He was asked two simple questions: who is the enemy and what is the U.S. fighting for? He didn't answer the second one at all (here is a partial answer) and he identified the enemy as "extremism."
"Extremism." What kind of extremism, General? Just any extremism at all? An extreme attachment to spinach, or volleyball, or truth and justice? Christian extremism? Buddhist extremism?
Of course, when he identifies Sunni and Shi'ite extremists, we get a clearer picture of what he means, but the fact that he doesn't dare say it plainly doesn't bode well for any hope of isolating what exactly it is about this "extremism" that he objects to, and combatting those elements on other fronts. Nor does he help us locate the good, benign, non-extreme form of this extreme thing we're fighting.
"Petraeus: Increased U.S. Troops Yielding Results," from NPR (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
A simple question that many in America are now wrestling with: Who is the enemy and what is the U.S. fighting for?The enemy is extremism, we think, and it is extremism that comes in various forms. Al-Qaida-in-Iraq is a very significant target to us. We see it as the most important near-term threat, because it is the source of the most horrific casualty-producing attacks in Iraq, the attacks that are intended to reignite the horrific sectarian violence that ripped the fabric of society in Baghdad and Iraq in late 2006 through 2007 and still is at play, certainly. There are also, certainly, Sunni extremists beyond al-Qaida, and then there are certainly Shia extremist elements — the most worrisome [being] those associated with Iranian-sponsored groups that sprung from the Sadr militia movement.
YA THINK????
Ummm, General, if I were Defense Secretary my first words would be:
You are relieved!
Moderate Islam is no Islam at all:
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3109&cid=2&sid=2
Moderate Islam Is No Islam
Amil Imani - 7/17/2007
Al-Qaida has become a generic term.
Much like Kleenex=tissue.
Skidoo= snowmobile.
It is all very msm friendly.
And lets not forget"Dissenfranchised Youths",or my favourite, "broad strata of society"
No one will call a spade a spade!
Cut the guy some slack; he's only a general, his expertise is military operations. It's the political wing that understands the political issues, more or less, anyway.
"Cut the guy some slack; he's only a general, "
???
Maybe I'm slow and you are being sarcastic. I hope so.
"The enemy is extremism, we think, and it is extremism that comes in various forms.
The fog of war is surely made worse by a fog of mind, which this quote reveals.
Not that it was an easy question. One might say that our enemy is "miltant Islam", "radical Islam" or "Islamic fascism”, but on reflection, when one considers the nature of Islam as practiced by its perfect model practitioner, Muhammad, these terms seem redundant. Maybe we should say our enemy, the enemy of Western Civilization at its best, is simply the actual or true practitioner of Islam, or more simply, the true Muslim. But then no general under President Bush, not even a clear thinking one, could dare to name the enemy.
Lets all attack the General and Demand he be relieved based on a snippet from the interview.
How dare he not make Bold Brash statements that can be used all over the Left Wing Media and be all over the Jihad Websites and their daughter antiwar victory to Jihad Peace Movement sites.
He has to be very careful with what he says whether anyone of a certain segment likes what he says or not. His remarks upsetting those who aren't gonna start shooting at US Troops, exploding or Protesting by default in support of Jihad if they get upset is of little significance as well as those who are petitioning for defeat of the American Forces and thereby Victory for Jihad. He likewise can't give the American wing of the Jihad Propaganda Command ammunition if he can possibly help it though they will twist any few words they can select out if possible. He was in fact speaking primarily to the Leaders the American Propaganda wing of the Worldwide Jihad.
He's trying to fight a war not kiss your ass.
"This transcript contains minor edits for clarity."
Wonder exactly what their agenda moved them to edit for clarity.
Petraeus: "The enemy is extremism, we think..."
Petraeus = Moron.
I am being nice.
Allahsnackbar,pass the bong man!
Allahsnackbar
Your caution against criticism of the General would find more support if he would show by his actions, instead of just his words, a better understanding of the enemy and the mission. His words simply reflect his misunderstanding.
I think we can all appreciate the general's need to choose his words carefully on so delicate a subject. If he did the believe the enemy was a broader group than just the extremists, he would not have to say directly that the enemy is Islam, though it would be quite refreshing and happen to be the truth. He can relay his understanding to us all in other ways. His actions would be a good start.
He can, and his boss can, if they want to, show us a clearer understanding of the enemy and what the the mission ought to be without having to shout that message from the rooftops. As is said, actions speak louder than words.
As an example, no one forced GWB to go to that mosque weeks ago and confirm his admiration for the religion of peace. Bush even started to use language (using "jihadist" instead of the confusing "terrorist") to make me wonder that perhaps he had discovered something not known previously, and that he was watching his language to conform with what he now believed. But he choose to go and speak those words which conforms to his actions in Iraq and elsewhere. He could have stayed home and no criticism would have followed for that trip.
If the general does not think the enemy is "extremist" he can show us by his actions. He can say whatever the f**k he wants as far as I'm concerned. And you and I would be in agreement about undue criticism. But he doesn't. His words and his actions reflect the understandings of his boss and all those that brought this mess down upon us.
In a way, I am glad to know the general states his understanding. False hope can be cruel.
Lets be realistic for a moment.
If Petraeus thought like a JihadWatcher, he wouldn't be able to talk like one. The media would demand he be fired, and the President would oblige because it is not the job of a general to create policy.
I don't think Petraeus "gets it" which isn't a surprise because 99% of the elites in this country don't. The general population is much smarter on the issue because small town and rural USA aren't so infected by the PC disease, but the number of people of who want to challenge Islam per se has got to be relatively small (albeit growing).
Petraeus is a general who serves the President. In a PC culture, we are not going to do any better. Defeat PC-ism, and we can make all sorts of improvements, such as forming better policies to be implemented by generals like Petraeus.
So instead of beating up on Petraeus, it would be better and more fair to beat up on our political leadership and the media. Petraeus is a good soldier who attempts to do what he is instructed to do.
In my opinion, the key to defeating Jihad is to reduce PC thinking in the U.S. The main challenge about Iraq is how to extricate ourselves without giving a victory to people like Clinton, Pelosi, Edwards, Obama, etc. If the media declares a victory for the left-wing "Kumbaya-lets make Iran our friend" approach, our next big general will be far worse than Petraeus.
Lets keep our eyes on the ball.
"He was asked two simple questions: who is the enemy and what is the U.S. fighting for? He didn't answer the second one at all and he identified the enemy as "extremism.""
Come on. That's funny.
Four years on and no one really knows why the US is fighting in Iraq or what they're fighting.
Brilliant.
Operation Iraqi Freedom. It just keeps on giving and giving.
This is now way beyond "Keystone Cops" analogies. It's pushing back the "silent comedy classic" comparisons.
We're in uncharted territory.
I agreee with Allahsnackbar.
For the nth time -- the military leaders do NOT set, devise, initiate policies. They implement the policies given to them by politicians. The military is NOT supposed to be entering into political arenas.
Petraeus generally seems to have a decent head on his shoulders, but I do wonder what he was doing here? Is he just choosing his words carefully? I suspect he is. A general on the frontlines in Iraq would quickly realize that extremism is the enemy, however dumb he may have been to begin with.
J.S I don't think anyone has said that General Petraeus has "devised, initiated policies"
Strawman argument methinks.
However, to display such.....what's the word.....myopia? beggars belief.
Imagine June 44 and Eisenhower is unable to answer the questions
a) What the US troops are doing on Normandy beaches
and
b) Who are they fighting.
It beggars belief.
Agreed GetBornAgain. I think Petraeus is going to be the scapegoat when Iraq somehow sinks even deeper into the abyss. The NeoCons need someone to blame. They're above criticism as they are above riding round hell hole Baghdad streets with nothing but sandbags for cover