Light Within

making sense of social media mix

All In to Fall IN

Bookmark and Share

People should study the military history and war doctrines closely because that shows soldiering as a universal phenomenon involving not only ranks and files in the any army but also public at large.

From that point, I have been following the developments of General David Patreaus –military commander best known for his drone war strategy and counterinsurgency doctrine – caught in world’s most blatant honey trap (Aren't they taught Camouflage and Concealment in army anymore). Now that the former celebrated general and CIA director has testified (contradicting his own earlier stance and also that of the US administration on Benghazi attack on US facility), this matter seems to be far from over. I have a hunch that we will hear more from General Patreaus (and certainly from his biographer Paula Broadwell) even after the sexy part of scandal has waned and the crass part starts cranking. Cases of former presidents Eisenhower and Bill Clinton still haunt many. Remember her pen, his sword story? I am looking for answers to following question in the story to kill my intense curiosity:

Did General David Patreaus resign because he had ready access to the nuclear command and control and was no longer reliable under the Personnel Reliability Program after he was found involved with a girl of half his age? Why did Petraeus change his testimony? Who changed the CIA talking points, removing the evidence an al-Qaeda element was likely involved in Benghazi affair? How the affair details are going to shape up the internet as far as the privacy issue (world has seen that whatever is "in the cloud" in any shape or form, cannot be secured effectively.)? How far sex lives of the powerful and famous are a journalistic currency? Has he been framed for his anti Israel stance leaked through his emails earlier?

Assuming Gen Petraeus will be invited to join a think tank and will accept. He was once talked about as a viable presidential candidate, but I suspect that talk will fade. And soon, another bright bauble will pass before our eyes but not before he writes one more book (to clear the mess). Keeping with military vernacular, a play on words and Broadbent’s biography title All In (title initially was Is It All In); the next book may be titles as “Fall In.” People should study the military history and war doctrines closely because that shows soldiering as a universal phenomenon involving not only ranks and files in the any army but also public at large.

Labels: , ,

posted by S A J Shirazi @ Saturday, November 17, 2012,


At 13:13, Anonymous Maria said...

How can you rely on a person who throws 37 years of marriage out of the window just for a momentary pleasure?

At 13:15, Anonymous Sarah said...

What does Paula Broadwell has to say on this?

At 10:05, Anonymous Kausar Bilal said...

An interesting post.
I think Sarah is right; may be one day Paula Broadwell disclose it and all the questions in the post are answered.
However, I think army professionals are trained to keep the information safe.

At 09:08, Blogger Jamil said...

Secrecy of any operation matters......otherwise you can see the hell fire........even from the friendly forces.

At 13:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An excellent piece as usual. It seems to be copied from the net. However, I did not find the link. Anyways, calling it a "Honey Trap" is not correct as he was not trapped into it. Anyway why are we so worried about DP.

At 14:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Found interesting reading this, but this kind of relationships are common all over the world. Mature men gets attracted to younger beautiful women whether militry or not. Love is a strange bond and only people who are in this secret relations know the beauty of it or the intimacy of it i may say.
I don't see any wrong in this coz no one can put boundries to this human heart

At 18:42, Blogger S A J Shirazi said...

@ Anonymous

But there are boundaries. And you need to put them yourself; self discipline.

At 18:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way she looks at the General (the images here) says it all.

At 19:39, Anonymous Some More Questions said...

1. Why was security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi so totally inadequate after the U.S. ambassador repeatedly requested that it be increased and improved following recurrent jihadist attacks against Western diplomatic and Red Cross activities in the area and because of the well-known and growing presence of al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups?

» If you like this article, please donate to Right Side News Daily
2. What was the mission of the two U.S. Benghazi installations, and why was Ambassador Chris Stevens in such a dangerous place with so little personal security? Are the reports true that guns were being run to al Qaeda in Syria using these installations as a transit point?

3. Was the U.S. Benghazi mission a secret CIA detention center and were there jihadist prisoners being held there as Paula Broadwell stated in a public speech she gave on Oct. 26 at a University of Denver alumni symposium?

4. How soon after the attack on the U.S. mission began did the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House Situation Room each know that the attack was a planned jihadist operation?

5. President Barack Obama stated at his Nov. 14 press conference, “I can can (sic) tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe.” Exactly when was that order issued?

6. Who was the president’s rescue order transmitted to, and when and what actions did they initiate to implement it?

7. Who made the decision not to execute the president’s rescue order and why?

8. When was it reported to the president that his rescue order had been countermanded, and what orders did he issue subsequently?

9. When did the president meet with his national security team to review his failed operation and to consider follow-on security actions to protect the remaining U.S. personnel in Libya?

10. Why was there such a huge contradiction between the information contained in real time video feeds from the U.S. mission in Benghazi and from a U.S. reconnaissance drone that that left no doubt about the planned nature of the attack on Sep. 11, as well as CIA Director David Petraeus’ own CIA Libya Station Chief’s same day report that the Benghazi assault had been a terrorist attack, and Petraeus’ briefing to congress on Sep. 14 that the Benghazi attack was the result of spontaneous, violent mob reaction to the anti-Muhammad trailer, "The Innocence of Muslims?"

11. Why was there such a huge contradiction between the information in Capital Hill briefings given by representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center on Sep. 13 that it had been an al Qaeda or al Qaeda-affiliated attack and Director Petraeus’ Sep. 14 congressional briefing falsely attributing Benghazi attack motivation to the Internet anti-Muhammad video?

12. Why was there such a huge contradiction between the assertion presented Sep. 16 by U.S. UN Ambassador Susan Rice on five network, Sunday morning, talk shows that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, flash mob reaction to the anti-Islam video and the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center intelligence briefings to congress on Sep. 13 that al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate conducted the assault?

At 10:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Images are romantic to say the least. No?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Handicrafts Shop

Popular Posts

How I Work From Home and Make Extra Money?

Why Everyone Blogs and Why You Too Should?

Business {Blogging} Proposal

Subscribe by Email

Blog Roll