It's a pretty logical promotion and also, in my view, a pretty savvy political move. In this new office, Petraeus will have the appropriate kind of standing to argue that, no, those who say we ought to shift resources out of Iraq and toward Pakistan/Afghanistan are wrong. Of course just because he says they're wrong (if that is, as I suspect, what he'll say) doesn't make him right. But he's been an effective spokesperson for the administration, so it makes sense to move him to a more big picture strategic job.
« The Breakfast Factor | Main | First HITS Event »
Petraeus to CENTCOM
23 Apr 2008 02:42 pm
Comments (17)
But he's been an effective spokesperson for the administration, so it makes sense to move him to a more big picture strategic job
Of course, by the time he gets there in the fall, there won't be much time left in "the administration".
Don't forget the other part of this - Gen Odierno taking command of OIF. Gen Odierno notoriously screwed up by using excessive force in his first tour in Iraq. I can't stand Gen Petraeus, but he evidently had a deft touch with the media, some tactical cleverness, and of course the big "surge" force to play with. Gen Odierno isn't as smart, doesn't get the same media skills, and will have a smaller force. I'm confident in predicting both that the security situation in Iraq will deteriorate, and - more importantly for US politics - the *perception* of the situation in Iraq will deteriorate even more.
Further prediction: President Obama takes office in Jan 2009, Gen Petraeus gets offered a posting to Ft Nowhere, and retires by this time next year.
This move muddies one potent, potential, attack ad against McCain. When asked about moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, McCain said he'd leave it up to Petraeus, then the Iraq commander. It was a dumb statement on several levels, and shows how McCain would be a terrible Commander in Chief. It would be easy to make an ad hammering him for it. But when Petraeus is in charge of CENTCOM, that line of attack is harder to make to the average voter.
OT/Malthus
"Sam's Club, Costco Limit Rice Purchases"
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4710874&page=1
It's also setting things up for him to be campaigning in a uniform for McCain. Of course, the UCMJ doesn't count when you're General Saint Petraeus.
One presumes that Petraeus will be on hand for the September 'progress' report, and that will be lots of free media for Senator 100 Years. And Petraeus has already hinted that he'd not be prepared to take orders from a Democratic president that differed from Bush's.
Re "Petraeus will have the appropriate kind of standing to argue that, no, those who say we ought to shift resources out of Iraq and toward Pakistan/Afghanistan are wrong."
-------------
Actually, Petraeus will have standing circa September in this year to argue that we should shift resources toward IRAN -- to "stave off a humanitarian disaster" that would otherwise result from the waves of B52s blowing the Iranian electrical grid and other infrastructure into rubble.
Also, we are needed to "restore order" and prevent the "outbreak of civil war".
I told you guys this eight months ago. Haim Saban and the Israel Lobby needs for President Obama to be presented with a fait accompli on his first day in office: an existing war in Iran.
Started by George the Whore as a poison pill for the Democrats. Giving them their choice of "winning the war" --and securing Big Oils investments -- or being blamed for 20 years for "losing the Middle East".
And, incidently, being "good for Israel". Think ANY Democratic Member of Congress is going to object two months before he stands for election? With Haim Saban's $1 Billion plus hanging over him like a sword?
I am not so sure that President-Apparent Petreaus will toe the line on Iraq vs Afghanistan. Anyone with presidential ambitions is an irredeemable egotist. Those ambitions do not go away. In the absence of domestic accomplishments and exposure, the general will need to appear serious and even-handed. Also, he can not afford to lose Central Asian if he wants to retain the appearance of competence which is all he has going for him.
I look for a more nuanced performance by the People's General.
It's not a bad idea for a lot of reasons, actually, none of which have to do with MY's apparent perception that Petraeus is in the administration's tank.
EXCEPT that it puts Odierno in charge in Iraq, and as Tom Ricks described well in "Fiasco," Odierno may bear a lot of responsibility for how bad things are anyway.
Petraeus as MacArthur
The public and the MSM have perceived the surge to be a success. As a result, the stature of General Petraeus, the tactical architect of the surge, has only increased. The subsequent judgments that Petraeus will make in the strategic arena will be hard for the next POTUS to counter without facing political damage. Petraeus' admitted reluctance to support a timetable even if mandated by his Commander-in-Chief, serves as a stark reminder that David Petraeus is the Douglas MacArthur of the Iraq War: a brilliant general whose preference for tactical victory in the immediate conflict might worsen U.S. strategic position. MacArthur's approach in the Korean War, while reclaiming areas previously occupied by the North Koreans, drew China into the conflict, thus prolonging the war. Furthermore, Truman paid a political price for removing MacArthur, though ultimately, Truman was vindicated by history.
