It's Official: Taliban Decide That Petraeus Must Be Shot By Paula Broadwell's Family Members Due To Adultery

The story comes from The Telegraph.

David Petraeus: gleeful Taliban ponder correct way to execute adulterer


As generals, journalists and military analysts in the United States continue to ponder the national security and political implications of Mr Petraeus's spectacular fall from grace, his affair and resignation have tickled the famously humourless Taliban.

One official burst into laughter at the mention of the Petraeus affair during an interview in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar.

"What a b------! But all Americans are the same, it's nothing new," the official told the AFP news agency on condition of anonymity.

Adulterers suffered severe punishment under the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which ran from 1996 until they were forced from power in 2001. Offenders were flogged in public.

But there is a dilemma for the Talib, balancing the demands of Islamic law against the norms of his conservative Pashtun tribe.



"From a Pashtun point of view, Petraeus should be shot by relatives from his mistress's family," the Taliban official explained helpfully.

"From a sharia point of view, he should be stoned to death."

Mr Petraeus, a four-star general married for 37 years, resigned from his position as head of the Central Intelligence Agency last week over an affair with his biographer.

Before taking up the post, he had been head of Nato-led forces in Afghanistan, where he led the fight against Taliban insurgents as they re-established themselves in pockets of the country.

The Taliban official said he was not surprised by lurid revelations of the affair.

"It's quite normal for Americans and Western people to behave like this - they live in free sex societies where nobody cares about this sort of thing, so what do you expect?" he said.

You've Got To Be Kidding Me!

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Now I have heard everything.  Sit down folks.  General David Petraeus, holder of the following medals:

• Defense Distinguished Service Medal (4)
• Army Distinguished Service Medal (3)
• Defense Superior Service Medal (2) Legion of Merit (4)
• Bronze Star Medal with Valor
• Defense Meritorious Service Medal
• NATO Meritorious Service Medal
• Officer of the Order of Australia
• And many others

Has resigned because of an extra-marital affair.

CIA Director David Petraeus submitted his letter of resignation Friday, after admitting to an extramarital affair.

Petraeus, in a message to staff, said President Obama accepted his resignation after the two met on Thursday afternoon. Petraeus said that he asked "to be allowed" to step down.

"After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours," Petraeus said. "This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation."

The move comes amid the unfolding controversy surrounding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. Scrutiny has fallen on a range of agencies including the CIA. The director had been expected to testify at hearings next week. But Petraeus, in his resignation message, cited strictly "personal reasons" surrounding his affair which until now had not been disclosed.

Obama, in a written statement, said Petraeus provided an "extraordinary service to the United States for decades."

"By any measure, he was one of the outstanding General officers of his generation, helping our military adapt to new challenges, and leading our men and women in uniform through a remarkable period of service in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he helped our nation put those wars on a path to a responsible end," Obama said. He said he has named Michael Morell, the agency's deputy director, to serve as acting director.

The decision abruptly ends the public-service career of one of the military's most vaunted leaders. He led the surge in Iraq, and was later tapped to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan -- following two years at the helm of U.S. Central Command. In April 2011, Obama again tapped Petraeus to lead the CIA.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Petraeus' resignation "represents the loss of one of our nation's most respected public servants."

Petraeus' wife, Holly, also works in the Obama administration, for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Source

History teaches us that under in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin the Red Army was purged of its best officers and men.  In fact the purge nearly destroyed the Red Army and it was a real possibility that due to the purge (And killing of these men) that Germany could have destroyed the Soviet Union.

Now look to today.  First Cmdr. Joseph Darlak, captain of the frigate Vandegrift, then, Capt. Owen Honors was relieved of duty Tuesday as commander of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, then General Ham was relieved.  There is a massive Reduction in Forces happening in the military.  While civilian (union) workers are not being fired, the men and women in uniform are being basically fired.

Rumors are rampant that there was a Seven Days in May coup d'etat being planned if Obama won.  I doubt it, bum Obama is removing all and any opposition to his plans there can be.  Rumors are also rampant that this was the last free election we as a nation will ever have.  That Obama has no intention of ever giving up power and he will soon find a way to eliminate both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.  Why not?  Already the left has declared him G-d.

I fear the end is nearing for the United States of America.  A once proud and free nation now subjected to the whim of a dictator.  G-d help us all!

Benghazi Coverup's First Victim: CIA Head Petraeus Resigns Over Extra-marital Affair (yeah, right)

Remember, Communists don't give up power and they don't allow coverups to be uncovered.

Story is at NBC via Drudge.

CIA Director Petraeus Resigns, Cites Extramarital Affair


Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus has resigned, citing "extremely poor judgment" for having an extramarital affair, NBC News reported.

"Yesterday afternoon, I went to the White House and asked the President to be allowed, for personal reasons, to resign from my position," Petraeus said in a letter to CIA colleagues. "After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."

"This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation," Petraeus said in the letter.

Mike Morrell, the deputy CIA director and a long time CIA officer, will likely be offered the job as acting director, multiple sources told NBC News.

The Brilliance of Barack Obama: Let's Pull the Commander of ISAF and American Forces In Afghanistan Out Just As Progress Is Made

So the news is out that Robert Gates leaves Secretary of Defense the end of June (I'm amazed he made it this long) and will be replaced by Leon Panetta and then Gen. David Petraeus will leave command of the Afghanistan War to replace Panetta as head of the CIA. I'm not all that upset about any of this other than the fact that it is HORRIFIC timing with Petraeus. We just saw Petraeus take over from Gen. McChrystal not that long ago and Petraeus has made some good progress in the war effort. I've blogged about this in the last few months that Taliban attacks are down, IED attacks are down and in general, the Taliban have been less active. I realize it is Spring just coming to Afghanistan but to say that Petraeus hasn't put in some good strategies and tactics would be an injustice.

