associated Press confirmed Monday, the same day Petraeus was meeting with President-elect Donald Trump in New York.

Petraeus, who could be in line for a Cabinet nomination, arrived at Trump Tower in early afternoon. He walked in without taking any questions from reporters.

A U.S. official told the AP that investigators are trying to determine who leaked personal information about Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with Petraeus led to criminal charges against him and his resignation. The information concerned the status of her security clearance, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Disclosure of the Broadwell information without official permission would have been a violation of federal criminal law.

The latest twist in the case could complicate Petraeus’ prospects of obtaining a Cabinet position in the Trump administration, resurfacing details of the extramarital affair and FBI investigation that ended his career at the CIA and tarnished the reputation of the retired four-star general.

David Petraeus David Petraeus Lucas Jackson/Reuters

He pleaded guilty last year to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information relating to documents he had provided to Broadwell, his biographer. He was spared prison time under a plea agreement with the Justice Department. The Army in late 2012 suspended the security clearance of Broadwell, a former Army intelligence officer. Such a move is routine when a person is under investigation, particularly in a case of a possible security breach.

The investigation began after a Petraeus friend, Jill Kelley, complained to the FBI in 2012 about harassing emails from an unknown person who turned out to be Broadwell.

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly lambasted Hillary Clinton, who had come under federal investigation for her use of a private email server as secretary of state. He suggested her actions were worse than those by Petraeus.

FBI Director James Comey has drawn a distinction between the two cases, saying there was no evidence that Clinton or her aides had intended to break the law through careless handling of sensitive information. Federal prosecutors said Petraeus knew black binders he shared with Broadwell contained classified information, but he nonetheless provided them.

Broadwell did not immediately return a phone message or email seeking comment Monday.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/583caec9e02ba7d73c8b5aa0-2400/undefined
David Petraeus Lucas Jackson/Reuters


https://sofrep.com/68872/department-defense-investigating-leaks-involving-sex-scandal-former-cia-director-petraeus/
The Department of Defense is investigating leaks involving the sex scandal of former CIA director Petraeus
By SOFREP 11.29.2016

The Defense Department is conducting a leaks investigation related to the sex scandal that led to the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, The Associated Press confirmed Monday, the same day Petraeus was meeting with President-elect Donald Trump in New York.

Petraeus, who could be in line for a Cabinet nomination, arrived at Trump Tower in early afternoon. He walked in without taking any questions from reporters.

A U.S. official told the AP that investigators are trying to determine who leaked personal information about Paula Broadwell, the woman whose affair with Petraeus led to criminal charges against him and his resignation. The information concerned the status of her security clearance, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Disclosure of the Broadwell information without official permission would have been a violation of federal criminal law.

The latest twist in the case could complicate Petraeus’ prospects of obtaining a Cabinet position in the Trump administration, resurfacing details of the extramarital affair and FBI investigation that ended his career at the CIA and tarnished the reputation of the retired four-star general.

Read the whole story courtesy of the AP and Business Insider.

Featured image courtesy of Reuters.

Filed Under: Military News, North America News
Tagged With: affair, Gen Petraeus, leaks investigation, Paula Broadwell, possible Trump SECDEF, resignation, sex scandal


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/29/gen-petraeus-reenlisting-to-push-gun-control-n2252100
Gen. Petraeus Now Pushing Gun Control
Matt Vespa, Nov 29, 2016 2:00 PM

Gen. David Petraeus may be on the short list to be our next secretary of state, but his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, led to him being convicted of mishandling classified information; Broadwell had access to journals of Petraeus that contained sensitive material. I’m not so sure he’s the best pick to lead the State Department. Moreover, isn’t mishandling classified information exactly what we’re trying to avoid and what we slammed Clinton for? Well, another venture Gen. Petraeus is diving into is gun control policy (via CNN):

Retired U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, who has long resisted calls to run for political office, is teaming up with retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly to create a new group urging greater gun control.

The two announced on Friday that they were launching Veterans Coalition for Common Sense to encourage elected leaders to “do more to prevent gun tragedies.” The group will feature veterans from every branch of the military who are urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws, the organization said in a news release.

“As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland. Now we’re asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives,” said Kelly, the husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group that advocates for tougher gun laws.

Veterans Affairs found that a firearm was used in the 70 percent of suicides among male service members between 2001-2011. First, I have no problem in getting suicidal veterans the help they need, but we all know how the anti-gun Left will react to this tidbit. They just can’t stop and focus on what both sides agree on. I think some good could be done regarding suicide rates of veterans. At the same time, we know that they’ll probably push for universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and a background check for ammunition sales. Yet, with a Republican Congress, those odds of that happening are slim. Nevertheless, some serious talent is drifting into the Moms Demand side of the ring.


http://www.ammoland.com/2016/11/trump-considers-anti-gun-activist-david-petraeus-as-secretary-of-state/
Trump Considers Anti-Gun Activist David Petraeus as Secretary of State
November 30, 2016 by Ammoland Editor Joe Evans


David Petraeus, Mark Kelly Anti-Gun

USA -(Ammoland.com)- Anti-gun activist David Petraeus is under consideration for the position of Secretary of State in the Trump administration.

Although Petraeus seldom speaks publicly on domestic issues, he hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to “do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies” by “urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws.”

Not surprisingly, the Leftist media is elated that a gun-hater like Petraeus might be awarded the top Cabinet post by Trump.
This is true even though Petraeus, in November 2012, resigned as CIA Director and pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

But Petraeus’ “Clinton-like” disregard for American security is the least of his problems.

As Secretary of State, Petraeus would play a key role in deciding whether to remove the U.S. from the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT).

This agreement would mandate gun registration, and would authorize comprehensive gun bans – all goals supported by Petraeus’ colleagues Kelly and Giffords.

Petraeus would effectively decide whether to push for ratification of the anti-gun UN Small Arms Treaty.

Finally, Petraeus would have jurisdiction over the international trade (ITAR) regulations. Under Clinton/Kerry “guidance,” these regulations have been expanded to outlaw gunsmithing.
In addition, a gun technician who communicates “how-to” information about guns on the Internet (without purchasing a $2,250 State Department license) could be prosecuted and imprisoned.

You can read GOA’s comments against these anti-gun State Department regulations here.

If anti-gun Patraeus is nominated and confirmed, we can expect these policies to be continued and expanded.

Donald Trump was elected with the broad support of members of the Second Amendment community.
We believe it would be a huge mistake to begin his transition by putting an anti-gun activist in a position where he could regulate and ban guns.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Chairman

Please contact President-elect Donald Trump at info@donaldtrump.com. Ask him to reject the idea of nominating anti-gun activist David Petraeus to the post of Secretary of State.

You can copy-and-paste the pre-written letter below to email Trump.

— Copy-and-Paste this Letter to President-elect Donald Trump —

Dear President-elect Trump:

I understand that anti-gun activist David Petraeus is under consideration for the position of Secretary of State in your administration.

But I agree with Gun Owners of America that Patraeus would be a disastrous choice.

Although Petraeus seldom speaks publicly on domestic issues, he hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to “do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies” by “urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws.”

Not surprisingly, the Leftist media is elated that a gun-hater like Petraeus might be awarded a top Cabinet post. This is true even though Patraeus, in November 2012, resigned as CIA Director and pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

But Petraeus’ “Clinton-like” disregard for American security is the least of his problems.

As Secretary of State, Petraeus would play a key role in deciding whether to remove the U.S. from the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT). This agreement would mandate gun registration, and would authorize comprehensive gun bans – all goals supported by Patraeus’ colleagues Kelly and Giffords.

Petraeus would effectively decide whether to push for ratification of the anti-gun UN Small Arms Treaty.

Finally, Petraeus would have jurisdiction over the international trade (ITAR) regulations. Under Clinton/Kerry “guidance,” these regulations have been expanded to outlaw gunsmithing. In addition, a gun technician who communicates “how-to” information about guns on the Internet (without purchasing a $2,250 State Department license) could be prosecuted and imprisoned.

You can read GOA’s comments against these anti-gun State Department regulations here.

If anti-gun Petraeus is nominated and confirmed, we can expect these policies to be continued and expanded.

Sir, you were elected with the broad support of members of the Second Amendment community. We believe it would be a huge mistake to begin his transition by putting an anti-gun activist in a position whether he could regulate and ban guns.

Sincerely,

About Gun Owners of America (GOA):

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.


Dan says:
December 1, 2016 at 10:41 AM

Trump’s Leftists Picks & Potential Picks – many with huge anti-2nd Amendment Ties

“I’m going to have the best people.” Well, Donald, this certainly ain’t “awesome.”

Secretary of the Treasury – Steven Mnuchin (PICKED): a Goldman Sachs founder’s grandson and Globalist communist supporter George Soros’ associate. What about all of Trump’s accusations of “Lying Ted” Cruz being owned by Goldman Sachs??? Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs pee-on employee compared to this guy. I thought that Trump was going to “kill the New World Order” and globalism?

Secretary of State – retired Gen. Petreaus (STRONGLY CONSIDERED): VERY active anti 2nd Amendment and supports banning magazines over 10 rounds and semi-auto military styled rifles for at least two years. He is also a founder of a gun control group and is active in it:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/29/gen-petraeus-reenlisting-to-push-gun-control-n2252100 and here http://gotnews.com/analysis-david-petraeus-must-not-americas-next-secretary-state-transition2017/ .

Remember, the Secretary of State controls all firearms export (with the exception of sporting shotguns which is hadled by the Secretary of Commerce) AND the position is crucial regarding the anti-gun U.N. treaties which support global gun control like the one regarding small arms that John Kerry just signed. All of this not mentioning all of Petraeus’ support for Obama’s global agenda. Maybe his name should be General Betray-us?

Secretary of State or ??? – Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani: strongly anti-2nd Amendment (although he has stated that he is for “hunting rights” and respects the 2nd Amendment) has pushed for gun registration, “hi-cap” magazine bans, handgun bans, and “assault weapon” bans ALL OF HIS CAREER. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/rudy-giuliani-gun-control-record-nra/ Rudy’s quote from 1994: “We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons.” He now has toned it down since Trump ran for office (sure I believe him – sarcasm). Rudy is a textbook definition of a RINO.

Secretary of State or ??? – Former Gov. Mitt Romney :always anti 2nd Amendment throughout his whole political career and a left wing BIG government RINO.

Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (PICKED): King of the RINOs Mitch McConnell’s wife. Why doesn’t she take her husband’s last name?) She sits on commie Mayor Bloomberg’s board, The Bloomberg Family Foundation, as the philanthropic organization is formally known, which has committed $50 million over four years to a campaign against coal, millions to Planned Parenthood, and tens of millions for gun control not to mention tens of millions to other leftist causes.

Secretary of Commerce – Wilbur Ross (PICKED) – From Wikipedia”: “In the late seventies, Ross began twenty-four years at the New York office of Rothschild Inc.” Where are all the “patriotic” conspiracy talk show hosts who supported Trump on this issue???

His companies:
International Textile Group: From Wikipedia: “ITG continues to manufacture fabrics in North America, but it has also developed fabric mills in China, Vietnam and Central America.” China, Vietnam, and central America, well that’s putting America first!!! (sarcasm).
Mittal Steel Company: makes steel in Kazakhstan, Trinidad, India, etc. (what about the USA??? Pittsburgh, PA? Youngstown, Ohio?, Weirton, WV?).
International Coal Group – At least this one appears to be all USA based – hopefully coal will come back.
International Automotive Components Group – hundreds of millions of dollars in over a dozen countries for automotive plants.

Politics – Another “New York Values” Democrat??? Here we go again! From Wikipedia: “Ross served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund…” (more Russian connections, if you think that shale oil will come back and compete with Russia by selling natural gas & oil to Europe, which they must to survive, think again) and “…Ross in earlier years was a registered Democrat, served as an officer of the New York State Democratic Party and held fundraisers for Democratic candidates at his apartment in New York City…” Fundraisers for Democrats… just the qualification for a Republican Tea Party endorsed president elect!

This ain’t “gonna be great” if this crap continues. Is this what Trump meant by “draining the swamp” – replacing democrats with RINOS??? Cruz was chastised for calling out Trump’s “New York values” but Trump’s considerations above have New York values written all over them.

It’s really “funny” how the Tea Party websites and other “patriot” (or Pay – triot) websites and talk show hosts who slammed real proven conservatives like Ted Cruz in order to promote Trump are not saying a word about these RINO & anti-2nd Amendment picks except for a few that state that “Trump has a secret plan” or “Trump is using his great strategic talent by choosing these leftists to better control them” etc. – how pathetic.


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/full-transcript-of-interview-with-donald-trump-5d39sr09d
TRUMP INTERVIEW
Full transcript of interview with Donald Trump
January 16 2017, 9:00am, The Times

http://feeds.thetimes.co.uk/web/imageserver/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F7c3cb9fe-dbc5-11e6-b8ce-5a639b2dfcaa.jpg?crop=6696,3766,0,349&resize=600
This is the full transcript of Donald Trump’s interview with Michael Gove and Kai Diekmann, former chief editor of the German newspaper Bild.

Mr President-elect, your grandfather is from Germany, your mother is from Scotland. As you know, Michael is Scottish, I am German. How will you manage relations with our countries?

Trump: Well, it’s similar. We have great love for both countries. These are great countries, great places. It’s very interesting how the UK broke away. I sort of, as you know, predicted it. I was in Turnberry and was doing a ribbon cutting because I bought Turnberry, which is doing unbelievably, and I’ll tell you, the fact that your pound sterling has gone down? Great. Because business is unbelievable in a lot of…


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-leaders-shocked-as-trump-slams-nato-eu-raising-fears-of-transatlantic-split/2017/01/16/82047072-dbe6-11e6-b2cf-b67fe3285cbc_story.html?utm_term=.00a15ff97cd2
European leaders shocked as Trump slams NATO and E.U., raising fears of transatlantic split
By Michael Birnbaum January 16, 2017
Stephanie Kirchner in Berlin contributed to this report.

German leader Angela Merkel said Europe’s fate is in its own hands, following Donald Trump’s comments that the European Union is headed for a breakup and that NATO is obsolete. (Reuters)

BRUSSELS – European leaders grappled with the jolting reality of President-elect Donald Trump’s skepticism of the European Union on Monday, saying they might have to stand without the United States at their side during the Trump presidency.

The possibility of an unprecedented breach in transatlantic relations came after Trump – who embraced anti-E.U. insurgents during his campaign and following his victory – said in weekend remarks that the 28-nation European Union was bound for a breakup and that he was indifferent to its fate. He also said NATO’s current configuration is “obsolete,” even as he professed commitment to Europe’s defense.

Trump’s attitudes have raised alarm bells across Europe, which is facing a wave of elections this year in which anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic leaders could gain power. Most mainstream leaders have committed to working with Trump after his inauguration Friday, even as they have expressed hope that he will moderate his views once he takes office.

His continued hard line has created a painful realization in Europe that they may now have to live without the full backing of their oldest, strongest partner. The European Union underpins much of the continent’s post-World War II prosperity, but skeptics have attacked it in recent years as a dysfunctional bloc that undermines finances and security.

“We will cooperate with him on all levels, of course,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters in Berlin. But she said Europeans will need to take responsibility for themselves.

“We Europeans have our destiny in our own hands,” she said.

These Democratic lawmakers are boycotting Donald Trump’s inauguration

They say they are declining to attend in protest of the president-elect’s worldview and his criticism of civil rights icon John Lewis, a congressman from Georgia.

The full ramifications of a potential breakdown in transatlantic ties are so extensive, they are difficult to total. U.S. guarantees form the backbone of European security. The United States and the 500-million-people-strong European Union are each other’s most important trade partners. For decades, European nations and the United States have worked tightly together on issues of war, peace and wealth.

Trump appears skeptical that the European Union matters to American security or economic growth.

“People want their own identity, so if you ask me, others, I believe others will leave,” Trump said of the European Union in a weekend interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild newspaper. He said he did not care about the E.U.’s future. “I don’t think it matters much for the United States,” he said.

“You look at the European Union, and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany,” Trump said, meaning Germany had used the free-trade bloc to sell its goods to the disadvantage of others. He added that Merkel had made a “very catastrophic mistake” in opening Europe’s doors to migrants and refugees.

And he offered no special credit to European nations for being long-standing U.S. allies, saying he will trust Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin alike at the outset of his presidency.

“I start off trusting both,” he said. “But let’s see how long that lasts. It may not last long at all.”

Trump offered mixed messages about the NATO defense alliance, which is dominated by the United States, calling it “obsolete” and saying it is “very unfair to the United States” that most nations are not meeting their voluntary defense spending commitments. “With that being said, NATO is very important to me,” Trump said.

Key moments from Gen. Mattis’s confirmation hearing
At the confirmation hearing for President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis warned about the threat Russia poses and vowed to stand up to Trump when necessary. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

The Kremlin embraced Trump’s comments, with a spokesman agreeing that NATO is obsolete. British leaders also welcomed Trump’s willingness to negotiate a trade deal in the wake of their nation’s departure from the E.U.

But among most U.S. allies, Trump’s attitudes “caused astonishment and excitement, not just in Brussels,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters Monday in Brussels, where he was meeting with other European foreign ministers at a previously scheduled gathering. Coming directly from a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Steinmeier said NATO had listened to Trump’s comments “with concern.”

The incoming U.S. president is the first American leader since World War II not to support European integration. The European Union has long been considered to be in the U.S. interest, since it created a unified market for U.S. businesses, provided a bulwark against communism during the Cold War and helped quell the bloody slaughter that cost U.S. lives, among others, in the first half of the 20th century.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the European Union expanded eastward into formerly communist nations, a development that leaders there say helped bring rule of law and stability as they modernized their economies.

Steinmeier said Germany is trying to assess what U.S. foreign policy will actually be. For example, James Mattis, the retired Marine general nominated to be Trump’s defense secretary, offered straightforward support for NATO and skepticism of Russia at his confirmation hearing last week.

Other leaders said Europe’s future does not rise or fall based on attitudes in the White House.

“What we are looking for is a partnership based on common interests with the United States,” E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters. “We always like to be in good company, but we determine our policies by ourselves.”

Some analysts noted that after Britain’s vote last June to leave the European Union, support for the E.U. in other nations increased. They wondered whether Trump’s frontal challenge to the bloc might have a similar effect. But one said that if global instability rises as a result of Trump’s unpredictable policies, the stress could weigh on the already taxed European Union.

“Over the last decades, the United States has played a huge stabilizing role. And when this stabilizing role of the U.S. around the world falls away, because they’re doing transactional deals, that will create lots and lots of messes which will implicate European interests,” said Stefan Lehne, a former Austrian diplomat who now works at Carnegie Europe, a Brussels-based think tank.

One prominent U.S. advocate of European unity was concerned about Europe’s ability to weather the Trump tsunami.

As the European Union battles skeptical forces, “U.S. cheerleading and support has been welcomed,” outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Anthony Gardner said last week. “If there isn’t someone like a [Secretary of State John F.] Kerry or an Obama .?.?. reminding people of the importance of the European Union, then there’s a vacuum.”

French leaders, who face tough presidential elections in April, also appeared to be scrambling to handle the fallout. Trump allies have expressed support for the anti-E.U., anti-immigrant National Front party, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, is doing well in opinion polls. Le Pen lunched in the basement of Trump Tower last week in the company of a man who has served as an informal conduit for Trump’s contacts with Euroskeptic European leaders, although the Trump transition team denied any formal meeting with the French politician.

“The best response is European unity,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault. “As with the case of Brexit, the best way to defend Europe is to remain united. This is a bit of an invitation that we are making to Mr. Trump. To remain a bloc. Not to forget that the force of Europeans is in their unity.”

But the most wishful approach to Trump’s declarations may have come from Luxembourg, where the nation’s top diplomat said he hoped Trump was still in campaign mode.

“One must hope that the statements of candidate Trump starting Friday will go in a different direction,” said Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jean Asselborn. “If the risks are summed up, it would be very destabilizing, which is not in the interest of America.”


http://www.businessinsider.co.id/trump-nato-eu-2017-1/?r=US&IR=T
Trump’s attitudes toward the EU and NATO could lead to ‘unprecedented changes in US foreign policy’
Pamela Engel, Jan. 18, 2017, 1:36 AM
Natasha Bertrand contributed to this report.

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/587e4847ee14b6b2008b8660-2010/undefined
Donald Trump, Spencer Platt/Getty Images

If President-elect Donald Trump’s recent statements on the European Union and the NATO are any indication, his administration could bring unprecedented changes to longstanding alliances between Western countries.

In an interview published Sunday with the Times of London and Bild newspapers, Trump questioned the value of the NATO alliance when he was asked whether he understood why many in eastern Europe feared Russian aggression.

“I said a long time ago – that NATO had problems,” Trump told The Times and Bild. “Number one it was obsolete, because it was, you know, designed many, many years ago. Number two – the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay.”

He also appeared indifferent toward the EU.

“People want their own identity, so if you ask me, others, I believe others will leave,” Trump said of the political and economic union. He also said that the EU’s future doesn’t matter much for the US.

The Soufan Group, a strategic-security firm, noted on Tuesday that these statements “have generated concerns of potentially unprecedented changes in US foreign policy” toward Europe.

“The notion that the lead-up to the 2017 US presidential inauguration would involve skepticism over the durability of NATO likely would have drawn disbelief several years ago,” the note read.

The note stated that “even the suggestion of the US taking a less robust role in leading or supporting NATO is without precedent.” NATO receives significant support financially and militarily from the US, and Trump has hinted that the US might not honor its commitments to collective defense if member countries don’t meet certain terms.

Still, The Soufan Group noted that it’s unclear how Trump’s statements will translate into actual policy. And Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil CEO who is Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, has said that NATO’s Article 5 collective action agreement is “inviolable” and that the US would stand by it. Trump also said during the Times and Bild interview that NATO “is very important to him.”

