Unless some new information arises, it seems that General Allen, at least, is just collateral damage in the Petraeus situation. Clearly he exercised bad judgment in his relationship with Jill Kelley, but associating with a loon is not a national security concern. I still [...]]]> Refer to this if you need a reminder of the characters.

Unless some new information arises, it seems that General Allen, at least, is just collateral damage in the Petraeus situation. Clearly he exercised bad judgment in his relationship with Jill Kelley, but associating with a loon is not a national security concern. I still can’t quite get my hands around his decision to intervene in her sister’s custody dispute, but whatever. None of that should derail the guy’s career.

Broadwell has already paid a huge price in terms of her reputation. My suspicion is that she’ll face additional problems over mishandling classified info, unless those stories are inaccurate. But at this point, I, at least, wish everyone would just leave her alone.

Shirtless FBI guy needs to be investigated.

Kelley is, um, a piece of work. But she’s a private citizen. It’d be nice if she were left alone as well.

Which leaves a few things:

(1) Petraeus himself. As I’ve said many times, forget about the sex, and focus on his abuses of power and position. That is the real story here. A man so wrapped up in his own myth that he continually transgresses norms. Even if he were the savior of Iraq (and he wasn’t), his refusal to play by the rules is the problem. It is also worth shedding some light on his defenders, and in particular asking why they remain so gung ho to excuse his conduct at every turn. And the reason is clear, a tangled web of conflicts of interest.

(2) The FBI investigation. It looks to me like the investigation was legit, although unduly aggressive. There are questions about leaks. But the real story is, I think, just how vulnerable we all are to this sort of snooping. As a practical matter, I think that it is more productive to look at this issue in terms of the privacy rights of the millions without high-level clearances rather than the thousands with such clearances who ought to be under higher scrutiny. But look, I’ve talked about this before. We need to develop a robust “use” regime to counter-balance the technology-driven collection regime we all live under.

Getting involved in someone’s custody dispute shows seriously bad judgment—throwing one’s weight around in circumstances one barely understands, with potential implications for innocent parties.

She was talking about this, but really is their any better description of [...]]]> Over at Balloon Juice, in a thread on the Petraeus situation, one of the commenters condemned his behavior:

Getting involved in someone’s custody dispute shows seriously bad judgment—throwing one’s weight around in circumstances one barely understands, with potential implications for innocent parties.

She was talking about this, but really is their any better description of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

throwing one’s weight around in circumstances one barely understands, with potential implications for innocent parties.

A perfect epitaph for our decade of war.

KABUL — U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been ordered to significantly scale back operations with Afghan military and police forces after a spike in fratricidal “insider attacks” that has seriously undermined U.S. trust in their local allies.

The decision, officials said Tuesday, is also linked to concerns that American field troops have [...]]]> From the WaPo:

KABUL — U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been ordered to significantly scale back operations with Afghan military and police forces after a spike in fratricidal “insider attacks” that has seriously undermined U.S. trust in their local allies.

The decision, officials said Tuesday, is also linked to concerns that American field troops have become more vulnerable to attacks because of Muslim outrage over a controversial anti-Islam video.

The orders from Gen. John R. Allen, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, represent a major shift from the long-stated U.S. philosophy that American and NATO troops are here to work “shoulder to shoulder” with their Afghan partners.

Just so we’re clear, this is a huge story and yet another demonstration that our approach in Afghanistan is failed. First, the whole population-centric COIN concept collapsed under its unexamined assumptions about the sources of legitimacy and the potential for rapid state building in Afghanistan. Now the whole transition strategy based on partnering with the Afghans to prepare them for the lead responsibility is coming apart as well.

The good news is that we’re largely out of options now. All we can do is work to get out as quickly as possible. The bad news is that we could have done the same in 2009 (or before) and left Afghanistan in roughly the same condition as it is now… well, actually that is not true. Had we pulled out sooner, we’d have better relations with the Afghans. All the 2009 surge accomplished was to poison the well of future cooperation.

In a blistering response to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statement that the United States is “not setting deadlines” for Iran and that negotiations coupled with sanctions are the best approach, Netanyahu said that if no “red line” is established for Iran, it will continue a program that Israel says is [...]]]> Bibi wants em:

In a blistering response to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statement that the United States is “not setting deadlines” for Iran and that negotiations coupled with sanctions are the best approach, Netanyahu said that if no “red line” is established for Iran, it will continue a program that Israel says is intended to build an atomic bomb.

Actually, the issue isn’t a red line per se, but apparently which red line. Obama has repeatedly stated that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is “unacceptable.” That is a pretty clear red line. But what Natanyahu wants is some sort of ultimatum to Iran to dismantle its nuclear program altogether.

I’m pretty skeptical of the peaceful intent Iran’s nuclear program, but the reality is that there is no legal basis for denying the right to a nuclear program. Right now the issue is whether Iran is in violation of reporting requirements under the non-proliferation treaty. That is what the UN Security Council resolutions are essentially about. I don’t see how that justifies a military attack, much less an extended conflict.

Israel basically wants a preventive war. And not just a preventive war, but a war to deny Iran a right it possesses under international law. Regardless of the character of the regime, this position is not going to garner a lot of international support. So the costs would go far beyond just the immediate consequences of the strikes and any Iranian retaliation.

I don’t see how any American leader looking at the cost-benefit calculus could support Israel on this… and yet, just watch the right-wingers squawk about Obama’s refusal to grant Natanyahu a private audience.