You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Ten Things to Know about the McChrystal-Petraeus Switch
2010-06-24
I forsee a lot of discussion.
Well, well, well -- where have we seen this before? The indiscreet U.S. commander whose tongue digs his own grave. The stunning resignation submitted within hours of the magazine's online posting of the story. And General David Petraeus -- yet again -- as the go-to choice as America's turnaround specialist. Amidst all the nonstop chatter from pundits, politicians, and former ambassadors, allow me to distance myself from the familiar situation I was in with Admiral William Fallon and sift through the tea leaves to look ahead at Petraeus's new gig. Because there are magazine stories, and then there is war. And because -- who knows? -- Afghanistan may be a lot better off, and Obama may have picked his replacement in more ways than one.
There's a bit of foreshadowing in that statement!
1. There won't be a policy shift.

Unlike the Fallon saga, this time it was the president who spoke on camera and the general who was restricted to a press statement. That's because this time the Pentagon-White House flap was an issue of perception (Obama: "undermining civilian authority") -- not any fundamental differences on how to fight the war at hand.

2. But the Pentagon now holds the keys to the castle.

Obama may have put his foot down, but he's making a serious gamble in anointing Petraeus, much like Bush did after Fallon's resignation. The president needed to make McChrystal's sacking seem like an upgrade in gravitas, which it is when the upgrade is to the boss of Central Command. Just don't forget that Petraeus is the only general capable of making Afghanistan his war, and not Obama's.

3. Petraeus is truly untouchable.

Understand this, too: Whatever the general wants, the general will get. After firing his Afghanistan commander twice in just thirteen months, Obama has no choice. Petraeus now outranks every administration player on Afghanistan. Save Obama -- officially, at least.

4. Friends of Dave just became a lot more important.

Frankly, the new sheriff's strong personal relationships with the Pakistani military and security forces will matter a helluva lot more than which of McChrystal's lieutenants he keeps on or gets rid of. Hamid Karzai made his bid to keep McChrystal onboard, and was clearly ignored -- as he should be -- so now Obama's Af-Pak strategy will place the most eggs in Islamabad's basket.

5. The administration's review of Af-Pak begins now.

Originally scheduled for public release in December, any White House-led effort at a war report will inevitably take its cues from General Petraeus's own review of the situation as he assumes command in the coming weeks and months. Expect to hear the general outline at Petraeus's confirmation hearing next week, along with previews of the GOP's national-security campaign slogans for November.

6. Obama's 2012 campaign could be all about war.

If Petraeus says the strategy needs more time, then Obama's running for re-election as a wartime president. Period. There's just no intelligent way that Obama can overrule Petraeus on this one without wounding himself politically. McChrystal had been signaling that Obama's summer 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing combat troops was too optimistic. Expect Petraeus to press that case -- however subtly -- from day one.

7. Two jobs? One job? Same thing.

No matter what anyone says in the confirmation hearings, it won't matter if Petraeus steps down from CENTCOM or becomes The General with Two Hats. Nobody who would step in at CENTCOM could overshadow Petraeus, so that kind of a choice is unimportant in many respects. But given the general's recent health issues, it's hard to believe a replacement won't be picked. I'm betting on General James Mattis, whom I profiled in detail a couple years ago.

8. The counterinsurgency lives on.
"King David" has no peers when it comes to counterinsurgency credentials, having overseen the creation of the Army-Marine Corps's seminal field manual and commanded its first successful application in Iraq. If anything, Obama has now doubled-down on the COIN path in Af-Pak, so the COINdistas haven't taken any sort of hit.

9. The "Draft Dave" presidential run could live on, too.

Can Petraeus pull off his second COIN miracle? If he does, and if it's perceived as such prior to the GOP convention in the summer of 2012, then I guarantee you there will be a groundswell of delegate support to make him the Republican candidate -- assuming he gets out of uniform in time.

10. There is one big winner from this hoopla.
This is scary.
And her name is Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings also happen to begin next week.
Hmmmm.... Could this all be orchestrated by The One, as a distraction?
Posted by:Bobby

#11  Petraeus is a good replacement. But not a permament one.

I'll wager that he will likely be in there until the administration can

a) stabilize things in Afghanistan - fix morale, the military civilian divide there, etc.,

b) figure out what they want to do in Afghanistan and

c)come up with a suitable replacement for the general based on what's decided.

Hence "Obama place holder".
Posted by: Pappy   2010-06-24 23:57  

#10  ..."General McChrystal has obviously been cured of his leftest leanings"..

Oh? "Cured"? Is that so? Explain please:

General David Petraeus: An Obama 'place holder'? Explain again please, you Asshole:
Posted by: Asymmetrical   2010-06-24 23:04  

#9  #8 I heard (maybe Limbaugh or Boortz) McChrystal was a left wing liberal; extreme Environmentalist, voted for Hussein, took Fox TV away from soldiers. Posted by JohnQC

General McChrystal has obviously been cured of his leftest leanings.... if he had any, as have thankfully, many of his fellow Americans. General Petraeus is a Obama 'place holder' and stabilization agent. He'll be handing off the baton to a vetted Obama pick withing 90 days or less. I still think it will be General West who currently commands AFRICOM. We'll see what happens.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-06-24 17:34  

#8  I heard (maybe Limbaugh or Boortz) McChrystal was a left wing liberal; extreme environmentalist, voted for Hussein, took Fox TV away from soldiers.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-06-24 15:50  

#7  I'm surprised Petraeus agreed to accept the command after the atrocious way Obama's proxies treated him. He could have gone out on a historical high note instead of being being blackened by Obama's "Necessary War" tar baby.
Posted by: ed   2010-06-24 11:51  

#6  Besides, war and the threat of war is always part of the runup to full-blown socialism. It gives the economy something to do until it is too late for the population to turn the ship around when they finally do figure it out.
Posted by: gorb   2010-06-24 10:20  

#5  The war I was referring to is war with Iran or maybe Pakistan. Something "new" and exciting to the unaware.

And I think we are going to be stagnant for many years to come seeing as how Hussein's spending will claim every bit of money this country will make for the next 20 years. If we start dealing with it right away, of course. So I am guessing that inflation and unemployment will be a problem for him, with war as the only cover he could come up with.
Posted by: gorb   2010-06-24 10:10  

#4  Obama's 2012 campaign could only be about war

Not likely. The war's simply too distant from most (non-Rantburger) Americans' consciousness to matter to the electoral outcomes.

There's really one and only one issue. It's about the unemployment etc.

If Obama had been able to get unemployment down to 8% as he promised, AND if the rate were still falling, then he and his party would be riding high. When the real unemployment rate is close to 20%, there's no other issue or policy plank that can save him.
Posted by: lex   2010-06-24 09:52  

#3  Obama's 2012 campaign could only be about war, which gives him reason to do a "Pete Rose" and push players and timelines around to position a war exactly where it would do him the most good for reelection. And reelection only. It may be that going to war with Iran will happen at a fortuitous time for his reelection chances, but I don't want the connection to be necessary, because Iran could manipulate it from their end.

And Petraeus will be out of the running for 2012, too. If he is even interested.

Seems to me that Obama is entrusting Petraeus with his political life more than he need to. There must be some other forces at work here. AFAICT, he has run out of reliable options as generals go. I'm sure there are good generals out there who could do the job, but none have Petraeus' credentials. Yet.
Posted by: gorb   2010-06-24 09:43  

#2  14. Petraeus gets his personal revenge on MoveOn.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-06-24 09:41  

#1  Hmmmm.... Could this all be orchestrated by The One, as a distraction?

Bobby you give him too much credit for having things together.

11. Petraeus won't be blindsided by Rolling Stone or the rest of the press.

12. Petraeus will not likely allow a "cult of personality" to develop in his staff.

13. Petraeus will not likely allow wagging tongues in his staff to become public.

All that said, both McChrystal and Petraeus seem to be excellent and very competent generals--Far better than their civilian counterparts and boss.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-06-24 09:36  

00:00