Archives‎ > ‎

Lawrence Wilkerson replies over my newsletter mentioning "Jewish Neocons," from Peter Myers

(1) Lawrence Wilkerson replies over my newsletter mentioning "Jewish Neocons"(2) Lawrence Wilkerson replies: 'our associating "Jewish" with "neocon" is strictly your doing, not mine'(3) I Helped sell the False Choice of War once. It’s happening again - Lawrence Wilkerson names FDD (NYT)(4) Wilkerson neglected to mention that FDD is "the neoconservative wing of the Israel lobby" - Philip Weiss(5) Jon Lerner drafts Haley's speeches at UN(6) Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner is a protege of Arthur Finkelstein, a Neyanyahu supporter(7) Jon Lerner played a key role in the NeverTrump campaign(8) War in Iraq was conceived by 25 neocons, most Jewish - Ari Shavit, Haaretz, Sept  06, 2011(9) Wesley Clark 2007 address to Commonwealth Club: Policy Coup after 911-  transcript(1) Lawrence Wilkerson replies over my newsletter mentioning "Jewish Neocons"- Peter Myers, March 5, 2018Lawrence Wilkerson sent the email in item 2 below to James Morris, cc'd to me. It was a reply to a newsletter I sent yesterday, to which I gave the headline 'Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says Jewish Neocons who led us to Iraq war are doing same with Iran'.James Morris forwarded the newsletter to his mailing list.The news items I used in that newsletter did NOT say that Wilkerson used the term 'Jewish Neocons'.The headlines were:  'Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says Neocons who led us to Iraq war are doing same with Iran' - without the word 'Jewish'.and'I Helped sell the False Choice of War once. It’s happening again - Lawrence Wilkerson (NYT)'So where did the word 'Jewish' come from?Wilkerson wrote, in the NYT article (item 3, yesterday), 'Today, the analysts claiming close ties between Al Qaeda and Iran come from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies'.That the FDD is a warhawk think tank run by American Jews was stated by John B. Judis, in item 6 from yesterday's newsletter. Judis, who is Jewish, wrote:"FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations. They include Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, whiskey heirs Samuel and Edgar Bronfman, gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, heiress Lynn Schusterman, Wall Street speculators Michael Steinhardt and Paul Singer, and Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare."It was simply a matter of connecting the two.As Wilkerson says, not all Neocons are Jewish; maybe 50% are. But they are all militants for Israel, and drum up support for wars against its opponents.My headline on Haley was 'Wilkerson: Nikki Haley a neocon; they want to sweep the Middle East for Israel'.I never said that Nikki Haley is Jewish. But Wilkerson said that her chief advisor Jon Lerner is. And he turns out to be a protege of Arthur Finkelstein, a power broker serving Netanyahu. Meaning that US policy at the UN is being set by a Likudnik.Wilkerson did not give Israel as the sole motive; he listed Israel as one of several. But Neocons are pre-occupied about Israel. Here's what Wilkerson said in the interview with Aaron Maté:LARRY WILKERSON:	I think what you're seeing with people like the UN Ambassador Nikki Haley a neoconservative [...] They wanted to sweep the Middle East for various and sundry reasons, not the least of which was Israel's security, oil and so forth, but they wanted basically to sweep the Middle East.Finally, Wilkerson says that Israelis he spoke with in 2001-2 wanted the US to go after Iran, not Iraq.But Ari Shavit, writing in Haaretz in 2001, wrote, "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish" (item 8 below).In retrospect, I should have put the word 'Jewish' in brackets, because Wilkerson only IMPLICITLY referred to these Neocons as (largely) Jewish.My headline would then have read:Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says [Jewish] Neocons who led us to Iraq war are doing same with IranThat would not have put Wilkerson on the hook.But I had no idea that this newsletter would reach the circles of power - even if it was a matter of being forwarded thence.Wilkerson is not the only military commander to have blown the whistle on the warhawks.General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 address to the Commonwealth Club of California, revealed a 'policy coup' after 9/11: "we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years [...] These people took control of the policy in the United States [...] Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for a New American Century".     (transcript is at item 9 below)PNAC being a think tank of mostly Jewish Neocons, Likud supporters.It does not seem to have occurred to Clark that the PNAC crowd might have staged 9/11 as an inside job, using a few Arabs as patsies, a False Flag attack in order to seize control of American Foreign Policy.Anyway, we all appreciate Wilkerson's service to humanity. The last thing we want to do is make life hard for him. Thank you, Colonel.(2) Lawrence Wilkerson replies: 'our associating "Jewish" with "neocon" is strictly your doing, not mine'Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:05:48 -0500From: Wilkerlb <>To:, peter@mailstar.netSubject: Re: Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says Jewish Neocons who led  us to Iraq war are doing same with IranMr. Morris,Normally I let people get away with distorting my remarks because usually the distortions are either not egregious or they are made by people of little consequence in the greater scheme of things.This one is egregious and sent out to people who are consequential; thus, this email to you.Your associating "Jewish" with "neocon" is strictly your doing, not mine---and I register here my strong objection to your having done it.So far as I am aware, Nikki Haley is not "a Jewish neocon".  