Petraeus Reassured Neo-Con Max Boot On Israel Testimony

Mondoweiss has the story, and it’s a very interesting one.

I tend to believe that Petraeus remains at heart (or, perhaps more accurately, in his head) a realist and definitely not either a Wilsonian or a Likudnik. (See the latest by Mark Perry.) But it’s clear he still feels it necessary to appease the neo-cons, in this case, in the person of Max Boot.

What is particularly remarkable is the alacrity with which he felt compelled to respond to M.J. Rosenberg’s observations about his testimony and Perry’s earlier story and that he brings up the Holocaust in reassuring Boot about his views regarding Israel’s strategic value to the United States. This was six weeks before Petraeus received the 2010 Irving Kristol Award at the Annual Dinner of the American Enterprise Institute.

Jim Lobe

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.



  1. There isn’t much daylight between the virulent racist Wilson and Likudnik policies–in fact they are startlingly similar. Woodrow Wilson believed that only White people, infected with a Teutonic gene were capable of self-governance. Perhaps the only more Likudnik President would be Andrew Jackson–he displaced more people in this country than any other American President, but Wilson may have displaced more abroad. Please don’t honor vile racists as your dichotomy would suggest.

  2. OK, so when are we going to see the piece headlined, “Harrison Had It Right All Along on the ‘Shift in the Dialogue'”?

    Alternative Titles:

    Re-reading Harrison: An Education in Political Reality

    Upshift? Downshift? No Shift at All?

    A Prophet Without Honor on Somebody Else’s Website

    or (my favorite)

    O Wise One

  3. Who’s the underling that wrote the positioning statement that we all admire? Perhaps we can dump, or promote to irrelevance Petraeus and uncover the real genius in the court.

    I think you’re over hyping yourself Jon, but I have to admit I thought about your sorry self. lol

  4. More seriously, I too tend to believe that Petraeus is a realist “in his head.” But as we know Petraeus is also very savvy politically, and while it doesn’t seem likely he’ll seek the presidency in 2012, he’ll still be young enough to do so in 2016. Indeed, if he achieves what appears to be success in Afghanistan, and if Iraq doesn’t blow up in his face (or if it does and the blame goes elsewhere) it’s hard to see who could stop him from winning a presidential election.

    Admiral Fallon, Petraeus’ predecessor at CENTCOM, called the general “an ass-kissing little chickenshit,” but one could have said the same about Eisenhower, and look where he wound up. To me it looks more and more like Obama will beat the Republican nominee in 2012( unless the economy tanks further and Romney is the Republican candidate, which might — I stress might — lead to a narrow GOP victory), after which Petraeus will glide into the presidency in 2016. (I hasten to add I’m not making firm predictions at this time.)

    What really surprises me is that Admiral Mullen was shocked by the CENTCOM briefing that said our position in the Arab/Muslim world was deteriorating seriously (see link to Perry’s earlier story). I like Admiral Mullen, but he looks like Rip Van Winkle on this one. And where were the intelligence services on this issue? Are we to believe that the top leadership in this country only learned that the Israeli connection was harming our interests in the Arab World in Dec. 2009? If I and most of the other commenters on this site are more on the ball than the country’s top leaders, then I tremble for the future of America.

Comments are closed.