The Petraeus Option

Steve Clemons brings some RUMINT regarding the possibility of a 2012 David Petraeus presidential campaign. This is something that strikes me as plausible if and only if my pessimism proves unfounded, and a Democrat takes office in 2009 who does withdraw American troops from Iraq. That would lay the groundwork for Petraeus to play the Hindenburg role in a stab-in-the-back campaign in 2012 (see, I'm not comparing my political foes to Nazis just to, um, soft-on-Nazism nationalists) in case anything sufficiently bad happens in the world to make such ex post facto carping compelling.

It does seem to me that based on the experiences over the past 15 years or so with Colin Powell and Wesley Clark that something about the modern officer's corps generates high-level personnel who don't really have the right personalities to be effective in politics. Powell unsuitability for a major political role didn't, of course, actually stop him from becoming Secretary of State, but it does seem like a cautionary example to me. On the other hand, even if Petraeus hasn't been very successful at improving conditions on the ground in Iraq, it's undeniable that he's turned MNF Iraq into a formidable PR machine reminiscent of its 2003 condition despite having fallen into considerable disrepair over the years.

At any rate, I suppose that's enough idle speculation for now, but it's certainly something to chew on.

Comments

It's like deja vu all over again. The corruption of the officer corps was a major component of the societal damage associated with the Vietnam war. We are right back to body counts and fabricated statistics served up by ambitious officers acting as unscrupulous propagandists. In Vietnam, the press wasn't afraid to challenge military lies. Today's press is afraid to denounce warrior-saint Petraeus.

Whether Petraeus is a neo-con ideologue or just obsessive about his counterinsurgency science project, his behavior is that of a totally politicized general - willing to say that black is white to continue the war and his power over it.

The comparison between Bush and Petraeus is illuminating for those who focus on intelligence and dilligence deficits as crucial flaws in Bush. Petraeus excels in these traits, but he is just as fundamentally corrupt as Bush. These are two Machiavels, one from Crawford and one from West Point, but both will share the unpleasant fate of unsuccessful liars.

Posted by HH | September 1, 2007 4:17 PM

Yup. Run some losers in 2008, wring hands as Hillary wins, let Hillary clean up the mess to the extent possible and take the blame for the difficult choices that will be required to do so {knowing full well Hillary will not do anything that really upsets the corporatist class}, run a white knight in 2012 using the dolstchosslegende banner.

See anyone's hand in this? Karl Rove perhaps? Grover Norquist?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 1, 2007 4:24 PM

When the American power elite built the transcontinental railroad, they dispatched General Sherman to exterminate the Native Americans in the path of the railroad. Convenient generals have been plentiful in American history, and some of them have become Presidents, but usually not very good ones.

Today the American elite runs a global enterprise, and its path runs through the Arab oil fields. Petraeus is part of their latest ploy for securing a permanent occupation of the richest oil reserves in the world. That is why he is getting the full Hollywood treatment. Once the next act comes onto the stage (the Iran war or a coup against Maliki), Petraeus will vanish without a trace.

Posted by HH | September 1, 2007 4:43 PM

Actually, the Chinese are the ones giggling over all this. If you were an emerging power who needed to divert the attention of a fading Hegemon for a decade or two --and bleed said hegemon a little -- what better situation could you hope for than the one the US is in today?

Anyone want to guess where Bin Laden is hiding?

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 4:53 PM

Three problems here:

First, if Hillary's elected, we'll still be in Iraq in 2012, so there won't be any room for accusations about us abandoning Iraq. I hope this isn't news to any of you.

Second, As I've mentioned before, it's a little late in the game to be trying to paint Petraeus as a dishonest political hack. He graduated from West Point in 1974, and has spent the last 33 years in the Army serving under both Democratic and Republican administrations. That's 33 years of history that Democratic Senate staffers were able to check for incidences of political hackery before Petraeus was unanimously confirmed for his current command by the Democratic-led Senate.

Third, The link to the Washington Monthly blog post gives no example of Petraeus or the military public affairs staff doing anything dishonest or wrong. They want to fault him for facilitating lots of Congressional visits to Iraq? Would they prefer he if did the opposite? If any of the complaining Dem Congressmen had a substantive criticism about their visits -- e.g., they asked to visit certain areas or units and were denied access for no good reason -- that would be one thing. But this just sounds like irritation on their part that the recent turn-around in Iraq is threatening the abject failure they were hoping for.

