Leave Patraeus Alone? - “This man has suffered enough, in my view,” Feinstein, D-Calif.

[leveymg]

11. This isn't about the mistress. It's the result of misrepresenting CIA activities in MENA,

Last edited Sun Jan 11, 2015, 05:38 PM - Edit history (9)

particularly the Agency's role in the spread of terrorists and heavy weapons from Libya to Syria, and divisions within the Administration about arming the opposition. Petraeus' extramarital affair was raised as this issue came to a head in Oct. 2012, and his initial resistance to resignation forced the affair into the open. For the timeline and context, see, WSJ, 03/29/13, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323639604578368930961739030

Just as pressure to intervene grew last summer, White House officials were buoyed by a series of attacks where rebels appeared to be getting close to killing Mr. Assad. Several senior officials now acknowledge the U.S. misjudged how long Mr. Assad could hold on.

The cautious approach comes from the president himself, buttressed by advisers including Denis McDonough, now the White House chief of staff. Their view: Syria is awash in arms and adding more risks worsening violence without improving rebel chances of victory.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to believe late last year that Washington could no longer watch the Syria carnage from the sidelines. But Mrs. Clinton and other advocates of arming the rebels didn't in the end aggressively push for the initiative, put forward by then-Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, as it became clear where Mr. Obama stood, according to current and former administration officials.

Arming Syrian rebels divided the cabinet coalition that had championed the 2011 Libya campaign, pitting Mrs. Clinton against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who emerged as a leading voice of caution.

The most engaged U.S. effort thus far comes from the CIA, which is working with European and Arab spy services to provide intelligence, training and logistical support to select rebel groups, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. Nevertheless, CIA operatives are frustrated by what they see as the Obama administration's reluctance to provide the rebels with the items they say they need most, including arms and cash, according to current and former officials.

The CIA declined to comment.

< . . .>

The idea of arming secular rebels was popular among CIA field officers who wanted better relations with fighters. It also was more palatable to administration lawyers. The debate came to a head in an October meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Mr. Petraeus, leaning forward during his presentation, made a forceful case for arming rebels, arguing it would help the U.S. build pro-Western allies and shape future leaders of a post-Assad Syria. Mrs. Clinton spoke in favor of the initiative but her remarks were brief. U.N. Ambassador Rice argued strongly against arming the rebels, citing doubts about the opposition. Ms. Rice through a spokeswoman declined to comment.

Other White House advisers worried that providing arms, without toppling Mr. Assad, risked making the U.S. look ineffectual. Moreover, such a move would leave the president open to attack if the arms found their way into the hands of extremists. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair. A CIA analysis played down the impact of arming the rebels on accelerating Mr. Assad's fall, and the proposal to arm the rebels died.

Petraeus tendancy toward political deception and grotesquely bad military judgement isn't surprising. Petraeus was previously a player in the Iraq WMD deception in 2003 (but that isn't why he's now being cashiered). See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/311

PETRAEUS' IRAQ WMD DECEPTION: How the General Earned His Stripes With Bush-Cheney
Posted by leveymg in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Sep 11th 2007, 08:26 AM
In the last few days, it's come to light that Gen. Petraeus was the original source for incorrect information released to the U.S. media in May 2003 that mobile biological warfare trailers had been located in Iraq. False intelligence findings were indeed substituted for a 122-page DIA report suppressed by the Pentagon.

During the next year, the Bush-Cheney Administration continued to make false assertions that Saddam Hussein had a biotoxins program in place before the invasion, and that certain trailers found in Iraq proved that claim.

We now learn that a team of Defense Intelligence Agency investigators concluded on May 26 that the trailers found had no connection to a biowarfare program, but, nonetheless, Pentagon spokesmen and the Administration continued to make unfounded allegations that the mobile labs had been manufacturing anthrax, smallpox, and other deadly germs.

Gen. Petraeus appears to have taken no steps to correct the record after he falsely stated to reporters on May 13 that there is a "reasonable degree of certainty that this is in fact a mobile biological agent production trailer."

We should all ask why this part of Petraeus' history has been glossed over. Why has Congress and the media not pointed this out about the General before?