One presumes that Petraeus will be on hand for the September 'progress' report, and that will be lots of free media for Senator 100 Years.
I thought Strom Thurmond was dead?
Let me get this straight; Petraeus does better than anyone expected with a shitty hand and he is a dirtbag? Also, you are predicting doom and gloom for Iraq and Iran but somehow Petraeus is going to come out of that looking good and run for President? You need to get your conspiracy theories straight. How about this theory - Petraeus, being a professional student of his profession with a degree in IR from Princeton performs his duties in an admirable manner. Being the consumate professional, he serves at the pleasure of the President, regardless of whom the constitutional process selects. If he disagrees with the direction the President takes in the CENTCOM AOR, he either salutes smartly and charges up the hill or resigns.
right, b/c petraeus hasn't injected himself into the politics of war.
I don't buy his nuremberg defense of just carrying bush admin. water like a loyal soldier.
but do most americans even know what CENTCOM is?
I've followed Ray Odierno since 2003. This asshole is THE dumbest bastard in the US military.
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, this clears the way for CENTCOM to support the upcoming war on Iran.
There can be little doubt now - that war is definitely on.
Don Williams is right. There is absolutely no downside now for Bush and Cheney to start an Iran war this year. The Republicans get a war bounce, neither Clinton nor Obama can effectively say they were against it since every statement they've made on Iran was hawkish, McCain gets elected, and even if he doesn't the incoming Democratic administration's hands are tied for probably the next four years, so Bush and Cheney's military-industrial complex and oil cronies continue to make the big bucks while the rest of the economy tanks from the oil spike and China dumping the US dollar.
It's on, folks. And Iran will bleed the US dry militarily, economically and geopolitically over the next ten years. And the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq will help them.
I am also concerned that this administration may start a war in Iran this autumn, primarily for political reasons. Certainly, Cheney will be pushing Bush in that direction, as Gates and the Chiefs push the otherway. Lots of people are talking about people they don't really know about a culture they don't know. From the very beginning of our careers, Army officers are taught a "can do" ethic toward any mission and to "hate a loser." Vietnam haunted the Army I served in, and the basic response was "we are not going to fight anymore Vietnams." Then, over the objections of the then Army Chief of Staff, we found ourselves occupying an Arab country, and fighting a guerrilla war that our political leaders sent two years denying existed. That is the point by the way, the political leaders put the Army in Iraq and gave it mission impossible without the necessary resources. Culturally, the Army says "can do" and tries to win, because frankly, that is what you want your military to do if you give it a mission. Petraeus has taken catastrophe and and try to recover it. Will he take the same view of Iraq as the CENTCOM commader, with equal responsibility for Afghanistan and ensuring that the straights of Hormuz stays open with oil prices already at record highs? Cheney, Bush, and the neo-conservatives, like other reckless military gamblers in history, having loss their intial bets, appear to want to double down on some sort of long shot to accomplish the impossible and restore an American supremacy that they, by their own actions, have done the most to destroy. I expect Petraeus, in his new position, to use the all the tactics of bureaucratic delay and the Administration's own creation of him as the fountain of all authority, to frustrate this intent.
There'll be no war in Iran. Now that doesn't mean that Darth Cheney and the PNAC crowd wouldn't LOVE to have a war with Iran (and Syria). They would. Those are the last two states in the PNAC domino theory. But since it's come out that Iran stopped their nuclear bomb research in 2003, it's a war that won't happen.
I'd love to think that the Senate doesn't confirm Petraeus. But that isn't going to happen either.
No, Darth & dumbya will rattle sabers trying to encourage Iran into doing something stupid. Iran won't do it though.
Petraeus get's the Centcom position and holds it till President Obama puts someone else there that supports withdrawl.
The bush43 is the lamest of Lame Ducks right now. They don't have the power they did even one year ago.
Of course there will be no war in Iran. It's my sincere hope that all the buffoons staking what little credibility they have on "guaranteeing" this nonsense will have the decency to cut back on the hot air when Bush leaves office in nine months with the current status quo largely intact.
This kind of baseless speculation is more suited to National Enquirer than Atlantic.
Comments closed May 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Plus, he gets to spend the rest of the year in an important swing state.
Posted by Gabriel | April 23, 2008 2:48 PM