“The challenge facing EU and NATO members is to prepare for the possibility of dramatic changes while not overreacting to what are still just informal statements; that these statements have been made by the individual who will assume the US presidency on January 20 is what gives them their instant gravity and potential for serious consequences,” the Soufan note said.

“It remains to be seen how much of the rhetoric will become reality, but recent trends suggest the US approach to foreign policy – and even dealing with long-standing allies – may soon be subject to significant change.”

European leaders are watching Trump’s statements carefully. The Washington Post reported that some leaders aren’t counting on support from the US during the Trump presidency.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters in Berlin recently that Europeans “have our destiny in our own hands.”

NOW WATCH: ‘You are fake news’: Watch Trump attack a news reporter during his first press conference as president-elect


https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-lashes-out-at-trump-over-comments-on-nato-1484742189
Biden Lashes Out at Trump Over Comments on NATO
By Anton Troianovski, Jan. 18, 2017 11:33 a.m. ET

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-RR305_2V1ZM_OR_20170118071235.jpg?width=860&height=573
Departing vice president talks up success of alliance between U.S., Europe in Davos speech

Departing U.S. Vice President Joe Biden addresses the assembly at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. Photo: fabrice coffrini/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned against European disintegration and called out Russian President Vladimir Putin for seeking to fracture the liberal international order-delivering a final counterpoint to President-elect Donald Trump two days before the new administration takes power.

Mr. Biden, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, defended the trans-Atlantic alliance, international institutions and the European Union. While he didn’t name Mr. Trump, the comments came in contrast to opinions expressed by the president-elect, who in an interview over the weekend described the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as obsolete and dismissed the significance of the EU.

While Mr. Trump has praised Mr. Putin, the departing vice president described Russia as “working with every tool available to them to whittle away at the edges of the European project, test the fault lines among Western nations, and return to a politics defined by spheres of influence.”

“Defending the liberal international order requires that we resist the forces of European disintegration and maintain our longstanding insistence on a Europe whole, free, and at peace,” Mr. Biden said. “The EU has been an indispensable partner of the United States.”

Mr. Trump’s recent comments have heightened concern in European capitals that the U.S.’s decadeslong commitment to European integration and security was wearing thin.

Mr. Biden said cooperation between the U.S. and Europe formed “the bedrock of the success the world enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century.”

“Strengthening these values-values that served our community of nations so well for so long-is paramount to retaining the position of leadership that Western nations enjoy,” Mr. Biden said.

Mr. Biden also leveled sharp criticism at Mr. Putin, whom Mr. Trump has praised and with whom he said he would seek to cooperate. A movement seeking to fracture the liberal international order, Mr. Biden said, “is principally led by Russia.”

Mr. Putin’s goal, Mr. Biden said, was “to return to a world where the strong impose [their] will through military might, corruption, and criminality, while weaker nations have to fall into line.”

European leaders have promised to resist any attempts by Mr. Trump to weaken international institutions and called for unity in the EU. Some European officials said they believe Messrs. Putin and Trump want to weaken the 28-nation bloc.

Mr. Trump said in his weekend interview with Germany’s Bild and Britain’s Times that more nations were likely to exit the EU after the U.K., and that the bloc had become “a vehicle for Germany.” Meanwhile, Western officials warn that Russia may seek to interfere in this year’s elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

“With many countries in Europe slated to hold elections this year, we should expect further attempts by Russia to meddle in the democratic process,” Mr. Biden said. “It will occur again, I promise you, and again the purpose is clear: to collapse the liberal international order.”

U.S. intelligence agencies have said Mr. Putin ordered a campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Mr. Putin aspired to help Mr. Trump to victory as part of a broader ambition to undermine Western liberalism. The Russian government has denied involvement in the operation.


Trump Threatens Europe’s Stability, a Top Leader Warns
By JAMES KANTER, JAN. 31, 2017
@jameskanter.
Alison Smale contributed reporting from Berlin and Jack Ewing contributed from Frankfurt, Germany.


Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, at a news conference on Tuesday in Tallinn, Estonia. Credit Ints Kalnins/Reuters

BRUSSELS – The president of the European Council warned Tuesday that President Trump was a potential threat to the European Union, including the American leader’s bellicose pronouncements with major geopolitical challenges like Russian aggression, China’s assertiveness and international terrorism.

In a letter sent to European leaders, Donald Tusk, the council president, wrote that those factors and “worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable.” He appeared to question whether the United States would maintain its commitment to European security under Mr. Trump’s leadership.

“For the first time in our history, in an increasingly multipolar external world, so many are becoming openly anti-European, or Eurosceptic at best,” Mr. Tusk wrote. The letter was released ahead of a European Union summit meeting in Malta on Friday; Mr. Tusk is responsible for setting the agenda for the meetings.

“Particularly the change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy,” he wrote.

Related Coverage
European Council President Calls Trump Administration a Threat to E.U. JAN. 31, 2017
FIRST 100 DAYS BRIEFING: It’s ‘The Apprentice, Supreme Court Edition,’ as Trump Summons Finalists to White House JAN. 31, 2017
As Inauguration Nears, Trump Keeps World Leaders on Edge JAN. 16, 2017
As Trump Era Arrives, a Sense of Uncertainty Grips the World JAN. 16, 2017
Trump Criticizes NATO and Hopes for ‘Good Deals’ With Russia JAN. 15, 2017

The European Union has been struggling to contend with fractious internal forces. Among them: the vote by Britain to leave the bloc, the organization’s failure to establish a unified response to the arrival of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and the debt crisis that has driven many Greeks into poverty. And then there are external pressures like Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Before the election and since taking office, Mr. Trump has lauded the vote by Britain, known as Brexit, and said the country would thrive outside the European Union. He met with Nigel Farage, a populist leader of the campaign to leave the bloc, before seeing Prime Minister Theresa May. And at one point he went so far as to suggest that Mrs. May appoint Mr. Farage as Britain’s ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Trump has also praised President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and indicated he would pursue friendlier relations with Moscow, even as Russia encourages chaos on the European Union’s eastern border.

Mr. Tusk’s letter does not reflect a new policy for the European Union, and member states of the 28-nation bloc are not required to act on Mr. Tusk’s advice when they meet on Friday. But many European leaders have made their differences with Mr. Trump known.

After the United States said it was temporarily blocking refugees from entering the country, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany felt compelled to point out to Mr. Trump the obligations of nations under the Geneva Conventions to protect refugees of war on humanitarian grounds. And President François Hollande of France said he had reminded Mr. Trump that “the ongoing fight to defend our democracy will be effective only if we sign up to respect to the founding principles and, in particular, the welcoming of refugees.”

Mrs. May, of Britain, sought in a meeting with Mr. Trump last week to confirm his commitment to NATO; he was dismissive of the alliance, the bedrock of European security, during his campaign.

Now, the sentiments expressed in Mr. Tusk’s letter are pushing European leaders’ exasperation with the American president further into the public view.

Mr. Tusk has sounded the alarm about the existential crises facing the bloc before, but never with the urgency he displayed in the letter. And he has never before included a longstanding ally like the United States in the list of challenges.

“An increasingly, let us call it, assertive China, especially on the seas,” he wrote, “Russia’s aggressive policy toward Ukraine and its neighbors, wars, terror and anarchy in the Middle East and in Africa, with radical Islam playing a major role, as well as worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable.”

