Recent Appearances...

Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances...

Israel-Palestine-Jordan

What America Can Learn From Israel On The Battlefield

2024-06-11

[DanielGreenfield]America has never successfully liberated and held territory from Islamic terrorists. After thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq: both countries are now controlled by Islamic terrorists.

Many top current and former defense officials who oversaw both disasters, despite a track record of zero wins, have been criticizing Israel for not following in their footsteps.

Everyone from former Gen. David Petraeus to current Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown offer the familiar criticisms that Israel is not following the COIN or counterinsurgency model.

"Not only do you have to actually go in and clear out whatever adversary you are up against, you have to go in, hold the territory and then you’ve got to stabilize it," Chief Brown argued.

The problem with this model is that it failed and left a lot of widows and orphans along the way.

The United States spent over 50 years losing wars, prestige and young men by trying to follow the familiar strategy for defeating guerrilla armies through conventional warfare followed by efforts to hold and stabilize the territories. And what exactly do we have to show for it?

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) discarded this conventional wisdom for another approach.

Rather than trying to hold territory filled with an enemy population among whom the terrorists move, it has used its manpower to attack concentrations of enemy forces, moving quickly and at times unpredictably, while refusing to get bogged down by trying to ’hold’ any particular area.

This strategy has frustrated the entire Hamas war plan which like that of Jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan depended on using terror attacks to pin military units in place, forcing them to defend and patrol a territory, and then exploiting their weaknesses to launch ambushes.

...When Israel ’re-cleared’ Al-Shifa hospital, it took by surprise and captured much of the leadership of Islamic Jihad and some Hamas leaders as well. Rather than a weakness, re-clearing is a strength because when terrorists return to territory that Israel is now familiar with, it can turn the tables and launch surprise attacks on those old positions.

Israel is not fighting to take land, but to grind down enemy forces wherever they operate.

"The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed," Gen McChrystal told the Senate about his Afghanistan strategy in 2009. McChrystal’s strategy killed a lot of Americans instead.

Israel is betting that McChrystal is wrong. It’s measuring effectiveness in just that way.

Link

Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

'Everything will happen quickly.' The Pentagon figured out how to 'defeat Moscow'

2022-11-15

Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
[RIA Novosti] The Russian Defense Ministry magazine "Military Thought" reports that the Pentagon is developing fundamentally new weapons that will allow attacking enemy strategic targets with impunity. They will bet on non-nuclear forces. About the conclusions of analysts - in the material RIA Novosti.

NEGATIVE SCENARIO
The concept of mutually assured destruction assumes that one superpower, subjected to nuclear aggression by another, will have time to put its strategic forces on full alert and deliver a retaliatory strike. Of course, you need to detect enemy ICBMs in time. Both Russia and the United States have effective missile attack warning systems (EWS) - satellites and powerful over-the-horizon radars. They will allow the country's political leadership to fully engage the nuclear triad.

Among the main goals of the aggressor state are ICBM mines, nuclear submarine bases, strategic aviation airfields, headquarters, and special ammunition storage points. If, for some reason, the country being attacked does not have time to launch a retaliatory strike, most of the nuclear deterrence forces will be destroyed. A few dozen remaining missiles will not be enough for irreparable damage. In addition, some of them will bring down missile defense systems.

The second scenario of a hypothetical nuclear conflict with Russia is desirable for the United States, since it does not imply large losses on its part.

The authors of the publication in Military Thought argue that for this the Pentagon may not need heavy silo ICBMs and strategic nuclear submarines. The main thing is to take the Kremlin by surprise.

“In the medium term, the United States seeks to possess strategic non-nuclear weapons with a short flight time to the target and not formally subject to any bilateral or international restrictions, the use of which is possible to carry out strategic offensive tasks,” the article says. “These tasks should ensure the defeat of a significant the number of Russian nuclear forces until the Supreme Commander-in-Chief decides to launch a retaliatory strike.

According to the conclusions of the publication, "this can have an extremely negative impact on national security and will require active counteraction to threats."

AGGRESSIVE CONCEPT
Washington's long-term plans, according to the authors of the article, include the creation of strategic highly effective fire weapons systems operating on the principle of a reconnaissance strike complex, directed energy weapons and other promising options.

