239/Tcobb & 238/Eggplant
I must concur with Tcobb regarding Petraeus; whatever political aspirations he might have, he has been out-maneuvered by the Obama administration with which he has cast his lot.
He is obviously an intelligent man, erudite and lettered, even somewhat wonkish, and he had the good fortune to have developed an outstanding concept and strategy for counterinsurgency which met the perfect textbook case and opportunity in Anbar. The successful application of his strategy in “the Surge” established his reputation as a winner, but unfortunately he seems to have succumbed, as have so many brilliant people, to the tendency to believe that their “big idea” is the solution to all problems. As the adage goes, to the man who sells hammers, every problem is a nail.
In AfPak, Petraeus’ “grand idée” appears to have become an “idée fixe” which he is determined to apply despite the fact that the circumstances are very different and don’t warrant it. Notwithstanding the appearances of certain temporary success, e.g. the impressive Taliban kill rates of the US Marines which have been recently mentioned here (reminiscent of Gen. Westmoreland’s “body count” success metric in Vietnam), the end result will be a humiliating debacle for which he will be scapegoated.
Moreover, his attempt to hand off that scenario to a successor, if reports of his moving to CIA are correct, won’t save him. It merely further demonstrates the narrow, tunnel-like aspect of his vision and ability to correctly perceive the overall strategic picture. Tcobb is correct; if Petraeus allows Obama to bury him in the CIA he can kiss any political aspirations good-bye.
As it relates to the current topic of Obama’s BC, which is itself merely a surrogate talking point and coal mine canary indicator for the larger problem of reining in the rogue agency of our self-anointed oligarchs who seem determined to dismantle the Constitutional rule of law and subdue us, Petraeus will never be a Sulla, and certainly not a Cincinnatus. He doesn’t have the chops, neither political, ideological or moral.
He “coulda been a contenda”, however, had he correctly perceived the geo-political strategic situation and done the principled thing at the beginning, resigned his commission, publicly denounced Obama’s AfPak strategy, and explained to the American people why he was refusing to lead troops into a cynical, pre-meditated sell-out of our military. The fact that he failed to do this demonstrates the flaws in both his overall military acumen and his character. The fact that he is not alone in this reluctance to stand for principle is small comfort. We no longer have military leadership at the highest levels willing to sacrifice a mere career for their country, much less their lives and their sacred honor…