The article below at the Associated Press mentions that Petraeus will hang on in Afghanistan a "couple of more months" before making the move. Well, isn't that just peachy. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama thinks that the Taliban are going to give our troops an official escort out of Afghanistan in luxury limousines complete with champagne and fresh fruit?

The fact of the matter is that this summer is going to be rough for our troops - WITHOUT any changes...but now we change command, we start rewriting the manuals, we change directions and all of that shit and then wonder why things start to go to hell.

Why not send Penetta over to the State Department and then name an interim CIA director for six months or a year? Well, I guess that might make sense if you were actually trying to WIN the war in Afghanistan or if you actually gave a shit about our troops.

Obama sending Panetta to Pentagon, Petraeus to CIA


WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major national security reshuffle, President Barack Obama is sending CIA Director Leon Panetta to the Pentagon to replace Robert Gates, a widely praised Bush holdover, and replacing Panetta at the spy agency with Gen. David Petraeus, the high-profile commander of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Obama's changes, expected to be announced at the White House on Thursday, also will include a new ambassador and war commander in Afghanistan. However, they don't signal any major adjustment in the president's Afghan strategy or the fight against violent extremism.

The moves cement a planned drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in July and allow Obama to replace Gates, a Republican, with a Democrat with partisan credentials. That appointment also diminishes speculation that Petraeus might become a Republican presidential challenger in 2012.

In the largest change, Gates would step down after managing the turnaround of the Iraq war under President George Bush and the expansion of the Afghanistan war under Obama. He told top Pentagon staff Wednesday that he had recommended Panetta as his successor six months ago.

Gates plans to retire on June 30, officials said, and the White House hopes to win Senate confirmation for Panetta before then. Petraeus would remain in his battlefield job for a few months while the first of the approximately 100,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan withdraw. Petraeus plans to retire from the Army before assuming the CIA job in the fall, officials said.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Allen will move from his post as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command in Florida to take over the Afghan campaign, and veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker will become U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, officials said.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes had not yet been announced by the White House.

The appointments point to a stay-the-course approach in national security strategy over its next two years, especially in two key areas: the war in Afghanistan in what is expected to be a make-or-break year, and the counterterrorism fight in Pakistan.

Allen and Crocker will be charged with managing a gradual lessening of the U.S. role and a transition to Afghan leadership. Petraeus would take the helm at the CIA against the backdrop of a fractious relationship with Pakistan, which wants a greater say in U.S. counterterrorism actions in Pakistan's frontier regions.

"The White House is maintaining broad continuity," said John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security and member of the Defense Policy Board. "Everyone who is coming in are all current in the game. They've been working these issues."

Panetta and Petraeus already have worked closely together and have spent time with military and intelligence leaders in both countries.

A U.S. official who confirmed Panetta's move to the Pentagon said the White House chose him in large part because of his extensive experience in the field during his time as CIA director. The official said Panetta had traveled more than 200,000 miles, to more than 40 CIA stations and bases, and more than 30 countries.

Panetta has also won praise within the CIA by famously winning a showdown at the White House with the former director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, over who would choose station chiefs overseas. He also argued against the prosecution of CIA employees for their use of enhanced interrogation techniques like water boarding against al-Qaida suspects during the Bush administration. Congressmen praised him for reaching out to their intelligence committees, traveling to Capitol Hill for monthly coffee sessions to rebuild trust.

"The pros are that he is experienced in politics, the Hill, the budget and intelligence," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. "The cons are that he is not generally known as a classic defense strategist or planner in terms of deep familiarity with operational concepts of war," or with extensive experience with the uniformed military.

Panetta presided over the greatly expanded use of unmanned, armed Predator and Reaper drones aimed at militant suspects in Pakistan.

Petraeus is no stranger to coordinating battle by drone. He has helped push for a quadrupling of drones in Afghanistan, both armed and as surveillance platforms to gather intelligence.

Panetta's experience as a former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration will come to the fore, said Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

Gates has come up with $400 billion in cuts to the defense budget for the next 10 years, and Obama has asked him to come up with $400 billion more, a task that will now fall to Panetta, if he is confirmed for the job.

Panetta "knows how OMB works, knows the inner workings of the budget process at the White House," Harrison said. "So I think he will be better equipped to negotiate DOD's top line budget than any of the other candidates."

Despite speculation that Obama might choose Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to succeed Gates at the Pentagon, Clinton took herself out of the running in numerous public declarations. She also has made it clear she intends to retire from government when her current service as secretary of state ends.

Petraeus, who took over as Afghanistan war commander last June, had been expected to leave that post before the end of this year. He would bring a customer's eye to the CIA job as one of the key people to use intelligence provided by the agency and the military during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Petraeus is credited with helping build a relationship in Iraq with the CIA and the military's elite counterterrorism unit, the Joint Special Operations Command, that led to a tripling of missions against al-Qaida of Iraq and other militant groups.

Before his departure, Petraeus is mapping the phased drawdown of roughly 30,000 forces Obama added to turn around the stalemated Afghan fight last year. Petraeus says battlefield gains have allowed that withdrawal to begin but cautions that the Taliban are far from beaten.

He has said he will present Obama a menu of options for a drawdown from the current level of 104,000 U.S. troops.

The president is expecting choices of how many troops, how fast, and with what associated risk, with the assumption that the faster the withdrawal the greater the risk, according to two senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the war strategy.

The White House is already leaning toward a significant drawdown, with an ideal goal of reaching pre-surge levels of roughly 70,000 troops by early next year, one US official said, but the pace is dependent on how U.S. troops weather the Taliban fighting season, which has only just started.

Petraeus' replacement, Allen, was one of the key commanders who implemented the Sons of Iraq program in Anbar province, which was credited with drafting former militants into cooperation with the coalition. That program is similar to the nascent Afghan local police program, a sort of armed neighborhood watch sanctioned by and paid for by the Afghan government, that U.S. officials believe could be key to securing remote parts of Afghanistan and enabling a faster U.S. departure.

There will also be a wholesale change on the diplomatic side in Kabul, with other top officials at the Kabul embassy leaving their posts along with current Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Among others departing will be Anthony Wayne, the deputy ambassador, and William Todd, the embassy's director of development and economic affairs, who coordinates all non-military U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, one official said.

NATO Plans Massive Operation To Clear Kandahar, Afghanistan Area of Taliban by November

Now THIS is what I'm talking about! We're finally seeing some aggressiveness on the part of both NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan towards the Taliban - anyone want to disagree with me now that Petraeus was going to make a difference? I'd like to point out that we are back in the airstrike business in Afghanistan, as well.

Anyway, here's part of the report of the new operation slated for the Kandahar area, from Reuters via Breitbart:

Afghan and NATO forces are planning an offensive to clear Taliban insurgents from areas around the city of Kandahar by late November, the NATO commander for southern Afghanistan said on Tuesday.

Some 10,000-12,000 Afghan soldiers and 5,000 police backed by thousands of international troops will focus operations against an estimated 1,000 insurgents in districts west of the strategic city, British Major-General Nick Carter said.

"It will happen in the next two to three months, but our expectation is that by mid- to the end of November that we will have rid those areas very much of the Taliban," he told reporters in Brussels by video conference from Afghanistan.

"You need to dominate the population and dominate the ground ... in order to achieve the solution."

Now, as you read this report, you will see all of the numbers being given for Afghan army troops to be in this operation and vague terms as to how many NATO forces and more specifically, American troops, will be involved. This is par for the course as our military higher ups and our political leaders try to bolster the morale and prestige of the Afghan army. Well, believe me, this is going to be a U.S. operation and I would say it's going to resemble Marjah with mostly Marines involved. Now, I would say that the Brits will probably put a good number of their forces in as well.

It's been far too long since the Taliban have gone unchecked in the area surrounding Kandahar and someone has finally gotten some balls and said "that's enough." I say that is Petraeus but it might be lower level people who finally have the ear of the top commanders.

Either way, let's all pray for the safety of our troops going into this operation - the Taliban won't give up this acreage willingly - it is going to be bloody and I can only hope that all of the blood will be Taliban blood.

NATO aims to oust Taliban from Kandahar by November


(Reuters) - Afghan and NATO forces are planning an offensive to clear Taliban insurgents from areas around the city of Kandahar by late November, the NATO commander for southern Afghanistan said on Tuesday.

Some 10,000-12,000 Afghan soldiers and 5,000 police backed by thousands of international troops will focus operations against an estimated 1,000 insurgents in districts west of the strategic city, British Major-General Nick Carter said.

"It will happen in the next two to three months, but our expectation is that by mid- to the end of November that we will have rid those areas very much of the Taliban," he told reporters in Brussels by video conference from Afghanistan.

"You need to dominate the population and dominate the ground ... in order to achieve the solution."

Carter, whose near 28,000-strong regional force includes Americans, British, Slovaks, French, Belgians, Canadians and Romanians, said international troops would fight alongside the Afghan forces and provide air and other logistical support.

He said that in the past year the combined Afghan international forces in the Kandahar region had succeeded in seizing the initiative back from the insurgents in a region considered the birthplace of the Taliban movement.

However, hundreds of insurgents were operating "with a degree of freedom" south of Afghanistan's Highway One -- the main road that sweeps across southern Afghanistan -- and the aim was to protect the vital ring road and population centers.

"SPORTING CHANCE"

The key to the long-term success of the operation would be to ensure the establishment of Afghan administration in areas cleared of insurgents.

"You can't get stability unless you have security and governance working in parallel," he said. "It's about Afghan human capacity ... These things take time and if we give it time, there's a sporting chance it will prevail." Carter said NATO forces were also looking to double electricity supplies over the next 6-9 months to Kandahar city, where hundreds of businesses have folded in the past two years.

"If you haven't got employment ... you will begin to drive people to all kinds of potentially nefarious activity or indeed insurgency. So it's important that all that happens in tandem."

There has been a big increase in foreign troop numbers to around 15,000 in Kandahar province since U.S. President Barack Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 more U.S. troops to try to create conditions to train Afghan forces so that they can eventually take over security duties from NATO.

A major thrust against the insurgents had been expected earlier this year to demonstrate progress by the year end, when the White House plans another review of the Afghan operation.

But NATO and the U.S. military said the offensive would unfold more slowly than originally planned, given fierce Taliban resistance and the need to prepare local authorities to provide services once security improves.

Video: Obama and Petraeus - A Real Match Made In Heaven LOL

Let's look into the rear view mirror folks and see just how "strategic" Barack Hussein Obama was as a Senator.

Petraeus Orders Special Forces Spying Ahead of Potential Strike On Iran's Nuke Facilities

Once again, we are reminded of the balls of General David Petraeus. Years ago, when the whole world expected the U.S. military to throw its hands up in the air and quit operations in Iraq, General Petraeus concocted a strategy of INCREASING troops and moving them out TOWARDS the enemy - that "Surge" strategy ended up winning the War in Iraq for the U.S. and Coalition forces and showed the bravery and leadership of this man.

And now, while the world has hesitated to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear weaponry advancement, Petraeus has ordered preparatory espionage in the region by U.S. special forces...just in case the call is made for the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

From the report at Times Online:

Teams of American special forces have been authorised to conduct spying missions intended to pave the way for a military strike on Iran in case President Obama orders one, US government sources have confirmed.
The military units would penetrate Iranian territory to reconnoitre potential nuclear targets and make contact with friendly dissident groups, according to a secret directive written by General David Petraeus. The document’s existence was disclosed for the first time yesterday.
It authorises an expansion in the use of US special forces throughout the Middle East, US officials said. However, it is the possibility of American troops operating covertly inside Iran that has the greatest potential to destabilise regional security.

With this information out there now, one has to wonder just what are the roadblocks for the U.S. to formally start this whole process of an attack on Iran. I've said it many times before, but I do not see ANY world backlash for an American or coalition or American/Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Russia and China are sick of the Iranian nuke bullshit, most Arab countries are more scared of Iran than they are Israel and the likes of India and Pakistan would feel relief if the crazy ass mullahs had their weapons taken from them.

Why not just put this plan in motion? Like now?

Petraeus orders US spies to prepare for anti-nuclear strike on Iran


Teams of American special forces have been authorised to conduct spying missions intended to pave the way for a military strike on Iran in case President Obama orders one, US government sources have confirmed.

The military units would penetrate Iranian territory to reconnoitre potential nuclear targets and make contact with friendly dissident groups, according to a secret directive written by General David Petraeus. The document’s existence was disclosed for the first time yesterday.

It authorises an expansion in the use of US special forces throughout the Middle East, US officials said. However, it is the possibility of American troops operating covertly inside Iran that has the greatest potential to destabilise regional security.

General Petraeus, the most senior American commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, relied on special forces to ensure the success of the US troop surge in Iraq in 2007. His order to increase the use of Delta Force, Navy Seal and Army Ranger units for intelligence gathering and combat missions could jeopardise US relations with allies in the region while intensifying a long-running turf war between US military intelligence and the CIA.

The seven-page document, seen by The New York Times, remained classified yesterday, though it was written in September. Since then US military specialists working with Yemeni armed forces have killed 6 out of 15 leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The raids followed reports linking the group to the murder of 13 Americans at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet.

The number of US special operations teams in Afghanistan has also doubled since the Petraeus directive, senior officials have said. Such teams are now believed to account for more than half of all combat operations in the Afghan war zone.

Sending special forces into Iran would be controversial but one of the missions of US Special Operations Command, headed by Admiral Eric Olson, is to conduct reconnaissance in any country deemed to pose a threat. A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged to The Times that individual commanders have authority to conduct intelligence operations as they see fit.

General Petraeus is a member of the Pentagon high command whose tasks include drawing up plans to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Such plans “are always going to be under serious consideration,” Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said, “because you are dealing with a serious threat”.

General Petraeus Says That Iranian Nuke Facilities "Can" Be Bombed

Yes, the words are carefully crafted by General David Petraeus so everyone get your in between the lines glasses on...but what Petraeus said about taking out Iran's nukes was this, according to the report from DEBKA:

"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said to CNN. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear."

"It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about 'what ifs' and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."

This all comes after the U.S. has moved the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower group into the Middle East.

Now, the article states that the main reason for the movement of the Eisenhower into the area is due to what is going on in Yemen, which I'm sure is partly true, but at the same time, it's a convenient positioning of the strike group if one was to consider an Iranian target.

Now, at the same time, with us seeing Petraeus saying it "can" be bombed also speaks volumes to whether or not President Obama would make such a call. Considering the fact that this President of ours took over a week to decide to save a ship captain from Somali pirates and six months to decide on more troops for Afghanistan, I'd say it would take him about 10 years to decided whether to strike Iran or not and of course, within probably another year or two the Iranians should have finished their project and any attack on them probably seals the death warrant for a number of Israelis and/or U.S. troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I still, to this day, argue for what the downside of taking out the Iranian nukes. I can't think of a single ally of America that would denounce the strike and although China and Russia have recently stood up against Iranian sanctions, they have both wavered on Iran, visibly tired of the Iranian games. If we "can" do it, then I say we do it. And damn soon.

Petraeus: Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be bombed

The deployment in the Middle East of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group in the first week of January adds muscle to the words of Gen. David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander, on Jan 10 that Iranian nuclear infrastructure, albeit strengthened against attack with enhanced underground tunnels, wasn't fully protected.
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said to CNN. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear."
This judgment contradicts recent US media estimates that Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep in fortified tunnels are now protected against air or missile strikes.
Declining to comment on the likelihood of an Israeli strike, Gen. Petraeus said there was still time for diplomacy, but pointed out: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about 'what ifs' and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."
DEBKAfile's military sources add: CENTCOM was substantially beefed up by the USS Eisenhower carrier which President Barack Obama deployed in the New Year to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean in support of the US Fifth and Sixth Fleets. He ordered this six-month deployment, the first since he took office a year ago, in view of the rising tensions around Yemen and Iran.
The Eisenhower carries eight air squadrons on its decks.
Air Wing Seven is made up of four fighter-bomber squadrons, a squadron each of early-warning surveillance, electronic warfare and tactical support aircraft and another of anti-submarine helicopters. Its strike force consists of the USS Hue City guided missile cruiser, and two guided missile destroyers, the USS McFaul, USS Farragut and USS Carney.
Obama said in a recent interview that he had not intention of sending US combat troops to the terrorist havens of Somalia and Yemen because "working with international partners is most effective at this point."
This statement ties in with pumping up America's naval and air strength in the two volatile regions to avoid sending in more boots on the ground which the US cannot afford at this time.

Petraeus Says That British Hostage Was Held In Iran For Part Of His Captivity

I have to give General Petraeus some credit here...he wants to be sure the word gets out to the world just how involved Iran has been in the Iraq War and today he bullet-pointed that by saying that newly released British programmer Peter Moore had been held captive INSIDE of Iran for at least part of his capture time. Petraeus stopped short of detailing that the Iranians were part of the force that captured Moore.

From the article at Breitbart:

A British computer programmer seized in Iraq was held in Iran for at least part of his captivity, the U.S. general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said on Friday.
Gen. David Petraeus said, however, that it was difficult to tell whether Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard or the Quds force—an arm of the Guard involved in foreign operations—had a role in Peter Moore's capture.

"It is difficult to say what role the Revolutionary Guards Corps and in particular the Quds force element played in that. I am on the record as having said that our intelligence assessment is that he certainly spent at least part of the time in Iran, part of the time that he was a hostage," Petraeus said.

Iran's involvement in Iran has been well-documented but never revealed much to the American people by the MSM - Petraeus has, on a number of occasions, pointed all of the Iranian involvement out ....from captures like this of Moore, to the training given to Shia insurgents inside of Iraq, to the technology for the most deadly IED's used in the war to out and out capture of Iranian Quds Forces personnel inside of Iraq.

I'd have to say this was one of the most frustrating parts of the Iraq War in that the Iranians had the blood of American troops on their hands yet we did not make them pay the price for this. I guess I'd hope that someday down the line we will serve up some vengeance for the Iranian actions but with the current Commander-in-chief, I won't hold my breath.

British hostage held in Iran after Iraq kidnapping

BAGHDAD (AP) - A British computer programmer seized in Iraq was held in Iran for at least part of his captivity, the U.S. general who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said on Friday.
Gen. David Petraeus said, however, that it was difficult to tell whether Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard or the Quds force—an arm of the Guard involved in foreign operations—had a role in Peter Moore's capture.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of funneling money and arms to Shiite militias in Iraq through the Quds force and of seeking to exert a negative influence over the neighboring country and its Shiite-dominated government.
The assertion that Moore, who was taken by a Shiite extremist group in Iraq, had been moved to Iran at some stage pointed to the possibility of continued Iranian involvement in its neighbor's affairs. Petraeus warned Friday that Iranian-backed militias still to pose a threat to Iraq's stability.
"It is difficult to say what role the Revolutionary Guards Corps and in particular the Quds force element played in that. I am on the record as having said that our intelligence assessment is that he certainly spent at least part of the time in Iran, part of the time that he was a hostage," Petraeus said.
Moore was freed Wednesday after spending more than two years in captivity. He and four of his bodyguards were kidnapped in a brazen daytime attack in front of the Finance Ministry in Baghdad in 2007. The bodies of three of his companions have been returned and a fourth is believed to be dead.
A British Foreign Office spokesman, who asked not to be identified because of government policy, said Moore was likely to be reunited with his family in Britain in the next 24 hours but details about Moore's return to Britain would not be released because of his family's request for privacy.
Around the same time Moore was freed, the U.S. military transferred a militant whose group was involved in the abduction over to Iraqi custody.
Petraeus said Qais al-Khazali was handed over in accordance with an agreement with the Iraqi government to transfer detainees in American custody or release them.
Al-Khazali, leader of Shiite extremist group Asaib Ahl al-Haq, was held in U.S. custody over accusations he aided an attack in the southern city of Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead in 2007.
The militant group had been pushing for al-Khazali's release along with the release of other militants in U.S. custody. U.S. and British authorities have said there was no deal to trade al-Khazali for Moore, although the timing of al-Khazali's transfer from U.S. to Iraqi custody—said by the British government to have happened the same day Moore was released—has raised questions.
A representative of al-Khazali's group and an Iraqi member of the negotiating team that helped secure Moore's release told The Associated Press that the militant group did not release Moore until it got confirmation its leader was transferred.
Gen. Petraeus, who used to be the top American commander in Iraq, also warned during his visit to Baghdad that al-Qaida in Iraq as well as Iranian-backed militias will continue to be a threat as insurgents target government facilities in order to undermine Iraqis' confidence.
"Iraq will continue to be tested throughout the course of this year," Petraeus said.
Iraq is preparing to hold nationwide elections on March 7, and military commanders have warned that attacks could spike before the vote.
Petraeus said the elections, which will determine who will lead Iraq as American forces go home, are of "enormous importance" to the country's future.
Under a plan by President Barack Obama, U.S. forces currently at about 110,000 will drop to about 50,000 by the end of August, and those remaining will be focused on noncombat missions such as training. They in turn, will leave by 2011.
U.S. forces in Iraq held a ceremony Friday marking a name change from what had formerly been called Multi-National Force-Iraq to United States Force-Iraq.
Structurally the U.S. forces in Iraq will remain largely the same for the time being, but the name change symbolizes the evolving nature of the U.S. mission in Iraq and acknowledges that a coalition that used to have troops from 32 countries now has forces from just one.
Petraeus called the ceremony a "milestone in the continued drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq."

Over 100 Taliban Killed In Pakistani Military Operations, Gen. Petraeus Gives Hell To Pakistani Government

Okay, there's three sections of this article here from Hindustan Times that I want to point out: 1. The section dealing with Taliban casualties this past week from Pakistan military operations in Dir and Buner districts 2. A return to the lunacy of peace talks 3. General David Petraeus' scathing observation of the Pakistani government and military. Here are those sections excerpted:

Taliban Casualties:

Over 100 Taliban fighters have been killed in six days of operations in Pakistan's restive North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the military said Friday, even as the provincial government opened peace talks with a radical cleric and a top US commander served notice that Islamabad had just two weeks left to deal with the militants.
"Some 55-60 militants have been killed in the last 24 hours during the offensive against the Taliban in Dir and Buner," chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said at a media briefing here Friday afternoon.
A similar number have been killed since the operation began in Lower Dir Sunday and in Buner Tuesday.
"The operation is continuing successfully", Abbas said, adding the security forces were facing "stiff resistance" but the people of the two districts were "fully supporting" the operation.

Rumors of peace talks:

Meanwhile, the first round of talks between the NWFP government and Taliban-backed radical cleric Sufi Mohammad on restoring peace in the area ended Friday on what was described as a positive note.
"The (military) operation will be halted if peace is restored in the area," NWFP Information Minister Iftikhar Hussain said after the talks, during which "all the issues" had been discussed "in detail".
Hussain represented the provincial government at the talks, which were held in the Teemargarha headquarters of Lower Dir district.
Sufi Mohammad's spokesman Izzat Khan said the talks were positive and that "efforts would continue to establish peace in the troubled areas".
Speaking to Geo TV, the cleric's son Maulana Rizwanullah described the meeting as "successful" and said that people would soon hear "good news".

General Petraeus views on the Pakistani NW Tribal Areas situation:

On his part, General David Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command, has told US officials that the coming two weeks would be "critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive", Fox News reported.
"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of the country's northwest, the general said.
Criticising Pakistan's attitude towards fighting the insurgents, Petraeus said "we have heard it all before" that Pakistan was doing its best to eliminate the Taliban threat.
He said that he is looking forward to seeing concrete action by Islamabad in the next two weeks before determining the US' next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counter-insurgency training and aid.

So there you have it...the operations in review and some valuable insight from Petraeus. And one has to agree 100% with that one statement from Petraeus: "we have heard it all before." Yes, we have heard it before that the military in Pakistan has it all under control and yes, we've heard it all before that there will be peace negotiations that will fix it all. The fact of the matter is this - this may be Pakistan's last chance to finally stop the Taliban surge southward and it requires nothing short of a ruthless gutting of the NW Provinces of Taliban. Yet, for the umteenth time, the government is already investing in peace talks with the Taliban - that's right, the military kills 100 Taliban, has them on their heels, has them scattering about and the government gives in to some plea by some 100 yr old fucked up Taliban cleric to hold peace talks. A peace is announced, Taliban regroup, Taliban defy peace agreement and move southward. It's like watching a continuous loop of a politicians promises to make life better.

Petraeus is spot on in his assessment that he has yet to see the Pakistanis get serious. Will they this time or won't they? It's my guess that we will see a peace agreement announced in the next week and with that, you can kiss Pakistan goodbye.

How Can General Petraeus Bring "The Awakenings" To Afghanistan?

This really is a good article over at Counterterrorism Blog that spells out directly from one of the top Iraqi leaders of The Awakening movement in Iraq just how American General David Petraeus can export the Awakening movement to Pakistan. I'd suggest you read the entire article over there but here's some of it, excerpted:

In considering how the U.S. will try to foster such a movement in Afghanistan, there is no better place to start than a 47-page memorandum written by Sheikh Ahmad Abu Risha, the leader of Iraq's Awakening, that was submitted to the American embassy in Kabul last spring.In an article published in the new issue of the Weekly Standard, my colleague Joshua Goodman and I analyze Abu Risha's memo, and the prospect of an Afghan Awakening. An excerpt:

Abu Risha reviews several challenges in Afghanistan. The country is beset by warlords and their followers, who "are accustomed to living freely without the rule of law." There is great distrust of Hamid Karzai's government, which some Afghans believe is conspiring with the United States in "Americanizing and changing the identity of the Afghan people."

Abu Risha outlines some preconditions for success. First and foremost is the need for a strong leader. In Anbar, this was the late Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, Abu Risha's brother, assassinated in late 2007. Such a figure must have "charisma, outstanding leadership elements and courage," he should be "a man of honor, tolerant and persistent," and he should be "a center of trust" with "a political family background." Abu Risha emphasizes, however, that NATO should not try to establish new leadership in Afghanistan, but should work within the tribes' existing hierarchies. "This is a nation," he writes, "that does not accept changes or give up control easily without a fight."

Hopefully, Petraeus and his command will heed some of this advice from the Iraqi leader of The Awakenings and make some inroads in Afghanistan. It's clear that it will be more of a challenge but at the same time, we can't forget that The Awakening movement started in Al Anbar province and then SPREAD across Iraq. What Petraeus needs is one leader, one committed and vibrant Afghan leader in ONE province to step up and start it there....and have it succeed. Then let the dominos start to fall.

How to Export an Awakening


Abu Risha reviews several challenges in Afghanistan. The country is beset by warlords and their followers, who "are accustomed to living freely without the rule of law." There is great distrust of Hamid Karzai's government, which some Afghans believe is conspiring with the United States in "Americanizing and changing the identity of the Afghan people." This distrust is magnified by the country's living conditions: The economy is poor, with wages low and unemployment high. Despite improvements, the government has been unable to provide adequate education and health care.
These internal factors are compounded, in Abu Risha's view, by a military picture unfavorable to the United States. He argues that "military attacks by air against Taliban locations will cause the loss of many civilian lives," and so are likely to generate hostility to U.S. and NATO forces.
Abu Risha argues, nevertheless, that there are parallels between Afghanistan today and Iraq's Anbar Province in 2006 and 2007. Most important, al Qaeda and affiliated groups in Afghanistan have created a "climate of terror" similar to what they created in Anbar, where "they murdered anyone who opposed or criticized their actions and behavior." As in Anbar, he believes, an Awakening could help Afghanistan reverse its present deadly course.
Abu Risha outlines some preconditions for success. First and foremost is the need for a strong leader. In Anbar, this was the late Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, Abu Risha's brother, assassinated in late 2007. Such a figure must have "charisma, outstanding leadership elements and courage," he should be "a man of honor, tolerant and persistent," and he should be "a center of trust" with "a political family background." Abu Risha emphasizes, however, that NATO should not try to establish new leadership in Afghanistan, but should work within the tribes' existing hierarchies. "This is a nation," he writes, "that does not accept changes or give up control easily without a fight."
Sterling Jensen, who participated as an Army contract linguist in the U.S. government's engagement with the Iraqi tribes as the Anbar Awakening was taking shape in the fall of 2006, agrees that Abdul Sattar's leadership was critical. "The Americans didn't make the Awakening," Jensen says. "They didn't make Sheikh Ahmed or Sheikh Abdul Sattar. You can influence some [local leaders'] thinking, but it's going to be the Americans recognizing these kinds of leaders, and supporting them."

Pakistan Warns Petraeus Of Missile Strike Backlash

General Petraeus is making his first trip to Pakistan in his new role as head of U.S. Central Command and the Pakistanis have warned him that more U.S. missile strikes inside of Pakistan will increase anti-American resolve in the country. Here's some of the details from the article over at Breitbart:

Pakistan warned a top U.S. general Monday that frequent missile strikes on its territory risk inflaming anti-American sentiment.
Gen. David Petraeus met with Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar as part of his first international trip since taking over U.S. Central Command on Friday.
The visit indicated how crucial the U.S. considers Pakistan's support in the fight against Islamist extremists, especially those in its neighbor Afghanistan. But it also comes amid Pakistani calls to halt U.S. missile strikes on suspected militant targets on its soil.
A Defense Ministry statement said Mukhtar told Petraeus, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard Boucher and others in the entourage that the missile strikes from drones "generate anti-America sentiments as well as create outrage and uproar among the people."

The article goes on to talk about how Petraeus and Pakistani officials talked about peace talks with the Taliban - Petraeus does support talks with very moderate factions of the Taliban but I think his angle is much different than the Pakistanis and the Afghans in that I believe Petraeus thinks that a divide can be created in the Taliban where the two countries think that overall, the Taliban as a whole can be appeased.

Either way you want to look at all of this, it is a good thing that Petraeus is making this trip - he is not only a brilliant strategist on the battlefield but is savvy in dealing with politicians and heads of state. I'm sure Petraeus very diplomatically stated the need for attacking al Qaeda elements inside of Pakistan and served up a rallying cry for unity against al Qaeda's attempt to create unrest inside of Pakistan.

I doubt we will see an end to strikes inside of Pakistan unless something more major was agreed upon in these meetings that we simply don't know about.

Pakistan warns Petraeus against missile strikes

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan warned a top U.S. general Monday that frequent missile strikes on its territory risk inflaming anti-American sentiment.
Gen. David Petraeus met with Pakistan Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar as part of his first international trip since taking over U.S. Central Command on Friday.
The visit indicated how crucial the U.S. considers Pakistan's support in the fight against Islamist extremists, especially those in its neighbor Afghanistan. But it also comes amid Pakistani calls to halt U.S. missile strikes on suspected militant targets on its soil.
A Defense Ministry statement said Mukhtar told Petraeus, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Richard Boucher and others in the entourage that the missile strikes from drones "generate anti-America sentiments as well as create outrage and uproar among the people."
The U.S. wants Pakistan to do more to crack down on insurgents who use pockets of its northwest region as sanctuaries from which to plan attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, where violence is running at its highest levels since 2001.
The missile strikes in the border region indicate U.S. impatience with Pakistani efforts.
Washington is suspected in at least 17 missile strikes in Pakistan since August. Despite repeated Pakistani condemnations, the strikes have continued.
In September, a U.S. ground assault in a tribal region in Pakistan's northwest spurred outrage in Pakistan and prompted a flurry of diplomatic activity. There have been no reports of additional ground assaults since.
Acting U.S. Embassy spokesman Wes Robertson declined to provide specifics on Petraeus' agenda for security reasons. However, he also is expected to meet with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, President Asif Ali Zardari and Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
At the Defense Ministry, officials also briefed Petraeus on Pakistani military operations against insurgents in its border regions. According to the statement, both sides "stressed the need for enhanced cooperation to eliminate the scourge of terrorism."
Another topic that could come up during the general's trip is negotiations with the Taliban. Pakistani and Afghan leaders have vowed to seek talks with elements of the militant movement.
Petraeus, previously the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, has indicated support for efforts to reach out to members of the Taliban considered moderate enough to cooperate with the Afghan government.
Meanwhile, Zardari was scheduled to arrive Tuesday in oil-rich Saudi Arabia to request a deferral on oil payments and other possible support, the Foreign Ministry said. Another potential topic: negotiating with the Taliban.

Gen. Petraeus Sees Value In Talking With Taliban

Okay, color me dumbfounded by this, but alas, I have 110% confidence in General Petraeus after what he accomplished in Iraq, so I'm willing to go along here. Let's face it...Gen. Petraeus is a strategist and in that role, he looks at things a whole lot differently than us worker bees. I personally feel that talking with the Taliban is a worthless effort, that they cannot be trusted as far as you can throw them. But, I have to remember that when Petraeus called for The Surge in Iraq I thought he was nuts - not that he called for the additional troops but when the plan involved putting the troops out on the perimeter engaged with Iraqi Army and occupying forward operating mini-bases in police stations, etc. I thought that would be disastrous and obviously, it was brilliance. Sheer brilliance - hell, the Gifted One, Barack Obama, didn't even think it would work and he's got that crystal ball, yanno. :spit:

Anyway, this story is here over at Reuters and here's some of the thoughts of the General:

U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by an intensifying insurgency.
"If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward," said Petraeus, who will soon take up responsibility for U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
"The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government," he told a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," the general said.

You see that last statement? Look at that first sentence about "set things up." That is what I mean about Petraeus' mind - I have no idea what he means by that but I would guess he is looking at what exactly you set as expectations and what precisely you can get out of these attacks.

Like I say, I'm not happy with this stance but the fact of the matter is this - General Petraeus is taking over the War in Afghanistan with a lack of U.S. and NATO troops and he knows that getting more NATO troops is probably not going to happen...and he could be looking at Obama as CIC in three months and that could be disastrous - so he has to be looking at all options in the meantime.

Petraeus sees value in talking to Taliban

Petraeus, the former commander in Iraq who is credited by U.S. officials with saving Iraq from civil war, is scheduled on October 31 to take over U.S. Central Command, which overseas American military interests across the Middle East and into south and central Asia.
Violence has soared in Afghanistan over the past two years, particularly in provinces along the country's eastern border with Pakistan, where U.S. troops face a growing insurgency fueled by militant safe havens across the border.
U.S. concern about the violence has prompted the Bush administration to mount a broad review of its strategy in Afghanistan.
Petraeus said negotiations with insurgents willing to consider reconciliation could reduce violence by isolating hard-core militants, which is what occurred in Iraq's Anbar province when Sunni tribesmen joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda.
"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," the general said.
His remarks followed a flurry of media reports about possible negotiations with the Taliban.
Saudi King Abdullah hosted a meeting last month with representatives of the Taliban and the Afghan government, fanning speculation about a potential dialogue.
The British commander in Afghanistan, Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith, also told the Sunday Times that negotiations with the Taliban could bring needed progress.
Asked about those remarks, Petraeus noted that Britain's long experience negotiating with adversaries helped reduce violence in Iraq. "They've sat down with thugs throughout their history, including us in our early days, I suspect," he said.

Petraeus: Al Qaeda Shifting Resources To Afghanistan From Iraq

I hinted to this yesterday in a post and today General Petraeus has come out saying that the signs are there that al Qaeda resources in Iraq seem to be shifting to fight the terror war in Afghanistan. Here's some of the details from Yahoo News:

After intense U.S. assaults, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are running higher than in Iraq, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday
"We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qaida's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview at his office at the U.S. Embassy.
"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," he said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan."
He said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan.

Now, it's important to hear Petraeus' words that al Qaeda is not abandoning Iraq but if you were an al Qaeda in Iraq jihadist there at the moment, I ask you how comfy you would feel right now about someone watching your back?

At the same time, al Qaeda may find some surprises in Afghanistan. The predominantly Arab aspect of al Qaeda jihadists makes for a bit of a conflict with the Afghan population - simply put, this is not the united front the Afghans put up against the Soviets and would accept any help they could. This is the Taliban fighting to regain control of Afghanistan and we have seen what the Arab members of al Qaeda have done to the population in Iraq - will the Afghan civilians put up with Arabs in their midst torturing their own? I doubt it.

At the same time, Afghanistan is way different from Iraq - al Qaeda's forte' is in the cities with car bombs and IED's and suicide bombers on foot. In Afghanistan, we have mountainous and open area warfare - much better suited to the Taliban.

But all in all, for Gen. Petraeus to see this shift going on in Iraq is just another excellent sign of U.S. victory there.

US general: al-Qaida may be easing effort in Iraq

Discussing al-Qaida in cautious terms, Petraeus said he is not certain of the reliability of the intelligence information about the terrorist network's latest thinking. He was adamant, however, that until now al-Qaida has seen Iraq as its best opportunity for establishing a militant Islamic state closer to the Persian Gulf.
"That could be under review," Petraeus said. "We do think they are considering what should be the main effort."
He offered a mostly upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq just weeks before he is to make a recommendation on whether to further reduce U.S. troop levels. Petraeus said the country is showing fresh signs of promise not only on the security front, where insurgent attacks are down sharply, but also politically.
He applauded the latest evidence of movement toward reconciliation by Sunnis and Shiites — the announcement Saturday that Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc had ended a nearly yearlong boycott of the Shiite-led government.
"It's a very important step forward," Petraeus said after an aide interrupted the AP interview to deliver the news. The general flashed a wide smile and instructed the aide to pass along his congratulations to top government officials, who have come under enormous pressure from U.S. officials to reconcile.
Petraeus declined to say what he might recommend to President Bush regarding further U.S. troops reductions. The assessment, he said, is based on a range of factors, including the prospects for Iraqi government approval of legislation required before provincial elections can be held this fall.
He would not talk about specific troop levels later this year. But the enthusiasm of Petraeus's description of security, political and even economic progress in 2008 gave the impression he may be inclined to tell Bush that fewer than the current 15 combat brigades will be needed by year's end.