Old, but I post it as background on understanding how Petraeus's doctrine and career are harmonious with conventional wisdom in Washington DC and in think tanks around the world.
This leads me to think that Petraeus will not want to repudiate nation-building efforts.
And the Libyan operation, like the rest of the so-called Arab Spring, is most certainly nation building efforts undertaken by a loose coalition of both the U.S. government through various of it's agencies, other governments and a host of non-governmental organizations working on various levels in concert with jihadists and others.
Were Petraeus to tell the real reasons why POTUS refused to give cross-border authorization he would have to make reference to influences on POTUS which are related to nation-building.
If the decision-making regarding nation-building were truly legitimate and Constitutional, it could be publicly disclosed by POTUS - since the nation-building itself is publicly disclosed (hidden in plain sight) on U.S. government websites. Given that, there are no real secrets about the nation-building.
But what about the decision-making during the Benghazi attack ? If everything is legitimate, the POTUS would have no reason to not give the cross-border authorization; he would have every reason to want to see the four men rescued. In fact, POTUS has ordered at least one daring clandestine raid which killed UBL, and POTUS was heralded for his bravery in making that decision by his propaganda lackies.
Congress is most certainly aware of the nation-building and who the U.S. is working with, since they approve the appropriations - and it is widely discussed by think tanks, etc. It is well-known U.S. policy.
Congress would not be learning anything new by probing deeper into this nation-building. They could, however, focus on the decision-making of POTUS. But the more testimony about Benghazi discusses it, the more American citizens would be led towards the question of whether there was a possible influence on the decision-making of POTUS that perhaps originated inside NGO partners. If Petraeus knows any relationships that POTUS or his advisors have that may be able to shed light on his decision-making process that resulted in four Americans left in the field to die (including the U.S. Ambassador), he should strongly consider the true meaning of his storied career in determining what he will reveal to the Congress (the elected representatives of the American people).
And I think there are very few in Congress who would like to publicly delve into whether our supposed NGO partners might be more of a driver than a passenger. Certainly causing a POTUS to leave a U.S. Ambassador (his personal representative) to a horrific death would be an influence that would be a bit of a chore for the New Left machine to whitewash, but perhaps there are a few who would have the courage to ask the right people the right questions to open the door to the rathole.
Clearly, when it comes to a nation abandoning it's own Ambassador and his staff to a grisly death at the hands of such evil people, which it's government refuses to identify clearly as either enemies or friends, that is a nation that has moral problems that need to be completely uncovered and then fixed.
There is no reason to believe that Obama believes nation building in foreign lands should be essentially different than community organizing in America. The point of the latter is to seize power and transform society into the socialist model. He has shown by his governing style that on the national level Obama conducts community organizing through cronyism.
Is there any reason to believe that on an international level nation building will not be along the same pattern in which cronies and fellow travelers are financed by American taxpayers without respect to whether they are committed to America but whether they are committed to a socialist order?
Whatever was going on in Benghazi was something the administration does not want America know about and probably explains the refusal of the administration to come to the aid of the CIA operatives and our ambassador. It probably explains the transparent cover up and might explain CIA director Petreus' questionable testimony and the alleged existence of CIA briefing notes upon which Susan Rice allegedly relied in her public statements on the Sunday talk shows.
Andrew Bacevich is one of the few people that, when he’s talking, I sit down and shut up and listen. I would like to read his views now. Put Bacevich, Daniel Greenfield, Victor Davis Hanson and the guy from the Naval Academy (whose name I can’t recall) on a panel, and I’d pay to just sit there and listen.