In the meantime, the United States will deal with some kind of intermediate structure, equipped with existing and coming to the troops means of kinetic and non-kinetic, global and regional impact.

“Already now we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrent, the first samples of which in the medium term may enter the US Armed Forces,” the article says. “They will have an arsenal of systems capable of partially fulfilling the tasks of existing strategic nuclear forces with conventional warheads ".

The Americans are acting in accordance with the military-strategic concept of a rapid global strike (Prompt Global Strike), which implies an attack with conventional weapons on a target anywhere in the world within one hour.

THE PENTAGON CALLED THE MOST COMBAT-READY ARMY IN THE WORLD
An important element of this system is the thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Firing range - 2500 kilometers. However, the subsonic speed of this missile may not be enough to hit any target on the planet in an hour. And the attack ships are not always in the right radius of action.

Actually, aggressive plans are not hidden in the States. Back in October, retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of US Central Command, told ABC that if Moscow used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Pentagon would respond with a non-nuclear military response.

Of course, so far Washington is not calling for hitting Russian nuclear mines, but the rhetoric on this score is intensifying.

HYPERSONIC ARGUMENT
In the early 2010s, the Americans were going to develop a ballistic missile with a non-nuclear warhead based on regular Minuteman III ICBMs and Trident II SLBMs for a quick strike against "rogue states", by which Washington at that time understood in particular Iran and North Korea. But this idea was quickly abandoned. The Pentagon considered that Russian early warning systems could misinterpret ICBM launches, and this would turn into a full-scale nuclear war.
As a result, they concentrated on hypersonic weapons. One of the first projects is the winged X-51A Waverider. The declared speed is 7500 kilometers per hour. However, problems arose during the tests, and the missile was never accepted into service.

Nevertheless, these developments were used to create other hypersonic systems - in all types of armed forces. Within the framework of the fast global strike concept, the main option being considered is high-speed cruise missiles for Virginia-class submarines. It is part of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program.

The Pentagon hopes to receive the first serial samples by 2024, the nuclear submarines will be converted to them by 2028. Up to 65 CPS will be placed on each Block V series submarine. These missiles will also equip the latest stealth destroyers of the Zumwalt type.

In addition, the US could deliver a disarming strike from Europe. Back in June 2020, the German media wrote that at the summit of NATO defense ministers, some EU countries approved the deployment of promising American medium-range missiles in conventional equipment.

Europe predicted the most difficult winter since the Second World War
As you know, Washington withdrew from the treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. And just a few weeks later, he tested prototypes of a cruise, and then a ground-based ballistic missile. That is, they prepared in advance for the abandonment of the INF Treaty. As well as to raise the stakes in the conflict.

Link

Olde Tyme Religion

Taliban Commander Vows Jihad Against the Whole World

2021-08-16

[PJ Media] As the Taliban moves into Kabul and demands the unconditional surrender of the central government, Taliban commander Muhammed Arif Mustafa told CNN: "It’s our belief that one day, mujahedin will have victory, and Islamic law will come not to just Afghanistan, but all over the world. We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day." The CNN "journalist," demonstrating yet again its spectacular misunderstanding of the conflict (which, of course, is shared by the U.S. foreign policy establishment), followed that with "It’s a chilling admission from a group that claims it wants peace." The Taliban does indeed want peace. It wants the peace that will follow the world’s submission to the hegemony of Islamic law.

Muhammed Arif Mustafa was stating plainly what the U.S. State Department steadfastly ignored for twenty years: the fact that the Taliban views itself as the exponents in 21st-century Afghanistan of a fourteen-hundred-year-old conflict, one that is as old as Islam itself. The History of Jihad details how Muslims in Afghanistan and the world over have waged this jihad without any interruption throughout that entire period, with the goal that the Taliban commander enunciated: to establish the rule of Islamic law anywhere and everywhere possible.

