Gen. David Petraeus: Appeaser?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bush, Iran, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The World, War

He apparently thinks diplomacy with Iran is the best option, and as the following suggests, he’s right in line with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

From Wash Post:

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, President Bush’s nominee to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, supports continued U.S. engagement with international and regional partners to find the right mix of diplomatic, economic and military leverage to address the challenges posed by Iran.

In written answers to questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he will testify today, Petraeus said the possibility of military action against Iran should be retained as a “last resort.” But he said the United States “should make every effort to engage by use of the whole of government, developing further leverage rather than simply targeting discrete threats.”

Petraeus’s views echoed those expressed by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who this month said that talks with Iran could be useful if the right combination of incentives and pressures could be developed.

So what to make of this given Bush’s recent statements? Are we supposed to just ignore him and focus on what the real policy seems to be?


This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 and is filed under Bush, Iran, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Gen. David Petraeus: Appeaser?”

  1. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    “…engage by use of the whole of government, developing further leverage…”

    How do you gain “leverage” by apeasement? The whole point of appeasement is that you lose leverage as a gesture of good will. Pressure, sanctions, and other diplomatic means to isolate or weaken the regime will give you leverage. Patraeus kows that Iranian weapons are being used to kill his men. I doubt he advocates giving away concessions that would further empower Iran in the region in order to get them to stop.

  2. C Stanley Says:

    His statements only conflict with the Bush administration’s policies when you contort them. Of course he believes diplomatic resolution of problems is better than war- if he didn’t, then that would be newsworthy. No one in their right mind thinks that war is preferrable to diplomacy- but what’s absurd is to think that every problem can be solved diplomatically if we just show goodwill.

  3. Jon Kay Says:

    Er, Jimmy, I think the word “appeasement” doesn’t quite mean what you think it does.

    Appeasement would be agreeing to do whatever Iran wants us to do or looking the other way to keep the peace.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: