| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| David Petraeus for President: Run General, run |
| 2010-04-04 |
| Americans have never been so disgusted with their politicians. More than three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress. President Barack Obama's favourability ratings have slumped to below 50 per cent and he is no longer trusted or believed by many who voted for him. Republicans are faring little better and the growth of the Tea Party movement reflects the widespread disgust with Washington and the political class. Incumbents across the board are vulnerable in November's mid-term elections Many voters yearn for an outsider, someone with authenticity, integrity and proven accomplishment. Someone who has not spent their life plotting how to ascend the greasy pole, adjusting every utterance for maximum political advantage. In this toxic climate, perhaps the only public institution that has increased in prestige in recent years is the American military. Its officers are looked upon, as General George Patton once noted, as "the modern representatives of the demi-gods and heroes of antiquity". Where better to look for Obama's successor, therefore, than in the uniformed ranks? Not since 1952, when a certain Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War, was elected President, have the chances of a military man winning the White House been more propitious. Within those ranks, no one stands out like General David Petraeus, head of United States Central Command, leader of 230,000 troops and commander of United States forces in two wars. Having masterminded the Iraq surge, the stunning military gambit that seized victory from the jaws of defeat, he is now directing an equally daunting undertaking in Afghanistan. Petraeus, 57, has survived the collapse of his parachute 60 feet above the ground. After he was shot in the chest during a training exercise and endured five hours surgery, the then battalion commander refused to lie in hospital recuperating. Demanding that the tubes be removed from his arm, he declared: "I am not the norm." A Princeton PhD, he has revolutionised the way America fights its wars, inculcating the doctrine of counter-insurgency in a new generation of officers who have finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest. At West Point he qualified for medical school just to prove he could, never bothering to apply. The problem is that Petraeus appears to have no desire to be commander-in-chief. His denials of any political ambition have come close to the famous statement by General William Sherman. The former American Civil War commander, rejecting the possibility of running for president in 1884 by stating: "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." Yet speculation about "Petraeus in 2012" persists. The White House is wary of him just as President Bill Clinton was wary of General Colin Powell in 1995. Rumours that he wants to run have even reached Downing Street. At a recent appearance in New Hampshire - which happens to be the state in which the first presidential primary will be held in January 2012 - Petraeus was emphatic. "I thought I'd said 'no' about as many ways as I could. I really do mean no," he insisted when asked if he was destined for politics. "I've tried quoting a country song 'What part of 'no' don't you understand?' but I really do mean that...I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you." Almost Shermanesque. Some note, however, when the future President Barack Obama was asked in February 2007 if he would serve his full six-year term in the Senate (due to expire in 2010), he responded: "If you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things." When asked directly if he would run for the White House in 2008, he said flatly: "I will not." There's little reason to doubt the sincerity of Petraeus's denials. He recently confided that he has remained so steadfastly apolitical since he became a major-general that he has not voted. And he has maintained a much lower profile since the Bush administration, when he became closely identified with the former President. This month, in an interview for a lengthy and laudatory profile in Vanity Fair, he evens praises Obama as being "everything that everyone says he is... exceedingly bright, very focused - and very competitive, by the way". Petraeus, wire-thin and an accomplished runner, is known for being one of the most competitive men on the planet and he lacks nothing in the self-assurance department. No one has ever accused him of being deficient in his sense of patriotism. Whether as an independent or as Republican, he could be a powerful presidential candidate and a potentially accomplished President. He may not want to run but if the clamour to draft him grows he might just find the call of duty - not to mention the contest of a lifetime - difficult to resist. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #13 I guess you'd prefer someone the RNC will foist on everyone with the motto - This or Obama. Hardly. You can play amateur shrink all you want with this, but the fact remains....you don't know his private political views, you are assuming that they will be the best ones for the country (and maybe even mesh with yours), and you are assuming that he doesn't mean it when he says he's not interested in running. You even state that he doesn't "seem" to be into power for its own sake. That's a lot of assumptions there, and way too many for my taste. Sorry. The gentleman has stated he's not interested. Take him at his word, find another worthy candidate who you don't have to "assume" so much about, and gird up for 2012. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2010-04-04 23:36 |
| #12 With all due respect, ladies and gentlemen....this nation already elected one leader that people saw as the embodiment of their hopes, dreams and aspirations because he looked great in a suit and said pretty things. How did that work out for ya? One without a real record other than a Hollyweird narrative and another with a long record that tells what a man is or isn't. In the end we have to make a judgment on anyone presented to us. I guess you'd prefer someone the RNC will foist on everyone with the motto - This or Obama. Part of the the attraction is that he is one of very few who doesn't 'seem' hungry for power for its own sake. Depending on who you read either Washington and Eisenhower weren't interested either or did a damn good show of not. Either way, those worked as best as we could expect. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-04 22:19 |
| #11 If everything he and troops did in Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing when the Donks do away with the Constitution back home, he'll have to ponder what 'service' and 'oath' mean. He, like every other service person and most of us old retirees will have to decide just how much we're going to honor our oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same". There is NO AUTHORITY for the Democrats or any other political party can abolish the Constitution, nor is there a legitimate way for Congress to do it. The attempt to abolish the Constitution would be a supreme act of treason. There are about 15 million of us that would "take up arms" against those that would try (I hope!). That SHOULD include every active duty officer and enlisted currently serving, plus the Reserve and the National Guard. Unfortunately, I think the Donks are just stupid enough to try. Keep your weapon ready, and your ammo close at hand - we live in interesting times. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-04-04 21:47 |
| #10 With all due respect, ladies and gentlemen....this nation already elected one leader that people saw as the embodiment of their hopes, dreams and aspirations because he looked great in a suit and said pretty things. How did that work out for ya? Look, do any of you really know where he stands on the issues? I don't think so. For all you know, he's the polar opposite of what you want as a president, even though he seems to be a very capable general. The man has said he doesn't want to run and isn't interested. Please take him at his word and find someone else. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2010-04-04 21:10 |
| #9 "I think the president has proven to be everything that everyone says he is," That is SO not a compliment. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-04-04 20:23 |
| #8 Watch the emerging MSM narrative about Petraeus. Not that there was any contemporary MSM narrative concerning General Harrison, General Jackson, General Taylor et al. ;) The same applies today as applies then, don't trust the MSM to provide truth. We need to do our own work. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-04 20:10 |
| #7 I re-read the Vanity Fair interview again. I noticed several things I hadn't noticed before. Some of these quotes may reflect the authors viewpoint rather than Gen. Petraeus': 1. His doctoral thesis concerned Vietnam, work that led him, along with other young military thinkers, to question the army’s conventional view of that war, which tended to place the blame for failure on civilian leaders and the press. As the critics saw it, the failure had been one mainly of strategy: the military had gone about it all wrong. What had been needed was an approach that came under the broad heading “counter-insurgency.” My understanding of the Viet Nam war is that a vigorous counter-insurgency program was in effect during the war--particularly early on. 2. The senator who complained that the general’s testimony defied belief, Hillary Clinton, invited Petraeus to her Washington home shortly before being sworn in as secretary of state. The two of them sat before her fireplace and over drinks tacitly agreed to forget past differences and return their relationship to one of mutual admiration. He is a better man than I. I tend to find it difficult to get chummy with people who try to destroy me. That said, it is probably a credit to Petraeus to see a "bigger picture" in which he tries to accomplish the larger goal of winning a war. 3. His relationship with Obama, in particular, has deepened. “I think the president has proven to be everything that everyone says he is,” Petraeus says. Same comment as 2. 4. He has brought an expansive vision to his new job, just as he has done in the past, pushing the Obama administration to rethink its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the broader context of the region. He relies on the cooperation of Arab nations, and so must cope with their unhappiness over America’s inability to make progress in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. I'm suspicious that this attitude plays into the long stated game plan of the Muslims of destroying Israel. I'd be suspicious that Petraeus might harbor Arabophile attitudes. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-04 18:51 |
| #6 The MSM's yearning for a liberal, sophisticated four-star military man-turned-politico resembles the yearning among gay males for proof that a macho, hetero hearthrob is secretly gay. Hence the MSM narrative that Colin Powell was a closet liberal, and the nascent MSM narrative that Petraeus is a closet Israel-basher. Then the failed narrative that Wes Clark was somehow a serious, credible national leader instead of a self-deluded flake. Watch the emerging MSM narrative about Petraeus. After the failed effort to show him as a Palestinian advocate, the bloggers and the NYT will probably try to paint him as a secret peacenik who wants out of Aghanistan, or a domestic progressive who seeks higher taxes and redistribution of income and supports gay marriage etc. Good luck with that one. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-04-04 17:05 |
| #5 "the Donks do away with the Constitution back home, he'll have to ponder what 'service' and 'oath' mean. " Proc2K, that though has been on my mind as of late, and wondering what all that time and service are worth, now that it appears the politicians are destroying what I and others defended. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-04-04 16:56 |
| #4 "Republicans are faring little better and the growth of the Tea Party movement reflects the widespread disgust with Washington and the political class." Be careful of the narrative here, folks. This one line, out of all in the article, is the one to raise a red flag. The MSM pundits here and abroad will push this "third party" crap whenever and wherever, and in full overdrive, because they know that it can only hurt conservatism this time around. Petraeus or anyone else third party reelects Obama, it's that simple. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2010-04-04 16:47 |
| #3 If everything he and troops did in Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing when the Donks do away with the Constitution back home, he'll have to ponder what 'service' and 'oath' mean. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-04-04 15:49 |
| #2 Whores begin to look pretty respectable when you look around at some [not all] of the politicians we have in Washington. The problem is that Petraeus appears to have no desire to be commander-in-chief. I hope he reconsiders. He has been about service to his country for his entire career. I would hope he would see the need for an honest man of integrity in the Whitehouse and serve his country once more. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-04 14:30 |
| #1 A man of honor knowbetter than to hang with whores. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-04-04 11:35 |