Posted by Fred | September 1, 2007 4:59 PM

One other point:

After Gen. Clark's awful candidacy in 2004, who would donate to another general running for president in his first campaign for elected office?

General Clark was no dummy, remember -- he was a Rhodes Scholar -- but his candidacy demonstrated that you need to run for something else to work the kinks out before you run for president. Had Clark ran for the Senate or something first instead, he would have had a shot at the presidency in '08.

Posted by Fred | September 1, 2007 5:11 PM

I don't think it is fair to call Petraeus a "political hack" --he is a military officer who is charged with carrying out White House policy to the best of his ability. At the same time, he is a subordinate -- so it is deeply dishonest for Bush to point to Petraeus as being the man in charge and the one responsible for Iraq.

And it is pathetic for Democrats to attack Petraeus instead of his Commander who gives the orders.

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 5:11 PM

plenty of blame to go around -- I say attack all the hacks from the top down for lying about this stupid war.

Posted by david | September 1, 2007 5:18 PM

"the recent turn-around in Iraq "

This is a perfect illustration of the triumph of Petraeus psy-ops over facts on the ground in Iraq. There is no "turn-around" in Iraq. More people are getting killed, both US and Iraq than ever before. Petraeus is cooking up selective statistics to show "progress." Anyone with a word processing program can generate progress of this kind.

Read Michael Gordon's report in today's Sunday NYT for a story about a US unit trying to build ties to local Sunnis to resist insurgents. The column Gordon is riding in is ambushed while he is writing the story and the Lt. Colonel who was hosting him is seriously wounded. There is no "progress" in Iraq.

The (mistaken) lesson that Cheney and Rumsfeld learned from Vietnam is that the Government should have told more and bigger lies so that the conflict could have been protracted indefinitely. We would still be fighting there if they had had their way. Petraeus is conducting information warfare against the American people (for their own "good," of course). That's why he has dozens of aides hunched over laptops cooking up selective statistics that tell the "progress" story. The key trick is to pour out a non-falsifiable stream of factoids that distort the picture and jam the judgement faculties of the public. It helps to constantly change the rules for classifying and categorizing violent "incidents," so that statistics are never comparable over time.

Petraeus wants us to fight in Iraq for another ten years. At a current burn rate of $200 billion a year, that's another $2 TRILLION pissed away. We can't go on doing this, and, at any rate the Chinese won't lend us the money for it.

Posted by HH | September 1, 2007 5:20 PM

I agree with Don William's post above. Though admittedly, it is Bush himself who is elevating Petraeus, and it is the anti-war people who are reacting to that.

It's not clear to me why Yglesias thinks Colin Powell "didn't have the right personality to be effective in politics." On the contrary, he had a damn good shot of being President if he had ran in 1996 or 2000.

Posted by Korha | September 1, 2007 5:36 PM

If it spins like a political hack, and it caucuses with political hacks, then it's probably a political hack.

Does Petraeus think we should stay in Iraq? I don't care. As a military officer, _he_ should not care. As a military officer, he should tell us what it will take to "win", but scrupulously avoid telling us whether "victory" is worth the cost. That's what we pay "politicians in Washington", not generals, to decide.

If his confirmation hearings were any guide, Petraeus can expect many invitations from the likes of Lindsey Graham and John McCain to affirm, in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that "winning" a five-sided civil war in Iraq is essential to American security. If he resists such invitations, I will happily concede that he's not a "political hack". If not, not.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | September 1, 2007 5:50 PM

This is a perfect illustration of the triumph of Petraeus psy-ops over facts on the ground in Iraq. There is no "turn-around" in Iraq.

The final successes of a failing army in a failing state are always against their own people and own constitution. We're seeing the English-language version of the end of the French Fourth Republic.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 1, 2007 5:53 PM

Right.

Petraeus's thinking on COIN is rather pedestrian. It just looks good because it was replacing nothing on the subject in terms of current US army practice.

Yet, Petraeus IS a smart guy. Its not because of any brilliance about working with "native" populations however. Rather, it is responses like Fred's above indicate in a sense why this is so. His strength is PR - and I don't empahsize this dismissively - he sees his job, as do the admnistration to emphasize enough progress to continue dragging the war on indefinetly. And he is doing this well - convincing enough people that just enough is being accomplished. In a sense, his job is made easier by the fact that there aren't any good alternatives at this point. Pulling out is not a "magic" solution by any means either. S

Posted by Ben P | September 1, 2007 6:07 PM

That said, I don't necessarily think the "New Jesus" meme is as powerful as is perhaps assumed. For example, according to this from mid-August, 53% of respondants expect Petraeus's report to be spin (and 43% believe it will be honest assesment).

My opinion of the man has steadily dropped as the year has progressed and I am increasingly of the opinion that his major talent (and it IS a genuine talent) is as a master dissembler and propagandist.

Posted by Ben P | September 1, 2007 6:13 PM

Finally, before I go out to dinner. Fresh NYT article - on top of articles from the LAT and the AP saying the same thing - saying that casualties have risen from July, which in turn had risen from June. Data was provided to Times writer James Glanz from the Interior Ministry surreptitiously. Here's the link.

Its not to say that things like the Anbar Awakening and relative decline in major bombings in Baghdad aren't real events. They are. Its just that Petraeus has a great talent for amplifying and contextualizing these events in ways that present them in the best possible light while ignoring other things that don't serve his goals. He's crafting a narrative that has a particular goal in mind. A

Posted by Ben P | September 1, 2007 6:18 PM

Fred:
Petraeus is a political hack because he goes on Hugh Hewitt's show(as just one example). Did you read Glenn Greenwald post about that a month ago? Did you read in the past week how he held a meeting recently with Republican Senators only? I could go on if you want me to. It's not just the fact that he's following orders for the CiC. It's that he's willingly going above and beyond normal duties.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 6:19 PM

Don Williams:
See my response to Fred. It should have been directed to you and not him.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 6:21 PM

"Petraeus is a political hack because he goes on Hugh Hewitt's show"

Good point, comrade. Petraeus should have checked with your media blacklist in order to deny access to media outlets you disapprove of.

Posted by Juan | September 1, 2007 6:41 PM

Juan:
Hewitt is a partisan hack of the worst kind. When is the last time that Petraeus went on KO or Thom Hartmann? Or the Daily Show for that matter?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 6:44 PM

"When is the last time that Petraeus went on KO or Thom Hartmann?"

When's the last time they asked him to? Do you have evidence that he's denying media outlets access based on their politics?

Posted by Juan | September 1, 2007 6:50 PM

Juan:
Did you read my first comment? Glenn Greenwald wrote all about it. How do you think I knew that Petraeus went on Hugh Hewitt's show?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 6:56 PM

Juan:
Here is one link:

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 7:02 PM

Oops, let me try that again.

Juan:
Here it is

http://tinyurl.com/2286fd

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 7:04 PM

Re BenP's comment "Petraeus's thinking on COIN is rather pedestrian. It just looks good because it was replacing nothing on the subject in terms of current US army practice."
----------
1) Yes -- but Petraeus himself is partially responsible for that state of affairs.

Because the military paid for Petraeus to attend Princeton 20 years ago and to write a thesis examining the lessons of the Vietnam counterinsurgency. Petraeus only came up with the equivalent of "You can sometimes find loose change under seat cushions".

2) So Petraeus's recent hurried draft of the CounterInsurgency Manual was him doing a job that he should have done 20 years ago. Fortunately, he at least had the sense to ask the Marine Corps to help him.

3) Lt. Colonel John A. Nagl explains WHY the CounterInsurgency Field Manual had to be created FROM SCRATCH recently:

"The story of how the Army found itself less than ready to fight an insurgency goes back to the Army’s unwillingness to internalize and build upon the lessons of Vietnam. "

4) Nagl goes on the quote Vice Chief of Staff of the Army General Jack Keane re why Iraq has been such a problem:
"We put an Army on the battlefield that I had been a part of for 37 years. It doesn’t have any doctrine, nor was it educated and trained, to deal with an insurgency . . . After the Vietnam War, we purged ourselves of everything that had to do with irregular warfare or insurgency, because it had to do with how we lost that war. In hindsight, that was a bad decision."
Ref: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841519foreword.html

5) Maybe if Petraeus had been smarter -- or more assertive -- 20 years ago, the Army would have in better shape today.

Or maybe not -- the Army leadership certainly crapped on Colonel Hackworth when he tried to tell America the truth. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Hackworth#Vietnam_service

And America did NOTHING to protect Hackworth.

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 7:07 PM

The function of generals under the Bush Administration is to carry out the policies of the President and then to submit to being crapped upon by the President's minions when said policies inevitably blow up. Therefore Petraeus has as much of a political future as Tommy Franks has. If Petraeus really wanted to run for office, he should have kept his butt out of Iraq.

Posted by ploeg | September 1, 2007 7:28 PM

Wow. Iran is actually happening.

Things are about to get very weird in both the Middle East and here at home.

Posted by Petey | September 1, 2007 7:47 PM

ploeg nails it.

America can't stand this president, and wants out of this war, and those opinions are firm. The only variable will be *how much* will they end up hating him and the war, a lot, or a real lot. Anyone directly connected to the operation of this ongoing disaster has less chance than Ron Paul of being president.

By comparison, Wesley Clark led a military effort that not only succeeded (in reality and in public perception), but came at the cost of no American lives (correct me if I'm wrong, can't remember if the number was zero, or virtually zero).

Posted by Andruw | September 1, 2007 7:48 PM

Please don't bring up Hackworth, he bailed in 1971; moved to Australia; joined the nuclear
freeze movement. Petraeus on the other hand, wrote his thesis; at a time when the Weinberger
doctrine, made it almost impossible to intervene
anywhere; a consequence of misreading the lessons of Beirut. There was Grenada; which was a small theatre action; but there was very limited support
for operations in El Salvador, or otheroperational
areas. There was Panama; but that required Noreiga's tin ear to make that a reality. There
was the Gulf War; but that basically foundered on the Baathist retreat known as the "Highway of Death" and consolidated by the Safwan accord which ratified the crushing of the Shiite thawra
against Saddam. The army picked Somalia over Bosnia; because of an outsized belief in the insurgent capabilities of the Serbain forces in the mountain quagmire. They found one anyways in the Kasbah like streets of Mogadishu
Bacevich, as a younger officer
was basically arguing to abandon the Salvadoran army and security services; that was a bad call.

Posted by narciso | September 1, 2007 8:20 PM

I mean, no joke. Were bombing Iran sometime between now and New Years.

Whouda thunk it? No me. I figured they'd go it post Nov '08 if htey were going to do it at all.

This WH has decided: in for a dime, in for a dollar's worth of airstrikes.

-----

What happens next?

No 67 Senate votes to prohibit it. No 67 Senate votes to impeach and convict. The bombs thus drop.

With bombs falling this calendar year, the primary races of both parties are about to get re-focused in a deeply fundamental way. Bad for Mitt. Good for Rudy, Fred, and McCain. Good for HRC. Bad for Obama. Uncertain for Edwards.

The WH's goal to ensure US involvement into the next administration, thus validating the past 4 years - hey, we held steady in Iraq, but HRC lost Iran, so it's the Dem's fault.

Buy hazmat suits in NYC and DC.

Posted by Petey | September 1, 2007 8:26 PM

"Petraeus's thinking on COIN is rather pedestrian. It just looks good because it was replacing nothing on the subject in terms of current US army practice."

This reminds me of that recent Op/Ed in The Onion--"Any Idiot Could Have Come Up With The Car."

"Am I supposed to be impressed just because Karl Benz was the first guy to put the idea for the car down on paper, even if everyone else was thinking the exact same thing right before he said it, designed it, and developed a speed regulation system and ignition technique to make it functional? Just because you're the first don't make you a genius."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52328

Posted by Ben | September 1, 2007 8:33 PM

Petey: I know it's no joke--as mighty Ate says, these people are sociopaths.

Honestly, when I read the link, it sent chills down my spine. I hear it received the opposite reaction at The Spine.