This imperative was often energized by grievances, but was never, contrary to State’s assumption, built on grievances alone. The Qur’an commands: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah." (8:39) Some might think that because the Taliban is ending what they perceive as "persecution" — that is, the American presence — in Afghanistan, it will lay down its arms. This is once again a fundamental misunderstanding. The Taliban, and other groups like it, will fight on "until religion is all for Allah." Within Afghanistan, this will take the form of a ferocious and merciless persecution of women who do not obey Islam’s veiling laws, and of anyone else who dares to violate the strictures of Islam in any way. And outside Afghanistan, the Taliban will do all it can to aid jihad groups elsewhere, as it aided al-Qaeda to prepare for the jihad attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

No one in Washington or among American forces in Afghanistan ever showed any sign of understanding this. In an interview with ABC News back in 2010, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan at the time, Gen. David Petraeus, "conceded that a successful counterinsurgency campaign could take up to 10 more years, but said he intended to stick to the 2011 drawdown date."

Link

Afghanistan

David Petraeus: Afghanistan falling apart after 20 years of US war

2021-07-19

[Iran Press TV] Former US commander in Afghanistan and CIA director Gen. David Petraeus has said Afghanistan is falling apart as the United States is withdrawing troops from the country after 20 years of war in the country. In an interview with CNN
...the organization formerly known as the Cable News Network. Now who knows what it might stand for...
on Sunday, the retired US general said, "The situation on the ground has become increasingly dire with each passing week."

"I fear we will look back and regret the decision to withdraw," Petraeus said. "Sadly, we may regret that sooner than I had originally thought when I said that right after the decision was announced."

"Beyond that, I think we will also look back and regret the hasty way in which we seem to be doing this," added Petraeus, who retired from the Army to become director of the CIA in 2011.

US President Joe The Big Guy Biden
...46th president of the U.S. Sleazy Dem mschine politician, paterfamilias of the Biden Crime Family...
has announced that American troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and he recently moved up the date of the final departure to August 31, as the Taliban
...the Pashtun equivalent of men...
claimed that they now control 85 percent of the country’s territory.

The US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 on the pretext of fighting terrorism and removing the Taliban from power, but after the 20 years of war the country now looks descending into chaos and the Taliban knocking on Kabul’s door. Some high-profile Americans are now suggesting that the US war should not end.

Petraeus praised the Afghan National Security Forces for their fight against the Taliban, saying they "had been fighting and dying in very large numbers. And they still are. The problem now is they're not sure if someone is coming to the rescue, and that injects a very considerable amount of uncertainty into the battlefield."

The retired CIA chief went on to argue that withdrawing American troops was not going to end the fighting in Afghanistan.

"No one wants to see endless wars ended more than those who have actually served in them, but we are not ending this war, we are ending US involvement in it," he said.

Petraeus also said, "What I see now, sadly, is the onset of what is going to be quite a brutal civil war."

Courtesy of Skidmark, the Daily Mail adds:

While the Taliban
Taliban

...the Pashtun equivalent of men...
government was dislodged from Kabul, it was never fully vanquished.

Since 2001, more than 2,300 American military personnel have died and more than 20,000 have been maimed in Afghanistan.

The number of Afghan civilians who have died ranges from 35,000 to 40,000, according to estimates.

The financial cost of maintaining the war effort is also steep for the American taxpayer, as the Pentagon is estimated to have spent more than $824billion in Afghanistan.

In recent weeks, the Taliban have chalked up dozens of wins and now hold key border crossings with Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistain.

The Taliban is enforcing its harsh interpretation of Islamic rule and reverting to its fundamental roots as it makes huge advances across Afghanistan.

Insurgents are issuing new orders to captured territories, banning smoking and beard-shaving and ordering villagers to marry off their daughters to foot soldiers and stopping women from heading out alone.

The Islamist group warned that anyone who breaks the rules 'will be seriously dealt with'.

It comes a day after video emerged of Taliban fighters massacring 22 Afghan commandos who had surrendered in Dawlat Abad, in northern Faryab province.

The Islamists are trying to persuade government troops to abandon their posts on the promise of safe passage back to their homes as they take advantage of the US withdrawal.

Link

Home Front: Politix

'Fearlessly exposed himself to enemy fire': The only 2020 Democrat to experience combat finds it counts for little in political arena

2019-09-08

BLUF:
[Washington Examiner] He later returned to Iraq for a third tour as a special assistant to Gen. David Petraeus, who later became CIA director, and a fourth as a liaison to tribal leaders in the south of the country. After gaining two more degrees from Harvard University, Moulton in 2014 successfully defeated a nine-term Democratic incumbent congressman, John Tierney, in a primary and entered Congress.

But despite having what one Republican strategist described as "the most perfect resume of all time," Moulton made barely a ripple in the crowded field of presidential hopefuls during his four-month bid. When his campaign ended last month, so too did the possibility that Democrats would nominate an experienced battle leader to be the next commander in chief.

Link

-Land of the Free

Military retirees can still be court-martialed, Supreme Court affirms

2019-02-26

[Mil Times] The Supreme Court decided last week not to review the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed and convicted of sexual assault in 2015, upholding the Pentagon’s authority to prosecute retirees for crimes they commit even after leaving the service.
When you retire it's not the same thing as a discharge. You go into retired reserve. You can be recalled to active status or request reactivation. I worked with a lieutenant colonel in 2004-05 who was on oxygen, but who had requested recall post-9/11. My own request was declined since my background was Russian and Vietnamese and my security clearance had been expired for almost ten years.
The decision leaves the possibility open for retirees to face punishment, such as sailors involved in the Navy’s "Fat Leonard" scandal and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus ‐ who pleaded guilty to providing classified information to his biographer.

On Feb. 19, the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case of retired Marine Staff Sgt. Steven M. Larrabee, who left the Corps after 20 years of service but continued to reside in Iwakuni, Japan, his final duty station, where he managed two local bars.

On Nov. 15, 2015, after a night of drinking, Larrabee sexually assaulted a bartender at one of the bars he managed and used his cell phone to record the incident.

Larrabee "was subsequently convicted by a court-martial, pursuant to his pleas, on one count of sexual assault and one count of indecent recording in violation of Articles 120 and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice," according to court records.

The military judge sentenced Larrabee to eight years’ confinement, a reprimand, and a dishonorable discharge. As part of a pre-trial agreement, however, his prison term was reduced to 10 months.

In September 2018, Larrabee filed a petition for his conviction to be overturned on appeal based on the argument that he should have been tried as a civilian. However, the Supreme Court has denied that appeal, upholding the past standard that retirees are still subject to the UCMJ.

Link

Home Front: Politix

David Petraeus suggests he wouldn't serve in Trump administration

2018-12-31

[The Hill] Retired Gen. David Petraeus said Monday that he doesn't "envision" returning to a government position, and said his views don't align with President Trump's on foreign affairs.

"I think there does have to be policy alignment [with Trump,] and I’m not sure that exists, I’m afraid," Petraeus said on BBC Radio 4 when asked if he'd be willing to replace James Mattis as Defense Secretary, as first reported by Time magazine.

Mattis resigned in December in a letter that said Trump deserved to have a Defense secretary with views that aligned with his own. The decision came as Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and a reduction in the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, who previously served as former President Obama's CIA Director, added that he "cannot envision returning to government at this time."

"It’s not unreasonable to ask after 17 years of war, ’is this the best way to go about it,’ " Petraeus said. "It doesn’t mean that I agree, necessarily, with the recent decisions, but to be truthful we don’t know the details of the policy yet."

Link

Home Front: Politix

Mad Dog Disease

2018-12-27

[American Spectator] And now the Left media are consumed by Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy ‐ Mad Dog Disease. It seems that everyone at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the CBS-NBC-ABC cabal all madly love outgoing Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. The SPCA has come to D.C. It is fascinating that these liberals, who always denigrate the military and prefer to manipulate the armed forces into serving as their laboratory for transgender social experiments (Yes, Zer!), suddenly are singing paeans to Gen. Mattis. It is ridiculous. They have no shame.

