The Benghazi - Petraeus connection revealed

I posted a comment on a piece written by geomoo on this topic - Petraeus, Broadwell, Libya, secret prisons - on 13 November.

I wrote:

"The timing leads me to believe there is a Benghazi connection. There is much speculation about it. If indeed there is a link I expect the truth to emerge somewhere down the road once the the story begins to fade into history and the public's interest has been diverted to other stories."

It did not take long to connect the links.

The establishment media would have us believe that the president learned of the Petraeus - Broadwell investigation two days after the election. The author, see link in the next paragraph, points out that there were press reports as early as last summer and that it defies credibility that the president was not aware of the FBI probe.

The details are presented in a comprehensive op-ed written by Horace G. Campbell which was published in Eurasia Review on 18 November. The article is long, nearly 7 printed pages.

One of the most important revelations is the fact that under Petraeus the CIA was running a base for the recruitment of 'extremists' in Benghazi to fight in Syria with the FSA in opposition to the secular Assad government, another regime change supported by the US, Britain, France and funded directly by the gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

We know from documents captured in Iraq that the area in eastern Libya has historically been a rich source of extremist, al-Qeada linked fighters. In the chart below we see that, on a per capita basis, Libya led all other countries as a source of foreign al-Qeada linked fighters. Benghazi and Darnah were home to most of them.

The ambassador, Christopher Stevens "had become a cheerleader for this cooperation between Special Operations Command and private military contractors." It had been his job to coordinate this kind of warfare in Benghazi.

There is much more, some snippets follow:

General Petraeus had aggressively pushed the military deeper into the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions and for fighting. As commander of the United States Central Command Petraeus had refined the trick of fighting with one group and then turning against them later. This double-cross game was taking hold in Libya in order to set back peace and reconstruction in Libya for decades so that Libya would morph into another Somalia.


With the millions of dollars available for suborning journalists and academics and with the complicit media, the narrative about the success of AFRICOM had been widely sold within the United States. It is this attempt to control the narrative that had led to the widespread view in the United States that the NATO operation in Libya was a success. The death of Ambassador Stevens shattered this myth.

General Petraeus graduated from West Point in 1974. Two months before graduation he married Holly Knowlton, the daughter of the superintendent of the acadamy, General William A. Knowlton.

He had become known to those around him as someone who would do anything to advance his career. We catch a view from this angle in an article written by an officer who had served under Petraeus for a number of years.

I think it is important to bring attention to a section in the referenced op-ed under the sub-title "General Petraeus and the Disrespect for Obama". Not sure that I agree but it is worthy of note here.

Because of his endorsement of Lieutenant Colonel William McCoy’s Under
Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel, Petraeus was on the radar of the right. It is not by accident that of the top politicians calling Petraeus at this time was George W. Bush. Bob Woodward in his book Obama’s Wars documented facts of the disrespect exhibited from a section of the military (Crusaders) to Obama. It is important for readers to grasp the deep arrogance of Petraeus in relation to Obama. Much of this has come out in the formulation that Petraeus attempted to ’box in’ the president over the deployment of troops to Afghanistan.

Petraeus, according to the op-ed in Eurasia Review, "had endeared himself to the neocons and the Christian fundamentalists ..." The New York Times called Petraeus "the most prominent military commander over the past decade, the architect of the 2007 troop surge in Iraq." It is obvious that the establishment media has fawned over Petraeus since his purported "success" in Iraq. Petraeus had come to believe that his historical legacy was secure.

Petraeus and his supporters had been confident that the circle of war and destruction would continue for generations. With the support of the media Petraeus had been confident that the full details of the destruction in Libya and alliance with the militias could be kept out of the public domain. The full story is unfolding.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. Americans are largely unaware of the immense suffering imposed upon those who live in these distant lands. It is unlikely that most of the people in any of these countries would view the consequences of our involvement in a positive way, or as having brought about an improvement in their lives.

Please read the linked article from Euroasia Review if you are interested in learning more.





Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)


Very interesting

geomoo's picture

Not much to add yet--I'll read more on this later.  What I find most discouraging is that, as this information comes to light, only people who actively seek it out, people who understand that the pretty pictures of mainstream media are an illusion, only these people will ever know this stuff, and if they hear of it, they'll easily dismiss it as some sort of crazy theory or some sort of anomoly.  Even if Petraeus were fully exposed, most Americans would then dismiss him as an oddity, not a typical and expected product of current US system of media and overseas "adventures".

The fact that Iraq can be discussed so glibly on US media as something to be proud of, as having anything to do with human rights and democracy--this fact reveals the extent of the ability of the handful of dominant media machines to create illusion.  Calling the horror of what the US did to the ancient civilization of Iraq a "success" reveals an ability to ignore mountains of information.

I keep wondering why we are finding any of this out.  I keep wondering why Petraeus came under investigation anyway.  High ranking individuals in the USG have been committing all sorts of horrible crimes for years now.  Why is this happening to Petraeus now?  I'm guessing there is some kind of turf battle behind all of this.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Good points geomoo

traveler's picture

and this is the reason I make it a point to avoid the corporate media. Other than to have a glance at the latest spin doctoring it is a waste of time.

Two points are brought out in the referenced article. The first point mentions the fact that "the activities of Petraeus were being monitored" by the Obama administration. It appears they were somewhat alarmed that Petraeus might attempt a run for the presidency in 2012.

The second and most basic issue appears to be related to civilian control of the military. Petraeus and his supporters in the media and among the neocons have taken their agenda to new levels.

The referencd article notes that "Petraeus found the perfect space to set up an alternative military/intelligence policy-making unit when he requested that he be placed at the head of the CIA".

As to why we are reading about it now, I see the incident at Benghazi, the embarrassment brought about by this incident which demonstrated that it was all getting out of hand, that we cannot let the CIA and their neoconservatives supporters run the show.

The author writes that global capital including "CIA front companies such as IN-Q-Tel, oil companies and oil producers" are partners with the MIC and the need for perpetual war on terrorism and that this circle needs to be broken.

Also quoting from the Eurasia Review article:

Petraeus was a figure of disunity within the military, especially because of his close relationship to the neoconservatives.

and this:

General Petraeus aggressively pushed the military deeper into the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions. As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, he also signed a classified order authorizing American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones.’

I hope this helps. Please review the entire article as your time permits.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"Political intrigue of the highest order".

Big Al's picture

There is obviously more to the affair and email story than the public is fed.  Two high ranking generals to include General Allen taken down over what?  Benghazi may not be the real reason either, maybe an expedient.  Someone wanted Petreaus out of the CIA and Allen neutered on Afghanistan.  That would be the neocons and the Zionist government of Israel.  I think the Benghazi incident may be being used as a cover for larger geopolitical goals.  Could explain why all the neocons came out demanding answers so strongly and tieing it to the CIA, which is true but maybe "they doeth protest too much".  Could also explain part of the timing of the Israel/Gaza conflict.  Petreaus had been critical of Israel's occupation and Allen had been realistic about the U.S. needing to get out of Afghanistan.  Israel, the Zionists and the Neocons are the big danger and in control.  How Obama responds now, such as who ends up as SOS, what happens in Afghanistan, Syria and Iran, etc.,  will say alot about how in control they really are.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

It looks like Allen got caught up

traveler's picture

in a web of intrigue similar to the one that, in the end, took Petraeus down.

The  Eurasia Review piece notes that:

The double speak and web of sex/intrigue/corruption in the military is
now blown wide open for the world to see where generals such as John
Allen, Commander of the US military in Afghanistan who was supposed to
be in the midst of a war, had time and space to send 20-30,000 pages of
email to Jill Kelley, the woman in Tampa, Florida, who was seen by.
General Petraeus’s mistress as a rival for his attentions.

Also according to this article Petraeus had endorsed Lt. Col. William McCoy's spiritual handbook for military personnel and had "endeared himself to the neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists". We also witnessed some attempts of the neocons to make an election issue of the Benghazi incident. For the most part this effort was unsuccessful.

Here is a link to an interview with General Jack Keane which provides details of the incident at Benghazi.

More on The Crusaders:

The term Crusaders first appeared for a wider audience beyond the peace and social justice forces when Seymour Hersh used the term in an article in Foreign Policy Magazine. Then Seymour Hersh revealed that there was a faction of the US military known as ‘Crusaders, that had taken over the army.’ Hersh asserted that these Crusaders were bent on intensifying a war against Islam, and viewed themselves as protectors of Christianity.


According to the article, Hersh maintained that these neoconservative elements dominate the top echelons of the US military, including figures such as former commander of US forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal and Vice Admiral William McRaven. Hersh said, ‘What I’m really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over.’

As you might guess this was quickly assaulted by the corporate media as "conspiracy theory".

I don't know if there is a link to the recent and current Israel - Gaza conflict. We will be watching.

I see the roots of the problem as being the CIA/military running loose with little or no civilian control. Recruiting jihadists in Libya to use in attempt at regime change is Syria, one of the "7 countries in 5 years" on the neocon agenda.

Their record is one of total failure. How they maintain support and credibility is beyone me.



Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Petraeus also pissed off the Israelis when he

Big Al's picture

came out against everything Israel.

"However, Petraeus was well aware that this ‘grand alliance’ between the US and the rightwing Islamist regimes and movements to secure imperial hegemony, would require re-calibrating US relations with Israel . Petraeus viewed Netanyahu’s proposed war with Iran, his bloody land grabs in the Occupied Territories of Palestine and the bombing, dispossession and assassination of scores of Palestinians each month, were a liability as Washington sought support from the Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Gulf States, Iraq and Yemen."

So he basically called Israel a liability to the American Empire.

"As soon as General Petraeus’ report naming Israel as a ‘strategic liability’ became known, the ZPC sprang into action and forced Petraeus to retract his statements – at least publicly. But once, he became head of the CIA, Petraeus continued the policy of working with rightwing Islamist regimes and arming and providing intelligence to jihadi fundamentalists in order to topple independent secular regimes, first in Libya, then on to Syria. This policy was placed under the spotlight in Benghazi with the killing of the US ambassador to Libya and several CIA/Special Forces operatives by CIA-backed terrorists leading to a domestic political crisis, as key Republican Congress people sought to exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic failure. They especially targeted the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, whose maladroit efforts to obscure the real source of the attacks in Benghazi , have undermined her nomination to replace Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State."

If they can take down Petreaus and Allen, they can take down anyone, including Obama and he knows that.   It's sick.  The Zionists are everywhere.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

The web is a tangled one Big Al

traveler's picture

The origins of the concept for abrogating the Oslo Accords, which had set guidelines for a peaceful I-P settlement, and resorting to force was set forth in the "Clean Break" policy paper from 1996.

This is part of a timeline from History Commons:

Rebuilding Zionism by Abandoning Past Policies - It advocates making a complete break with past policies by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible
energy on rebuilding Zionism.…” [Guardian, 9/3/2002].

Aggressive, Militant Israeli Policy towards Arab Neighbors - Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon (see February 1982), the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says.

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States (see July 8-10, 1996), US neoconservatives mount an orchestrated push for war against Iraq and an overall reshaping of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996).


At first, the offensive takes place in the pages of US newspapers and
magazines. William Kristol and Robert Kagan write articles for the
magazines Foreign Policy and the Weekly Standard; syndicated columnists
Charles Krauthammer and A. M. Rosenthal use their columns to push the
idea; Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz pen op-eds for the Washington
Post; “Clean Break” co-author David Wurmser writes op-eds for the Wall
Street Journal and publishes a book, Tyranny’s Ally, in which he proposes that the US use its military to literally redraw the map of the Middle East (see Late Summer 1996).

I see at least two major vectors in play here. One is aimed at satisfying the goals of the neocons and zionists in the destruction of Israel's neighboring countries for the sake of Israel's own security.

The other, especially with Iraq, Iran and Libya are important in that they deal with traditional "US interests" which include unfettered access to resources and markets of foreign countries. 

Saddam had the British and US oil companies barred from working in Iraq's oil sector. Also being number one on the neocon list on behalf of Israel it is no surprise at all that Iraq was first. The oil companies are back but Iraq ended up with a government not being the friendly client state the US had hoped for.

Just a guess on my part that the Israelis are not too happy with the fact that Petraeus is recruiting, training and backing jihadists now in Syria as was quietly done also in Libya. Israel could find itself "in a tight spot" surrounded by governments run by radical jihadists and finding themselves less secure than they imagined themselves to be before politicing for these Middle East wars on their behalf.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)