Analysis: Is there a shift in US military thinking?

Defense officials worried that Petraeus’s comments are harbinger of weakened ties

While almost a week has passed since Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the United States Military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) testified before the Senate and dropped his bombshell about Israel, concern within the defense establishment has only grown.

While the assumption among the top IDF brass is that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen does not support Petraeus’s widely-reported claim that Israeli intransigence was a problem for the US military in the Middle East and was fomenting conflict, the comments still worry Israel for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is the possibility that Petraeus’s comments indicate a shift among US military thinkers. While diplomatic ties between Jerusalem and Washington have traditionally known their ups and downs, ties on the military level have always been perceived to be rock-solid.

“Obama is also going to drop ties to Taiwan.”

I’ve been saying the same thing for a year. It’s obvious. China will use Taiwan as leverage on us for them supporting reining in N.Korea. At least, that is what they will promise, and 0zer0 will buy it.

China learned the benefits of getting control of Hong Kong, and the next domino they want is Taiwan. Next China will force closer ties with Japan, S.Korea, and the Philipines. All by using N.Korea both as a threat, and a pawn that they can “control” for the “benefit” of the West. China will then be able to dominate all of the Western Pacific. All very easy to see if you just look at it. All very dangerous as well.

I followed your link and read that part about abandoning policy of non-negotiating/non-communication with Hamas.

That brought to mind the event last year when Thomas Pickering had a secret meeting with Hamas. When that was reported in the press, Obama denied Pickering was working for him. Pickering served as Reagan's Ambassador to Israel so I guess it would be possible that Pickering was working for Israel. Either way, somebody is talking to Hamas.

Pickering belongs to the Realist-Pragmatist school of foreign policy and that group subscribes to the theory of "Linkage", that there are many problems in the mideast that are linked to the Israel-Palestine problem and can't be solved until the Palestine-Israel problem is solved.

One could draw a conclusion from the above article that Patraeus is a realist.

I don't usually refer to wiki but I see few sites with as much total info on Pickering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Pickering

As you can see above, the fact that Reagan appointed him does not make him a quality diplomat. (if you do some digging, Pickering has been a defender of Obama re bending over to Russia as well).

“Obama denied Pickering was working for him. Pickering served as Reagan's Ambassador to Israel so I guess it would be possible that Pickering was working for Israel”

Most illogical statement I have read in weeks. You are implying

Obama tells the truth
AND that Reagans old appointee was co-opted by leftists in Israel.

“Pickering belongs to the Realist-Pragmatist school of foreign policy and that group subscribes to the theory of “Linkage”, that there are many problems in the mideast that are linked to the Israel-Palestine problem and can't be solved until the Palestine-Israel problem is solved.”

Your so-called “Realist-Pragmatist school of foreign policy / Linkage” is a farce.

Muslims are slaughtering each other and Christians (and Jews, and Hindus, and Buddhists) all over the world on a daily basis (and have been for over 1300 years), and yet “its the Jews fault because they are oppressing those harmless and blameless palestinians”

AND THUS, since we can't figure out how to hold keep our access to oil AND hold free elections in these mohamedan hellholes without turning over their govts and weapons to even MORE frightening despots, than we better declare that

“many problems in the mideast that are linked to the Israel-Palestine problem and can't be solved until the Palestine-Israel problem is solved.”

Look at a map and tell us how much land modern Israel has compared to the Arab muslim “nations” (almost EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHICH was created in the late 19th and 20th Century).

Please also tell us how the Jews shouldn't be allowed to keep the recreation of their modern state even though they were there millenia before islam was a nightmare that should have run down moHAMheads father's leg 1300 + years ago.

Please also tell us when muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh should be dissolved since they were formed by a war / split off from India, a nation of hindus that was also thousands of years old.

Please also tell us that India should hand over MORE of their land simply because Muslims want it.

Please also tell us that the division of the Sudetenland after WW2 is wrong.

“One could draw a conclusion from the above article that Patraeus is a realist.”

Which article? The one started on this thread? That article shows that Petraeus (and anyone who agrees with him) is deeply unaware of both the history of the region, and the danger TO AMERICA of kissing the Arab ass; they will ALWAYS CRAP ON YOUR FACE when it suits them.

(if you mean the one I linked to, sir, your leaps of logic are even more tragically flawed.

Its as if I say “I saw Ficklin’s name on FR, I know FR links to stores that sell Conservative memorabilia, hence

“One could draw a conclusion from the above article that Ficklin sells Conservative memorabilia....”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.