They adore a great patriotic general? Gimme a break. Six months ago, Secretary Mattis was being grilled on why we had not yet left Afghanistan. They want to close down ICE. Not the border ‐ that may remain wide open ‐ but they want to close down ICE because Immigration and Customs Enforcement is run by "Nazis." They express empathy and sympatico for extremist elements like "Black Lives Matter" when the BLM crowd oppose the police and march in streets calling for police deaths. All manifestations of defending our safety and security, at home and abroad, are evil for them. All first responders are pounded with contumely. Even Gen. David Petraeus would get heckled when he set foot on a campus to lecture.

But, now that President Trump has accepted Secretary Mattis’s resignation, oh how those Leftists love their Mad Dog! Listen to Don Lemon and Chris Matthews and Chris Cuomo as they pathetically yelp: Woof, woof! How every American liberal salivates Pavlovian merely upon hearing those sweet two syllables: Mad Dog!

Baloney. Or, as they say in the Land of Canine: Grrrrrrrrr!

If Trump Derangement Syndrome has evolved into a full-fledged malady impacting half the American population, it now seems to have spawned a new ailment: Mad Dog Disease. The basic symptoms are the inexplicable sorrow being expressed by anti-war activists, flower-bearing peaceniks, who incomprehensibly cannot sleep, eat, or otherwise function now that James "Mad Dog" Mattis no longer is our Secretary of Defense. They can’t handle it: Who will protect us, if not our sweet beloved Mad Dog? It is a thing.

For those who have learned American subjects in school beside Identity Studies, the United States in fact is led by a civilian commander-in-chief whom the public elects. It is presumed that the President is too busy to do everything by himself, so he appoints aides, advisors, and surrounds himself with a cabinet. But in the end, they all serve at the pleasure of the President whom the people elected. That is how it should be. No one elected James Mattis to be in charge of America’s defense strategy. For that matter, no one elected Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Morning Joe & Mika, Al Sharpton, or anyone else to that role ‐ and none of them has television ratings to suggest that they reflect the views of more than a pittance among the population, most of whom get stuck watching CNN while at the airport awaiting their delayed flight or while standing at the dry cleaner.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Petraeus: CIA Nominee Will Tell Congress 'She Gets It' on Enhanced Interrogation Illegality

2018-03-27

[PJ] WASHINGTON ‐ Retired Gen. David Petraeus, who was under consideration as President Trump’s secretary of State after the 2016 election, applauded Trump’s trade actions toward China as "long overdue" as well as his choice of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to lead the State Department.

"He’s a very bright individual ‐ No. 1 in his class at West Point ‐ that’s a special breed of an individual, Harvard Law School, successful businessman, obviously a successful political figure and has been a strong director of the CIA," Petraeus said during a Veterans in Global Leadership reception on Thursday evening.

"So what I would look for there, in particular, would be how quickly can they get qualified individuals nominated and confirmed, because a State Department without confirmed assistant secretaries of State is a State Department that doesn’t have one of its most important elements," he added.

Petraeus, who served CIA director under President Obama, said many people are wondering why it’s taking so long for the Senate to confirm assistant secretaries of State and why there has been "such an exodus" of senior ranking officials at the State Department.

"It’s hard to understand what is the dynamic here, what was all that about, but my hope would certainly be that Mike Pompeo, recognizing the issues that exist, will be able to work effectively with the White House and with the president, with whom he’s developed, obviously, a very strong relationship and mutual respect," he said. "He’s a strong leader and I would hope that we would see quick results on that front, in particular."

Link

Iraq

The Iraq War Was A Mistake. So Why Can't Gen. Petraeus Finally Admit It?

2018-03-23

That is one opinion, certainly. Another might be that the Obama pull out was the mistake. Or allowing the State Department to take over administering post-invasion Iraq instead of leaving it in the hands of the Army. As for me, I’d rather the bad guys were fighting and dying in their homeland than in mine.

[Task & Purpose] Just days after the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, I wonder why it’s still difficult for one of our nation’s most-respected commanders of the war, Gen. David Petraeus, to admit what many already know: Going into Iraq was a mistake.

Petraeus was asked recently by Task & Purpose whether the Iraq War was worth it. Here’s how he responded:

"I think everybody who was in Iraq, who served there, who knows the sacrifice it entails, who knows the cost in blood and in treasure... has been frustrated to see how the country slid back after we left in late 2011," Petraeus said in an exclusive interview with T&P’s Jeff Schogol. "But at the end of the day, I think we also have a degree of quiet pride that when our country needed us, we answered the call."