Much of the frustration Mr. Tusk displayed in his letter stemmed from what Guntram B. Wolff, director of Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels, said was Mr. Trump’s “de facto supporting” of populist forces that could further upend the European order.

Far-right populist challengers in France, Germany and the Netherlands have adopted some of his anti-establishment rhetoric in their own campaigns.

Still, Mr. Wolff said it was unwise to enter into a war of words with the Trump administration. “We need to uphold our values here, but does it mean that we need now a declaration where we put the United States on the same level as ISIS?” he said. “No, I don’t think so. I don’t think it that would be helpful in any way.”

The trans-Atlantic volley of opprobrium on Friday included an accusation by Peter Navarro, the director of Mr. Trump’s new National Trade Council, that Germany was manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage. Mr. Navarro told The Financial Times that Germany was using a “grossly undervalued” euro to “exploit” the United States and its partners in Europe.

That did not sit well with Ms. Merkel, who defended the European Central Bank’s independent role at a news conference on Friday: “Because of that we will not influence the behavior of the E.C.B. And as a result, I cannot and do not want to change the situation as it is.”

The value of the euro is near a 13-year low compared with the dollar, allowing German carmakers and other manufacturers to sell their goods more cheaply in the United States. But German firms also employ around 670,000 people in the United States, including many in a BMW factory in Spartanburg, S.C., the carmaker’s largest in the world, and a Mercedes factory in Tuscaloosa, Ala. These are the sort of manufacturing jobs that Mr. Trump says he wants to keep in the United States.

Jan Techau, director of the Richard C. Holbrooke Forum in Berlin, a research center dedicated to diplomacy, said Mr. Tusk’s letter was less a warning to the American president than it was a message to Europeans not to be lured away from union, or to be tempted away from the bloc by favorable bilateral ties offered by the Trump administration. “He is encouraging everyone to fall into that trap,” Mr. Techau said of the American president.

Mr. Tusk, by contrast, is making the case for Europeans to stick together for their own survival. “He wants to remind them that there is something bigger at stake than just what they are going to be talking about in Malta,” Mr. Techau said.

A version of this article appears in print on February 1, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Under Trump, U.S. Is Now a Threat to Europe’s Stability, Leader Warns. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe


http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/02/01/petraeus-u-s-led-international-order-unprecedented-threat-china-russia-iran-jihadi-groups/
Petraeus: U.S. Facing ‘Unprecedented Threat’ from China, Russia, Iran, Jihadi Groups
by Edwin Mora1 Feb 2017, Washington, D.C. 333


Riccardo Savi/Getty Images for Concordia Summit

WASHINGTON D.C. – The “open, free, and rules-based international” order led and created by the United States is “under unprecedented threat” from Iran, Russia, China, and Islamic extremist groups, former CIA Director and retired Gen. David Petraeus told House lawmakers during a hearing aimed at assessing the state of the world.

John McLaughlin, a former deputy and acting director of the CIA who testified before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Petraeus on Wednesday, added North Korea to the list of threats facing the United States.

North Korea “probably presents the most pressing near-term concern and this administration and Congress will face a decision predecessors have not had to confront with the same urgency: how to protect against or neutralize its nuclear and missile capability,” testified McLaughlin, now a practitioner-in-residence at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

McLaughlin said a series of developments in the last few years, including nuclear advances to its missile technology, has moved North Korea to near the top of America’s “nightmare list,” adding that the Communist country is “now clearly within reach” of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) able to reach U.S. soil.

Both Petraeus and McLaughlin prepared a written testimony for the House panel hearing, titled “The State of the World: National Security Threats and Challenges.”

“Compounding the danger posed by revisionist forces are technologies that are eroding America’s conventional military edge,” declared Petraeus.

He explained:

Among the fast-developing tools in their [Iran,Russia, China] arsenals are anti-access area denial weapons that will complicate our ability to project power into vital regions and uphold our security commitments; increasingly complex cyber-weapons for employment alone in attacks on infrastructure or in influence campaigns, or in supporting conventional and unconventional force operations, including so-called hybrid warfare; a renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons; and threats to U.S. primacy in space-a vital sanctuary for U.S. military power that is increasingly contested.

Petraeus pointed out that revisionist powers, or nations dissatisfied with the status quo, have embarked on an effort to establish a sphere of influence in and around their territory, which includes areas of “vital strategic importance” to the United Staes as well as territory that belongs to allies that America is bound to protect by shared interests and values.

He went on to highlight Islamic extremism as another form of revisionist power threatening the open, free, and rule of law-based U.S.-led international order.

“A very different, far more radical revisionist force threatening the international order is Islamic extremism-the ideology that animates the Islamic State and al Qaeda,” noted Petraeus. “The greatest weakness of Islamic extremism is also its greatest strength-which is its protean ability to exist and indeed thrive without inhabiting a conventional nation-state. What it lacks in traditional power terms, it compensates for in conviction, resilience, resourcefulness, and ferocity.”

Gen. Petraeus referred to the jihadi threat as “unlike any adversary” the U.S. has ever faced.

Despite the challenges, the United States remains in a commanding position to sustain and strengthen the international order it leads, noted the general.

However, he warned, “Americans should not take the current international order for granted. It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

“This is precisely what some of our adversaries,” namely Russian President Vladimir Putin, “seek to encourage,” he added.

McLaughlin predicted the U.S. will no longer be the sole dominant power over the next couple decades, noting that the world is moving towards a multi-nation order.

“We are witnessing a diffusion of power among nations. Over the next couple decades the world will be without a hegemonic power – that is, without a country so powerful as to exert dominant influence and advance policy with little reference to others,” he testified.

“We remain the single most influential country and no major problems will be solved without the US … but the US cannot solve them alone. And others are competing for the preeminence we have long enjoyed,” he added.

Petraeus identified a loss of self-confidence, resolve, and strategic clarity on U.S. national security interests as a “more pernicious” challenge undermining the United States and its allies.

tuffone3 • a day ago
His judgement became suspect when he committed adultery and then went over to Obama’s side. Zero credibility.

proreason tuffone3 • 18 hours ago
Statements like this are why he isn’t Secretary of State, even though he wanted the job.
Equating Russia and China to the Muslim terror states is just ridiculous in 2017. China may pose an economic threat, but they aren’t going to war with the US. Neither is Russia. Unlike the demented left in the US, the leaders of those countries are sane. Clearly, the major threat in the world today is radical Islam. We shouldn’t be antogonistic to Russia and China, we should be allying with them to defeat Islam.

Voidsphere proreason • 17 hours ago
Russia would have been a Great Ally of the United States if Obama/Soros /McCain and their Ban of Forty Thieves would not have Started Cold War 2.0 and a push to WWIII.
Sanctions placed on Russia by Obama and NATO forced Russia to Sell S400s to China and SU-35s and what did China do?
Placed them in the South China Sea to be used to kill American Soldiers if the United States tried to Intervene in the South China Sea.
Up until the Sanctions – Russia had no Intention of Selling S400s or SU-35s to China – one must wonder why there is no investigation into Obama for assisting China in gaining a tactical advantage in the South China Sea?

NoMoreMoslems Voidsphere • 14 hours ago
The Russians are alpha males like Trump whereas Barry is a beta. I always laugh when I think of when Putin called Barry a monkey with a hand grenade.