Seriously, if they really try and pull this off, and they can do it, in the sense of 'who the hell can stop them', but I cannot imagine a more disastrous course of action for the country, first and foremost, but even more so for the GOP.

Meaning, the country has figured these guys out--frankly, at this point I'm not sure they could respond to a legit threat and get majority support. They try this, and the congressman from Cleveland could squeak out the general.

Posted by Andruw | September 1, 2007 9:04 PM

More chatter, though less reliable than the Packer piece.

------

The WH is in for a dime, in from a dollar. From their perspective, why not?

Posted by Petey | September 1, 2007 9:08 PM

"I mean, no joke. Were bombing Iran sometime between now and New Years.

Whouda thunk it? No me. I figured they'd go it post Nov '08 if htey were going to do it at all."

I'd a thunk it! I did last year and I repeatedly said so at TPM and elsewhere. I assumed they were going to do it before the 2006 elections because Josh Bolton explicitly said, "The Dems will lose over Iran."

Apparently, somebody overruled him, and it cost the Republicans the election. It also made me wrong about the timing - but not about the intentions.

So now they're not going to make the same mistake twice. They're going to start the Iran war THIS YEAR - or at the latest BEFORE the elections next year - why on earth would they wait until AFTER they've lost the elections because of Iraq? - and make sure they control the propaganda.

The only reason they might wait until after the 2008 elections to start a war with Iran is because they suspect that it would go so badly that it might re-awake US public opposition based on the similarity to Iraq. But this is a really weak argument, since Iraq is ALREADY going so badly that they have nothing to lose - and much to gain - by starting another fait accompli war.

Make no mistake - Iran is intended (besides the ACTUAL goals of destabilizing the Middle East for Israel, war profiteering and seizure of oil reserves) to force the Democrats to go back to supporting the Republican foreign policy agenda - as if the Democrats ever really opposed it, anyway. It's intended to shut the Democrats up by pointing out that Iran is "killing US soldiers", "supporting terrorism", and "threatening Israel and the US with 'a nuclear Holocaust'".

NO Democrat is going to oppose that propaganda. It would be political suicide. And that's all a politician cares about - his political life, his campaign contributions, his bribes, his power and his perks.

And that applies entirely to the Democratic front-runners as well - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, the lot. And it certainly applies to the Democratic leadership.

Petraeus isn't a factor in any of this. He's merely a "FUD errand boy", like some Microsoft spokesman talking about the Linux operating system. His job is just to muddy the waters while the real decisions are taken above his pay grade.

I could see him being groomed by the PTB for a President run sometime, IF they get lucky about Iran, but that's just about a zero probability.

And in any event it's way too soon to be concerned about that. Four years ago, everybody except the Iraq war critics thought Iraq was a success or at least could be. Where are we now? Five years from now, Iran will not be a success either. So where does anybody think Petraeus will get any street creds for a Presidential run?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 1, 2007 9:16 PM

I'd say the Daily Kos post is even better evidence than the Packer piece.

It indicates that the military doesn't merely have "contingency plans" or even "operational plans" (which they've had since last year, apparently) - but are actually physically tasking and deploying to make a strike in the near future.

It's on, there can be little doubt now.

There might have been some reason for denial a year ago - there can be very little reason now.

And the fact that Iraq is such a disaster, and the military is worn out and exhausted, simply doesn't change anything. Bush and Cheney have never cared and do not care now about any of that. And with the Dems unable to do anything about it, just who - short of an actual Pentagon senior staff resignation or mutiny - is going to stop this?

We are about to see THE biggest military, economic and geopolitical disaster in US history occur.

Those who didn't think George Bush is THE worst President in US history - mostly some historians who think the President before Lincoln was the worst - are going to be proven wrong.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 1, 2007 9:35 PM

We are about to see THE biggest military, economic and geopolitical disaster in US history occur.

To quote Dan Akroyd in Ghostbusters, "Not necessarily. There's definitely a very slim" chance we'll survive".

Look at this from the perspective of the people actually running the show.

A war in Iran will, as a perspicacious poster above noted, 'force the Democrats to go back to supporting the Republican foreign policy agenda', and it's not just the fopo agenda they will go back to supporting -- it'll be the most supine days of late '03 and early '04 again, without a Dean crying in the wilderness this time.

No risk too great, no shot too long, to forestall the epoch-making disaster that otherwise faces the Republic -- Democratic control of all three branches of government.

The ultimate sacrifice is required.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 1, 2007 9:58 PM

It's Ramis, not Ackroyd -- I stand corrected.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 1, 2007 10:00 PM

Davis X. Machina:
Don't forget, Jim Webb and Al Gore were crying in the wilderness too.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 1, 2007 10:04 PM

Don - I don't think it is fair to call Petraeus a "political hack" --he is a military officer who is charged with carrying out White House policy to the best of his ability. At the same time, he is a subordinate -- so it is deeply dishonest for Bush to point to Petraeus as being the man in charge and the one responsible for Iraq.

No, any good President that does not come from the military ranks - is a lawyer like Lincoln or FDR, or Nixon, or a Hollywood actor and governor like Reagan - is smart enough not to be a general and try to micromanage the military like LBJ and Carter did.
The trick of a President is to listen to a wide range of advice, mostly on the macro-strategic level and synthesize the best of it into the best course of action. Then select the Best general or admiral and turn over almost all matters of war conduct or Cold War leadership of the military to them. Monitor their performance. Replace if necessary.

Bush's faults span a pretty good range in failing to listen to advice well, grasping on dumb ideas and sticking to them with total conviction, and failing to replace poor-performing military leaders. All wartime Presidents screw up some aspects - but Bush was hitting on all cylinders.

Don - And it is pathetic for Democrats to attack Petraeus instead of his Commander who gives the orders.

Democrats can't help themselves. They see a uniform, and want to attack. The public always gets pissed, too.

HH - Read Michael Gordon's report in today's Sunday NYT for a story about a US unit trying to build ties to local Sunnis to resist insurgents. The column Gordon is riding in is ambushed while he is writing the story and the Lt. Colonel who was hosting him is seriously wounded. There is no "progress" in Iraq.

Got it. One reporter in one town is with a group that is attacked by the enemy. Ergo, there is no progress in all of Iraq.
Brilliant analysis.

Andruw - America can't stand this president, and wants out of this war, and those opinions are firm.

Another Lefty confuses Bush's low poll numbers with his conjectured number of Americans supposedly rooting for America's defeat in Iraq by radical Islamists - like HE wishes for!
What Andruw and others of his ilk forget is the two polls are not synonymous - as much of Bush's low approval is not of the War itself, but his bungling of it. Not the killing of "innocent Jihadi freedom fighters", but his selling out the conservatives and independents on Open Borders, Amnesty, reckless spending.
The polls that Hillary and a chagrined Dem Congress sold by Nutroots earlier that America craved humiliation and defeat in Iraq against Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia are reading, show that Americans by 54% do not want that.

Ben - "Petraeus's thinking on COIN is rather pedestrian. It just looks good because it was replacing nothing on the subject in terms of current US army practice."

This reminds me of that recent Op/Ed in The Onion--"Any Idiot Could Have Come Up With The Car."

Ben, that was bitchingly funny.
Dems are locked into that meme of "any Republican or person working for them must be an idiot."
John Roberts was "conventional at best in law reading" because he never was a law school professor according to a Black Caucus idiot lacking a college degree, let alone a Bar membership, and Sam Alito "lacked a basic understanding of the unitary theory of the Constitution" according to one Blowhard.
Bush was an idiot because "any idiot can fly a F-102 while cowardly serving in the Guard rather than bravely and intelligently fleeing to Canada.

I'm waiting on the Romney attack if he gets the nomination against the "brilliant genius of Hillary":

"Romney? Big deal. Any idiot can get a simultaneous law degree and MBA from Harvard and go on to make 300 million dollars and fix a number of problems. This is a guy who drove his dog around on vacations in a roof mounted pet carrier!"

Posted by Chris Ford | September 1, 2007 11:09 PM

You know the right is really becoming detached when they pull their desperation cards: Democrats "hating the military," and Democrats "wanting to lose." The bulk of the Democratic Party and left never wanted America to be in this position to begin with, and are reacting to years of bad events and even more abhorrent spin. Why? Well, they detest the policies and actions of the right. Lefties (and most of the American public) want to extricate America from the Iraq conflict rather than perpetuate a disaster with no end. The people who they want "humiliated" are those who dragged us into this debacle: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the neoconservative intelligentsia, etc. Then again, those folks managed to discredit their ideas that all by themselves ...

Posted by State | September 1, 2007 11:44 PM

It wouldn't be an Atlantic blog thread without Chris Ford's masterful display of polemical dodge ball.

"Bush's faults span a pretty good range" - duck - swerve - "Democrats can't help themselves. They see a uniform, and want to attack." Whooee! - Snap! This explains the poor performance of the US Soldiers in iraq: half of them are Democrats!

Now Chris has the ball and he's going to ..er, ..ah, ..um. He's going to hypothesize the existence of a 10 foot tall patriarch/warrior who will smite the Muslims and secure unlimited access to oil for the world's chosen people.

We're waiting for the "competent" Republican who is going to conquer the world, taking everything we want, and killing anyone who gets in our way. Maybe Mayor Rudy will be the new Alexander - or maybe Newt Gingrich - or maybe uncle Fred Thomson. Which of these giants will lead us to global triumph?

Meanwhile, numbnuts Bush and psycho Cheney are about to unleash 10,000 bombs and missiles on Iran. Chris will have more insights on the Iran war later, if he isn't too busy looking for gas.

Posted by HH | September 2, 2007 12:52 AM

>if and only if my pessimism proves unfounded, and a Democrat takes office in 2009 who does withdraw American troops from Iraq.

Your pessimism is unfounded. The decision to wait out the Bush Presidency on Iraq is not the same as deciding to remain in Iraq when Bush is gone, and the same political calculation that has caused the former will prevent the latter.

Posted by tdraicer | September 2, 2007 12:57 AM

Haha, he sounds like a great candidate.

Maybe he could draft the guy who designed that bridge in the Twin Cities as a running mate?

Posted by alphie | September 2, 2007 2:42 AM

"It's not clear to me why Yglesias thinks Colin Powell "didn't have the right personality to be effective in politics." On the contrary, he had a damn good shot of being President if he had ran in 1996 or 2000."

Powell's biggest problems was that he did not know how to win clique battles and felt that his duty as a soldier was to follow the president's policies anywhere, including over a cliff. If he was president, it is less likely he would have had these problems because he would have been the one deciding the policies and which clique in his administration would have won. He just wasn't that good being a technocrat when others were arguing in bad faith and offering up fantasy scenarios.

Posted by Reality Man | September 2, 2007 7:12 AM

Sorry, but I don't see the GOP going with an uncharismatic, Princeton PhD however Iraq turns out.

Posted by bob h | September 2, 2007 8:29 AM

There is one problem with all of this speculation: Petraeus isn't a Republican. He is above all mere partisanship. He is a warrior-poet who pisses, sweats, and bleeds objectivity mixed with valor. He only cares about America -- he is above party, sect, or clique.

I think he was created in David Broder's basement with tubes and wires and shit.

Posted by jim | September 2, 2007 8:36 AM

Don't want to put a damper. but we are talking about 2012. This is so bloody silly. Why fill place wthh such mind numbing speculation when the September Report is due. What is new about political generals?

Posted by Alan | September 2, 2007 8:47 AM

> Don't want to put a damper. but we are
> talking about 2012. This is so bloody silly.

Absolutely. That would be as silly as Dick Cheney starting to plot comeback/revenge on August 10th, 1974.

Get this through your head: the Radical Right has planning cells that work on a 20-year time horizon. They aren't in lockstep, they don't always control everything, there are factions (esp within their vehicle the Republican Party) that disagree. But when the opportunity presents itself they are _prepared_ to seize the moment and move their long-term plan as far forward as they can. They made incredible amounts of yardage with Cheney, Addington, Wolfowitz, and Norquist running the show; that they would now think it is time to lay low and let the Democrats take a beating from their propaganda arm for 4 years is not outside the realm of possibility.

Crany

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 2, 2007 1:50 PM