My colleague Jeff Schogol didn’t ask Petraeus whether the troops who fought there served honorably, or whether they were frustrated by Iraq’s slide into chaos after withdrawal. But the retired general offered a classic example of deflection. It’s a politician’s answer ‐ instead of addressing the actual question, you just answer the question you prefer to be asked.

Petraeus was offered a simple question: Was it all worth it? Given all that we know now, should we have invaded in 2003? And yet, he dodged it. Why?

Admitting it was a mistake isn’t controversial among most in the national security field, or even the public writ large.

Americans were told of a possible "mushroom cloud" brought on by Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) nukes and other weapons of mass destruction ‐ claims all based on faulty intelligence that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted was just a convenient excuse for war.

Link

Iraq

We Asked Gen. Petraeus Whether the Iraq War Was Really Worth It

2018-03-19

[MIL.com] This article by Jeff Schogol originally appeared on Task & Purpose, a digital news and culture publication dedicated to military and veterans issues.

Fifteen years of war have turned Iraqi cities such as Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul into ruins. Iraq remains as divided as ever along sectarian lines, despite the deaths of more than 4,500 U.S. troops and untold numbers of Iraqis.

U.S. troops remain in Iraq to help advise and assist Iraqi forces as they try to prevent ISIS from launching yet another insurgency. Meanwhile, Iran has flooded the country with thousands of proxy fighters, giving it a large say in what the government of Iraq does post-ISIS.

This wasn’t the Iraq that was supposed to emerge when U.S. troops crossed the berm from Kuwait to Iraq in March 2003. Nor is this the Iraq that troops who trounced al Qaeda during the surge bled for. There are few tangible signs of success, and Iraq’s future is still unclear.

Seeing all this chaos prompts many Iraq veterans to wonder: Was what they fought for worth the sacrifices they made?

We posed that question to the Iraq War’s most influential figure, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, who led U.S. forces in Iraq during the 2007-2008 surge in an attempt to stop a Sunni-Shiite civil war.

"I think everybody who was in Iraq, who served there, who knows the sacrifice it entails, who knows the cost in blood and in treasure... has been frustrated to see how the country slid back after we left in late 2011," Petraeus said in an exclusive interview. "But at the end of the day, I think we also have a degree of quiet pride that when our country needed us, we answered the call."

The "truly remarkable Americans" who joined the military after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks knew that their country would send them to war, said Petraeus, who added that it was an incredible privilege for him to lead U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Link

Home Front: Politix

CBS: Petraeus out of running to replace Flynn

2017-02-18

[Hot Air] Down goes another option to replace Michael Flynn as national security adviser, CBS News reports, and from a rather surprising source. After a speech overseas that apparently angered the White House, David Petraeus is no longer in the running for the spot -- and that comes from sources close to Petraeus rather than the White House:

Sources close to retired Gen. David Petraeus say the White House eliminated the former CIA director from consideration for the open national security adviser post after he weighed in on the job during a conference in Germany this week.

"Whoever it is that would agree to take that position certainly should do so with some very, very significant assurances that he or she would have authorities over the personnel of the organization -- that there would be a commitment to a disciplined process and procedures," Petraeus said at the Munich Security Conference.

That pronouncement angered the White House as it deepened the sense the next national security adviser must assert authority over staff and the inter-agency process -- highlighting the reason Vice Adm. Robert Harward refused to take the job earlier this week. Two sources confirmed to CBS News that Harward had demanded his own team, and the White House resisted.

The bigger surprise of this CBS update on the national security adviser sweepstakes is that David Petraeus was seriously in the running. The former four-star general and CIA director had his name included in media shortlists, but with the big, fat asterisk of having a misdemeanor conviction on his record for mishandling highly classified information. That wouldn’t have been an insurmountable legal issue -- if nothing else, Donald Trump could have issued a presidential pardon to wipe it off the record. Politically, though, it would have created some difficulties, and it’s not certain whether Petraeus could get a high enough clearance after that to perform the job.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More