CensoredSpeech??????????? NoMoreMoslems • 6 hours ago
I liked the one where he equated Obama with a chess-playing pigeon: “negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then struts around like it won the game.”

NoMoreMoslems CensoredSpeech??????????? • 6 hours ago
Hahaha oh my, so appropriate

TheLulzWarrior Voidsphere • 12 hours ago
The ones pushing for a war with Russia are the same ones pushing for gun control…
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/29/gen-petraeus-reenlisting-to-push-gun-control-n2252100
What a surprise, huh?

JCMR Voidsphere • 16 hours ago
Hopefully in draining the swamp that comes out.

Slave 2none JCMR • 14 hours ago
state-department mass resignations is a great start!

JRG JCMR • 13 hours ago
8 years of Obama have led to our decline of influence throughout the world and the bad actors stepped up.

Roscoe Voidsphere • 14 hours ago
China is an overblown fear. One Titan Missile from one ballistic sub could make 3 of those Islands disappear and what would China do? Shoot back and lose a trillion or more in debt? Shoot back and be wiped off of the face of the earth? Russia and the USA hold 90% of the nukes on this planet. People make China a threat in our minds because they would loose huge fortunes and investments if there were hostilities between us now. Just push back hard and the Chinese will back off because they have no other workable choice.

TheLulzWarrior Roscoe • 12 hours ago
Yeah, you don´t need to be Walter White to figure that out.

skokan Voidsphere • 14 hours ago
Why would US intervene in South China Sea.? Why is it their Business.?

Khalus skokan • 13 hours ago
Because China is building military islands in international waters and infringing on several of our allies.

rick rage Khalus • 10 hours ago
our dear US is building airstrips and missile sites all around russia, china and iran. how is this different from china and the islands? it’s only different in that at least those islands are in china’s best interest while this war-monger nation we live in has no vital interests in any of those place. our vital interests are here with 11-30 million illegal aliens and millions of muslim ‘migrants.’

Jan Boekanier rick rage • 3 hours ago
So true!

Voidsphere skokan • 10 hours ago
because that is there plan.

JCMR proreason • 16 hours ago
I know. It is insane. Hope Trump keeps people like this at arms length if not faaaaaaaaar waway.

Trumptard JCMR • 12 hours ago
I guess you never heard of Steve Bannon.

JCMR Trumptard • 12 hours ago
Dont be retarded. Bannon does not even remotely hold neocon positions like Peteaeus. He has openly said that at the rate Obama was going war with China and Russia was inevitable and gave approximate dates. Not the same as ADVOCATING it. Get it right.

Jan Boekanier Trumptard • 3 hours ago
Go and play elsewhere!

Farmer ????????????? proreason • 17 hours ago
we don’t need to ally with them to exterminate a mental rat pack.
these countries are actually working with them along with our own traitors on the inside.

JCMR Farmer ????????????? • 16 hours ago
You are a deluded neocon. Obama run Deep State created “moderate rebels” and Issis and it got out of hand and now rogue with all the high grade weapons (maybe even small nuclear bombs) and money stashed away. USA alone can not do it.

Farmer ????????????? JCMR • 9 hours ago
im not any neo con or whatever stupid category you need to project on to ppl. Im 100% American.
you just don’t know how to fight, or end one.

mediaaccess Farmer ????????????? • 17 hours ago
Correct. On Russia, read ‘Putin’s Kleptocracy’, on China..it’s in the tea leaves. The enemy of my enemy isn’t my friend. It’s a simplification, but Trump is a quick learner. Hopefully he can figure this crp out fast enough before we all go to hell.

JCMR mediaaccess • 16 hours ago
Oh please. She wrote nothing new in it. A paid neocon hack to justify Cold War 2.0. Only Fake News outlets and “Establishment” outlets raved about it. That in itself is a reason to not take it as “Guru material” over Putin.

TheLulzWarrior JCMR • 12 hours ago
Neocuckservatives needs to be physically removed, period!

mediaaccess JCMR • 15 hours ago
There’s much, much more, but go ahead, and please tell me which part of the ‘fake news’ is correct! just one.I’ve researched plenty to know the facts. I am doing a survey, though, and would like to ask you if you used to be a Ted supporter, or you’re a Democrat card holder? The MO sounds suspicious.

TheLulzWarrior mediaaccess • 12 hours ago
Free helicopter rides for all neo-cuckservatives!

Twilight Sparkle proreason • 16 hours ago
Equating Russia to Cjina is rediculous. China, on the other hand, is working as hard as they can to arrive at a point where they can fight and win a war against the US. They intend to be imperialist (as ALL real communists do -it is intrinsic to Marxism since ut’s inception).
Our biggest threats are:
1. Internal communist/globalist subversion, and their external associated governments and ties. Most our other threats exist due to this, and they have very nearly ended our relubluc pernanently.
2. Communist China, who intends to eventually attack us, as is clearly demonstrated to the point of being self evident to any actual observer.
3. Islamic terror. I put it 3rd, instead of 4th, because it is weaker, but ever present and active. The real solution to this is the easiest, but not PC.
4. “Rogue states” seeking to nuke up. Primarily Iran and North Korea.
5. See number 1. Numbers 2 through 4 are a product of number 1, if you truly know your 20th century history in depth.

Post A Comment Twilight Sparkle • 7 hours ago
Controlled socialism is far better than run-amok capitalism…..the USA is about 18th in standard of living
compared to most European and Scandinavian countries….you know you pay for their lifestyle….voodnomics for you…

Jan Boekanier proreason • 3 hours ago
Right!

Richard_Lionheart proreason • 15 hours ago
Russia and China have been colluding for years to replace the US $ as the world reserve currency. Just pricing oil other than in the US$ will cause our money to be worth less than the paper it is printed on. This would destroy the USA worse than any Jihadi group. The massive non white immigration of 50 years means we would not unite when (not if) this happens and be in a civil war. No one has to attack the USA to destroy it, they can do it from within by using the Democratic Party and on a global scale by delegitimizing fiat currency. This will happen , not maybe, it is a matter of when.

fight4liberty proreason • 16 hours ago
You underestimate the value of being an economic threat – consider that we brought down the Soviet empire through our economic actions. While China is unlikely to go to direct war with us, they have the same lust for raw materials that drove the Japanese into WWII. And Obama all but abdicated the South China Sea to their dominance. Their build up of small islands is strategic. Add to that a Philippines President who seems a bit unstable and China could become their “partner” without firing a shot. Which other nations would simply fall inline?
Russia has a desire to return to their former glory. Their economy has fallen with oil prices. It is the reason they are pushing into Ukraine and south into the Middle East. Consider their influence as they partner with Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They can effectively control the oil and natural gas from the Middle East to Europe. What would be the combined effect of a natural gas/oil shortage and an already explosive refugee situation? Powder Keg.

TheLulzWarrior fight4liberty • 12 hours ago
Physically remove neocuckservative scum!

Chairman LMAO proreason • 17 hours ago
Gooooooood goy. Yessssss. Islam is the problem. Goooooood. Here have some more pornography and fried food. Gooooooood goy, goooooood.

Sytnyk Andrij proreason • 16 hours ago
Russia has no free press, everyone is dead. Russia has no democratic opposition – they are killed. Russia does not has an democratic process, no culture of armed citizen and no freedom.
Why do you think that Russia is an great ally? They hate USA.

Chairman LMAO Sytnyk Andrij • 14 hours ago
They hate the USA because they know what Jews are capable of.

skokan Chairman LMAO • 14 hours ago
Jared an Ivanka are Jewish

rick rage skokan • 8 hours ago
ok……and?

Chairman LMAO skokan • 13 hours ago
Great argument! Lol

NoMoreMoslems Chairman LMAO • 9 hours ago
Lmao Moslems have hated Jews for 1400 years. Nothing to do with the USA. Seriously that’s a very ignorant statement.

Chairman LMAO NoMoreMoslems • 9 hours ago
Semites all of them.

JCMR Sytnyk Andrij • 16 hours ago
Another neocon troll.

Chairman LMAO JCMR • 14 hours ago
Neocons are always Jews and so are you, in all likelihood

rick rage Sytnyk Andrij • 9 hours ago
no free press? no democratic opposition? no culture? of course not, you jews gutted the whole nation. after 70 years you vampires sucked it dry. then you ran to the US and israel when it got too hot with putin. more blaming the victim. more projection. just as you did to germany after WW2. read Hellstorm for one of the few honest accounts of WW2.

TheLulzWarrior Sytnyk Andrij • 12 hours ago
That part of Russia is called the “ukraine”, a fake country created by Bolcheviks and that will soon cease to exist! -)

Carolingian Sytnyk Andrij • 15 hours ago
Troll alert

skokan Sytnyk Andrij • 14 hours ago
I think by the time Trump is done,everybody will hate US. It’s already started.

Deplorable Lyn skokan • 10 hours ago
The world, over the past few years, has viewed the US as spineless. Pres. Trump is just letting the world know that those days of running roughshod over US are over!


http://thehill.com/policy/defense/317321-petraeus-world-order-under-unprecedented-threat
Petraeus: World order under ‘unprecedented threat’
By Rebecca Kheel – 02/01/17 10:46 AM EST

Retired Gen. David Petraeus warned lawmakers on Wednesday that the world order created in part by the United States in the 20th century is under “unprecedented threat from multiple directions,” pointing to Russia, China, Islamist extremists and cyber threats.

Those threats are compounded by an America whose “resolve about its defense has become somewhat ambivalent,” he added.

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” Petraeus said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

Petraeus, former director of the CIA, spoke at a hearing about the “state of the world.”

Many of Petraeus’s remarks hinted at pushing back against statements and policies from President Trump, who had considered Petraeus as a candidate for his secretary of State.

In speaking about the threat from extremists, Petraeus stressed that the majority of Muslims who reject extremism are the “most important ally” in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda.

His comments come amid continued backlash at Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, suspending all refugees for four months and halting Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Critics have called the order a Muslim ban and said it plays into extremists’ narrative that the West is at war with Islam.

“We must also remember that Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilizations, with America at war against Islam,” Petraeus said Wednesday. “We must not let them do that; indeed, we must be very sensitive to actions that might give them ammunition to use in such an effort.”

Petraeus also warned that adversaries such as Russian President Vladimir Putin are seeking to encourage American ambivalence about its defense and institutions such as NATO.

“President Putin, for instance, understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of the major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU,” Petraeus said. “That is why Russia is tenaciously working to sow doubt about the legitimacy of these institutions and our entire democratic way of life.”

Trump has said he wants to improve relations with Russia and has called NATO obsolete.

Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who spoke at Wednesday’s hearing alongside Petraeus, also warned about the difficulty in dealing with Russia.

“There is nothing at all wrong with aiming for an improved relationship with Russia, but the U.S. must be aware that Russia calculates its interests in a cold-eyed clinical way and Washington will have to be equally dispassionate in dealing with Putin,” he said. “Historically, when Russia encounters weakness or hesitation, it demands more, then blames the opponent for escalation when the opponent resists – then calls for discussions, which it uses to consolidate its gains. Deals don’t come easily.”


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/petraeus-immigration-order-blocking-iraqi-general/
Petraeus says Trump order is blocking Iraqi general from US
BY Richard Lardner, Associated Press February 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM EST


FILE PHOTO – CIA Director David Petraeus speaks to members of a Senate (Select) Intelligence hearing on “World Wide Threats” on Capitol Hill in Washington in this January 31, 2012 file photo.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo – RTSSWIE

CIA Director David Petraeus speaks to members of a Senate (Select) Intelligence hearing on “World Wide Threats” on Capitol Hill in Washington in this January 31, 2012 file photo. Photo by Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/Reuters

WASHINGTON – Former CIA Director David Petraeus says President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees is blocking a senior Iraqi military official from traveling to the U.S. to meet with his American counterparts.

Petraeus is testifying Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee.

He’s telling lawmakers that Gen. Talib al-Kenani, commander of Iraq’s counterterrorism forces, can’t meet in person with officers from U.S. Central Command. The command in Tampa, Florida, oversees U.S. military operations against the Islamic State extremist group in Iraq and Syria.

Petraeus also says al-Kenani’s family lives in the United States because of threats they face in Iraq.

But Petraeus didn’t dispute the need for Trump’s order. He says the long-term effects of the policy will be determined by whatever changes are made to the immigration system.


http://time.com/4656897/david-petraeus-donald-trump-immigration-ban-testimony/
Former CIA Director David Petraeus Testifies Against President Trump’s Immigration Order
Richard Lardner / AP, Feb 01, 2017

(WASHINGTON)- Former CIA Director David Petraeus says President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees is blocking a senior Iraqi military official from traveling to the U.S. to meet with his American counterparts.

Petraeus is testifying Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee.

He’s telling lawmakers that Gen. Talib al-Kenani, commander of Iraq’s counterterrorism forces, can’t meet in person with officers from U.S. Central Command. The command in Tampa, Florida, oversees U.S. military operations against the ISIS.

Petraeus also says al-Kenani’s family lives in the United States because of threats they face in Iraq.

But Petraeus didn’t dispute the need for Trump’s order. He says the long-term effects of the policy will be determined by whatever changes are made to the immigration system.


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/petraeus-congress-testimony-putin/
Petraeus urges travel ban be settled quickly
By Nicole Gaouette, Updated 1856 GMT (0256 HKT) February 1, 2017

http://cnn-vh.akamaihd.net/z/cnn/big/politics/2017/02/01/david-petraeus-travel-ban-bts.cnn_1193325_,ios_150,ios_440,512x288_550k,640x360_900k,768x432_1300k,896x504_1850k,1280x720_3500k,.mp4.csmil/3_b225e3154297d5b5_
Petraeus urges travel ban be settled quickly 00:48

Washington (CNN)Former CIA director David Petraeus on Wednesday urged that the Trump administration’s travel ban be resolved quickly and suggested that it could serve as a propaganda tool for Islamic extremists.

“The sooner we can figure out what additional steps need to be added to the process to ensure we double and triple check to ensure civilians coming to our country” aren’t going to do any harm, the better, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee.

The four-star general was responding to a question from Rep. Susan Davis, a California Democrat, who asked about the ban’s impact and whether Islamic extremists would use it against the US.

“The long-range effects will be determined by how quickly whatever changes can be implemented, and we can get back to routine business,” Petraeus said at the hearing to examine “the State of the World: National Security Threats and Challenges.”

He spoke of foreign nationals in the affected countries who worked with the US military as translators and said he was heartened by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly calling for waivers in those cases.

Earlier in the hearing, Petraeus had told the lawmakers that “we must also remember that Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilizations … we must not let them do that.”

John McLaughlin, a former CIA acting director now with the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, also testified and told the committee that “almost everything we do gives the Islamic extremists ammunition… and they will do that with this,” referring to the ban.

Petraeus said more preparation and better staffing may have avoided some of the outcry about the executive order and the problems it caused.

He cited his litmus test for policy — whether it will take more “bad guys” off the field than it adds.

Petraeus was responding to California Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democrat who had asked Petraeus and McLaughin for their thoughts on a statement by Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA and NSA who called the travel ban “a horrible move” that was driven by political ideology that has made Americans “less safe.”

McLaughin said the ban was “the action of an administration that doesn’t yet know how hard government is.” He added that “you always have to ask what are the secondary, tertiary consequences of what you’re about to do.”

The proper way to have executed the ban, McLaughlin said, would have been to assemble all of the relevant players ask what the implications of the policy would be.

“I would like to think an administration learns these lessons, but we will see,” McLaughlin added.

Petraeus’ main message Wednesday was that the US should not take the international order for granted, suggesting that it could collapse and benefit US adversaries such as Russia.

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” Petraeus said. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse. This is precisely what some of our adversaries seek to encourage.”

Petraeus specifically mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the former KGB agent “understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU.”

The committee chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican, said that at a similar hearing two years ago he quoted former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who said US hadn’t faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of WWII.

“I’m not sure that anything has been simplified or made easier in the last two years,” Thornberry said. “In fact, it seems that the world has only grown more dangerous.”

Petraeus was also asked about Trump’s decision to make his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a member of the senior advisory body within the National Security Council. The move puts Bannon on a par with Cabinet secretaries, generals and above the Director of National Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff, who will now only attend when the committee considers issues in their areas of responsibility.

It is “somewhat extraordinary” to have a political figure like Bannon made a statutory member of the Principals Committee, Petraeus said.

Several Democrats quizzed Petraeus on the impact of some of President Donald Trump’s statements about traditional allies, including the EU, Japan and South Korea, and the Muslim ban. The general’s cautious answers indicated steps he would like to see taken, but he avoided any criticism of the new administration.

Petraeus faced possible felony charges and prison time in 2014 for violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI about it after he had shared classified information with his lover. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information.


https://sofrep.com/73919/former-cia-director-petraeus-warns-current-international-order-fray-collapse/
Former CIA director Petraeus warns that the current international order could ‘fray’ and ‘collapse’
By SOFREP 02.02.2017

Retired Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Wednesday that the US shouldn’t take the existing international order for granted.

The former CIA director told the House Armed Services Committee that the post-World War II world order had begun to face an “unprecedented threat from multiple directions.”

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” Petraeus said. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

The retired four-star general, who commanded forces in Iraq and later headed the CIA before resigning because of a scandal in which he was found to have shared classified information with his biographer and former mistress, was one of President Donald Trump’s picks for secretary of state.

During his testimony to the House committee, he warned against isolationism and protectionism, which the new administration’s policies support, instead advocating the kind of promotion of democracy around the world that the US has engaged in since World War II.

Featured image courtesy of Reuters.

We thought this story would be interesting for you, for full access to premium original stories written by our all veteran journalists subscribe here .

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, North America News Tagged With: China, Diplomacy, foreign policy, iran, Islamic extremism, Isolationism, promoting democracy, protectionism, Russia, WWII order

Read the whole story from Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/investigation-leak-sex-scandal-david-petraeus-2016-11?IR=T&


http://www.businessinsider.co.id/petraeus-world-order-collapse-trump-2017-2/?r=US&IR=T
Former CIA director Petraeus warns that the current international order could ‘fray’ and ‘collapse’
Pamela Engel, Feb. 2, 2017, 2:20 AM

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/58921e2b713ba130008b5fd6-2400/undefined
David Petraeus, REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Gen. David Petraeus during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on his nomination to be director of the CIA on June 23, 2011.

Former CIA director and retired Gen. David Petraeus warned Congress on Wednesday that the US can’t take the current international order for granted.

He told the House Armed Services Committee that the post-World War II world order is now facing an “unprecedented threat from multiple directions.”

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” Petraeus said. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

The retired four-star general, who commanded forces in Iraq and headed the CIA before he resigned for sharing classified information with his biographer and former mistress, was one of President Donald Trump’s possible picks for secretary of state.

During his testimony to the House committee, he warned against isolationism and protectionism, which the new administration has promoted, advocating instead for the promotion of democracy around the world that the US has engaged in post-WWII.

“To keep the peace, we led an effort to establish a system of global alliances and security commitments underwritten by US military power and the deployment of our forces to bases in Europe and Asia,” Petraeus said.

“To create a foundation for prosperity, we put in place an open, free, and rules-based economic order intended to safeguard against the spiral of protectionism that produced the impoverishment and radicalization of the 1930s. And to protect freedom here at home, we adopted a foreign policy that sought to protect and, where possible, promote freedom abroad along with human rights and rule of law.”

Petraeus said that while this system has been imperfect, it has largely been successful. He named familiar adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and Islamic extremists, but said the most harmful threat is actually domestic.

“The world order has also been undermined by something perhaps even more pernicious – a loss of self-confidence, resolve, and strategic clarity on America’s part about our vital interest in preserving and protecting the system we sacrificed so much to bring into being and have sacrificed so much to preserve,” he said.

Petraeus also warned about how the collapse of institutions like the NATO alliance and the European Union could play into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand.

“President Putin, for instance, understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU,” he said. “That is why Russia is tenaciously working to sow doubt about the legitimacy of these institutions and our entire democratic way of life.”

Trump made waves in January by repeating his assertions that NATO is “obsolete” and remarking that the EU’s future didn’t matter much to the US.

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/583caebce02ba7e5008b6861-2400
David Petraeus, Lucas Jackson/Reuters

David Petraeus after a meeting with U.S. President elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in November.

Petraeus also subtly rebuked the direction the Trump administration has taken on the fight against Islamic extremism, with which Petraeus has much experience.

Trump signed an executive order recently temporarily barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries that the Obama administration flagged as “countries of particular concern” from entering the US. The order applies to citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Terrorism experts have argued that this will feed into the narratives of terrorist groups that claim the US is against Islam while doing little to prevent terrorist attacks inside the country.

“Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilizations, with America at war against Islam,” he said. “We must not let them do that; indeed, we must be very sensitive to actions that might give them ammunition to use in such an effort.”

Petraeus urged the US to align itself with the Muslim community rather than against it.

“The most important ally in this war is the overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject Al Qaeda, Daesh [ISIS] and their fanatical, barbaric worldview,” he said. “Indeed, it is millions of Muslims who are fighting and dying in the greatest numbers on the frontlines of this war.”

He noted Arab and Kurdish soldiers who are fighting ISIS, Gulf Arab fighters who are pushing back Al Qaeda in Yemen, Afghans who are fighting a resurgent Taliban in their country, and Somali forces that are fighting terrorist elements there.

Petraeus’ warnings matched those given by other experts, former government officials, and world leaders.

Last month, Vice President Joe Biden lashed out at the policies Trump has proposed, noting that the EU has been an “indispensable partner of the United States.”

“Defending the liberal international order requires that we resist the forces of European disintegration and maintain our longstanding insistence on a Europe whole, free, and at peace,” he said.

European leaders have also expressed concerns about Trump’s views on NATO and the EU.

And earlier this week, the president of the European Council of the EU warned that Trump could pose a threat to the stability of the bloc.


Advertisements