I know that one of her principal advisors is Jon Lerner, who is Jewish, but that does not make Ms Haley Jewish."Jewish neocons" is a starkly arrogant misappropriation of what I said, just as "neocons who led us to war", in close juxtaposition with "Jewish", is a misappropriation of what I said and have said in the past.  Moreover, as you are well aware, I have said in the past that Israelis whom I knew and spoke with in 2001 and 2002 thought the US was insane to go after Saddam Hussein whom, they saw--and rightfully--as having been cut down to size in 1990-91.  They wanted the US to concentrate on Iran.  When they saw that we would play the idiot nonetheless and persist in going after Hussein, they switched tactics and offered to help, knowing that no amount of reason would dissuade GWB, DC, and DRR from their assaulting the low-hanging fruit in Iraq.Please stop associating my remarks about neocons with Jewish-Americans or, for that matter, with Jews anywhere.  Neocons, like most ideological monsters, come from all walks of life---and religions.   That many in this country are Jewish---from Bill Kristol and Richard Perle to Doug Feith and Jon Lerner---does not warrant the wholesale attribution to Jews everywhere that you constantly make.Now, I am fully aware that my protests will fall on deaf ears as I know most zealots, of whatever stripe, hear not the protests of reason; but I had to say something if for no other reason than simply to voice my displeasure.lw(3) I Helped sell the False Choice of War once. It’s happening again - Lawrence Wilkerson names FDD (NYT) Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again.By Lawrence WilkersonFEB. 5, 2018[...] Today, the analysts claiming close ties between Al Qaeda and Iran come from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which vehemently opposes the Iran nuclear deal and unabashedly calls for regime change in Iran.It seems not to matter that 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis and none were Iranians. Or that, according to the United States intelligence community, of the groups listed as actively hostile to the United States, only one is loosely affiliated with Iran, and Hezbollah doesn’t make the cut. More than ever the Foundation for Defense of Democracies seems like the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that pushed falsehoods in support of waging war with Iraq.(4) Wilkerson neglected to mention that FDD is "the neoconservative wing of the Israel lobby" - Philip Weiss says ‘Israel’s security’ was motive for Iraq war– though not in NYT op-edby Philip Weiss, MondoweissFEBRUARY 9, 2018WASHINGTON – JUNE 26: Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson had a piece in the New York Times on Monday, in which he discussed the parallels between the runup to the Iraq war and the direction things are going with Iran. He identified the source of pro-war analysis as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – but stopped short of explaining that this organization is "the neoconservative wing of the Israel lobby." The next day, in another interview, he was eager to talk about this connection. Does NYT self-censor? [...]It’s good that Wilkerson called out FDD in the NYT, but the curious thing about the op-ed is there is no mention of who this gang is, the neoconservative wing of the Israel lobby. FDD is funded by Bernard Marcus and other giant Israel supporters; "FDD’s chief funders have been drawn almost entirely from American Jews who have a long history of funding pro-Israel organizations," John Judis wrote.(5) Jon Lerner drafts Haley's speeches at UN’s UN Brinkmanship Comes With Advice by Long-Time PollsterBy Kambiz ForooharSeptember 11, 2017, 4:00 AM EDT Updated on September 11, 2017, 6:43 AM EDTAs Nikki Haley confronts her biggest test so far as U.S. envoy to the UN -- persuading the Security Council to further tighten sanctions on North Korea -- she’s leaning on a key adviser with little foreign policy experience: her South Carolina pollster.Jon Lerner, a political strategist who helped get Haley elected twice as the Palmetto State’s governor, is the ambassador’s Washington-based deputy. While Haley has talked about the direct access she has to President Donald Trump, the 49-year-old Lerner serves as her eyes and ears on the ground in the nation’s capital: a critical role as Haley’s profile rises in an administration buffeted by leaks and turmoil.Lerner accompanied Haley to Vienna last month to meet International Atomic Energy Agency investigators over Iran’s compliance with the nuclear accord opposed by Trump. And he helped draft Haley’s Iran-focused speech in Washington last week that signaled a shift in administration policy toward the deal. [...]Haley, the 45-year-old daughter of Sikh immigrants, described her relationship with Lerner in her 2012 book, "Can’t Is Not an Option: My American Story.""Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling," Haley wrote. "I used to call him a ‘lemon’ because he never got excited about anything." [...]Like Haley, Lerner has a thin foreign policy resume, but that may be less important to the UN envoy than having someone she can trust implicitly in Washington.(6) Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner is a protege of Arthur Finkelstein, a Neyanyahu supporter Things To Know About Nikki Haley’s Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon LernerNathan GuttmanDecember 11, 2017He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from the spotlight. Currently serving as America’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1 person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley’s political ambition could lead her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner: [...]His Mentor Was Arthur FinkelsteinLerner, according to a 2010 McClatchy profile is a protege of the late Arthur Finkelstein, a legendary Republican political consultant known for his no-holds barred style of campaigning. Finkelstein also advised Israel’s Likud party and was behind Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial campaign claiming his rivals would divide Jerusalem. Lerner isn’t as blunt as his mentor, but he’s still known for hard hitting campaign ads, highlighting his rivals’ shortfalls.He Doesn’t Campaign on ShabbatAn observant Jew, Lerner ends his work when the sun sets on Friday and does not get back to it before Shabbat is over. According to former clients, Lerner keeps this rule even at the tensest moments of a political campaign. He lives in Bethesda with his wife and three children.(7) Jon Lerner played a key role in the NeverTrump campaign Lerner to Serve as Deputy UN AmbassadorBy Aaron Magid and Jacob Kornbluh on Wednesday, January 18, 2017WASHINGTON – Nikki Haley, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for UN Ambassador, has selected Jon Lerner to be her deputy, according to FITSNews , a South Carolina political website. The selection was first reported by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman , citing several sources.A veteran advisor to the South Carolina Governor, Lerner, who is Jewish, has worked with numerous GOP clients including Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC). Lerner is considered a staunch conservative. Former First Lady Jenny Sanford told McClatchy Newspapers in 2010, "He works for clients who he believes in and who reflect his own ideological principles. That provides him a sense of purpose and integrity and focus that is lacking in other consultants."Throughout the 2016 Presidential race, Lerner played a key role in the NeverTrump campaign, Politico reported in March. Working as a senior strategist for the Washington-based Club for Growth, the group started airing ads against Trump during the fall of 2014 in Iowa. Club for Growth intensified its efforts against the New York businessman spending millions on ads in key states of Florida and Illinois. ...(8) War in Iraq was conceived by 25 neocons, most Jewish - Ari Shavit, Haaretz, Sept  06, 2011 man's burdenThe war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skepticalBy Ari ShavitTue, September 06, 2011 Elul 7, 57711. The doctrineWASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. [...]In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall). [...]2. William KristolHas America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel. The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved, American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end, General Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it's possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War is a just war, an obligatory war. [...]What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. [...]3. Charles KrauthammerIs this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s, there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the 1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home. [...]What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself. But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II. [...]4. Thomas FriedmanIs this an American Lebanon War? Tom Friedman says he is afraid it is. He was there, in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, in the summer of 1982, and he remembers it well. So he sees the lines of resemblance clearly. General Ahmed Chalabi (the Shi'ite leader that the neoconservatives want to install as the leader of a free Iraq) in the role of Bashir Jemayel. The Iraqi opposition in the role of the Phalange. Richard Perle and the conservative circle around him as Ariel Sharon. And a war that is at bottom a war of choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to establish a new order.Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On the contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate America more than they love their own lives.  ...Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.(9) Wesley Clark 2007 address to Commonwealth Club: Policy Coup after 911-  transcript evening welcome to tonight's meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California. I am Jeff Clarke, President and CEO of the Northern California Public Broadcasting, the parent company of KQED. I am also pleased to serve as a member of the Commonwealth Club's Board of Governors. Find this on the internet at It's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished speaker, Retired Army Four Star General Wesley Clark, former presidential candidate, formal NATO Supreme Allied commander in Europe and author of "A Time to Lead".CLARK:  And in the 2000 presidential election I remember it was just before I left the military, I came to New York and I heard Ken Black and Bob Shrum who were managing respectively, the George Bush and Al Gore campaigns, debate in front of these prominent French and American business leaders, what would be the 2000 election themes? What would be the top five issues? It was like the economy, education, social security reform, and may be trade and that was it. There was nothing about national security, nothing, no significant foreign policy issues. Now, everything was going great.And then 9/11 happened. And what happened in 9/11 is we didn't have a strategy, we didn't have bipartisan agreement, we didn't have American understanding of it and we had instead a policy coup in this country, a coup, a policy coup.Some hardnosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.I went through the Pentagon ten days after 9/11. I couldn't stay away from mother army. I went back there to see Donald Rumsfeld, I had worked for him as a White House fellow in the 1970s, its all listed in the book and and I said to him, are you doing okay on CNN and he said yeah yeah yeah fine, he said, I am thinking about he says, I read your book and he said this is the book that talks about the Kosovo campaign and he said, I just want to tell you he said, no body is going to tell where or when we can bomb, no body. He said I am thinking to call this a floating coalition, and what you think about that. I said, well sir, thanks for reading my book. And well he said, thanks that are all the time I have got, really.And I went downstairs, I was leaving the Pentagon and an officer from the Joint Staff called me into his office and said, I would want you to know, he said, sir, we are going to attack Iraq. And I said, why? He said, we don't know. He said I said, will they tie Saddam to 9/11? He said, no he said but I guess, its they don't know to do about terrorism and so the they think but they can attack states and they want to look strong its all, I guess they think if they take down a state, it will intimidate the terrorists and you know what its like that old saying, it said, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to be a nail.Well I walked out of there pretty upset and then we attacked Afghanistan. I was pretty happy about that, we should have. And then I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer, I said why why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq, he said, oh sir he says, its worse than that. He said he pulled up a piece of paper of his desk, he said, I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran seven seven countries in five years.  I said, is that a classified memo? He said, yes sir. I said; well don't show it to me. He was about to show it to me, because I don't want to talk about it. And I I sat on this information for a long time, for about six or eight months, I was so stunned by this, I couldn't begin to talk about it. And I couldn't believe it would really be true, but that's actually what happened.These people took control of the policy in the United States and I realized then it came back to me, a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz you know, in 2001 he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, but in 1991 he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, it's the number three position of the Pentagon.And I had gone to see him when I was a one star general, I was commanding the National Training Centre, I had met him one time, he said, if you ever get to Washington, come with me up there, I always say that. Well, I was there in Washington, it was a Friday afternoon, I had visited Colin Powell, he gave me five minutes of his precious time and set me on my way and I was bored in the Pentagon and and I thought I will just go who could I see. I think I will see Wolfowitz.So I called and up there he was available, Scooter Libby came to the door, I met Scooter for the first time and he brought me in and I said to Paul and this is 1991, I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't.And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us.He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us.And it was like you know I am coming out the Mohave desert, I have been training troops, I haven't been thinking geo strategy for some time and suddenly a guy just sort of shoves this nugget it well you will remember it it was a pretty stunning thing, I mean the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, its not to sort of deter a a conflict, we are going to have invade countries and you know, my mind was spinning. And I put that aside. It was like a nugget that you hold on to. This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from the project for a new American century.They wanted at us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control. It went back to those comments in 1991.Now did anybody tell you that, was there a national dialogue on this? Did senators and congressman stand up and denounce this plan? Was there a full fledged American debate on it? Absolutely not; and there are still isn't, and that's why we are failing in Iraq, because Iran and Syria know about the plan. All you have to do is read the the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and he blabber mouthed it out all over the world, Richard, the same way.They could hardly wait to finish Iraq, so they could move in to Syria. It was like a lay down, oh our legions are going to go in there. This wasn't what the American people voted George Bush in to office, well they didn't actually vote him to office, but it wasn't what many of the people who it wasn't what he campaigned on. He campaigned on a humble foreign policy, the most arrogant foreign policy in American history.He campaigned on no peace keeping, no nation building and here he is with Afghanistan and Iraqis; astonishing. So the root of the problem is not how many troops are in Iraq, please believe me, don't be mad if you are a Democrat at your Democratic congressmen because they can't reduce the troops and frustrate the president. That's not the issue. And if you are Republican don't be mad at the Democrats because they are fussing with the troops. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, if you are an American you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region, what is our aim, what is our purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue, for lack of an effective strategy we are going to lose in this regional battle. David Patreaus, he worked for me, he was a fine young officer, he hasn't worked for me as a senior officer, I assume he is very competent, no body makes four stars in the United States Armed Forces, no matter what [0:29:09] ____ unless they are pretty good. But and David Patreaus is good, darn good, but listen, he doesn't hold the cards the cards for America's success in the region are held by the White House.They have to do with strategy, whether you talk to or isolate Iran, whether you punish or reform Syria, whether you aid or condemn Lebanon, how you motivate Egypt, how you deal with Saudi Arabia, those are key elements in a strategy and there has to be a purpose for it and none of that has been laid out in any coherent way.-- Peter Myerswebsite: