According to Politico, the phrase “incredibly boring white guy” is now part of the search criteria needed to qualify one for a place on Mitt Romney’s VP short list.
Of course, Romney’s desire for a running mate bearing this awkward description stems from the negative backlash suffered by Senator John McCain in 2008 after he selected Governor Sarah Palin as his “game-changing” VP candidate and then was pounded for the choice by the mainstream media.
Several very competent “incredibly boring white guys” (IBWGs) such as Ohio Senator Rob Portman, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and South Dakota Senator John Thune have all had their national profiles raised recently, guaranteeing them a spot on the VP short list, but precisely because they are a group of IBWGs, the needle on the media excitement meter has scarcely moved a millimeter.
In seems that IBWGs are only exciting when one is in desperate need of an experienced heart surgeon or tax attorney — or if your name is George Clooney.
However, there is someone who holds high national stature and also happens to be an IBWG and who, if he agreed to be Romney’s running mate, might actually qualify as a “game changer.”
That person is David Petraeus.
Mr. Petraeus no longer holds the title of general because he has been very quietly working as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the Obama administration since September of 2011.
Serving in that capacity does not necessarily label Mr. Petraeus a Democrat — for when Petraeus was asked by his commander in chief to serve his country without a uniform, he responded as a patriot.
Back in April, 2011 when President Obama announced that General Petraeus was going to retire from the Army and become his CIA director, Reuters posted this interesting headline:
“President Barack Obama’s choice of General David Petraeus as CIA director will bolster his national security team with a Republican favorite who is sometimes seen as a future White House aspirant.”
The piece continued:
The pick put a quick end to occasional Washington speculation that the commanding general in Afghanistan might ride to the rescue of Republicans as a 2012 White House or vice presidential candidate against Obama.
Well, that “quick end” may in fact be more open-ended as Petraeus’ name seems to pop up more often lately, although it is still near the bottom on the list of potential Romney VPs.
Recently, a widely circulated piece appeared in Foreign Policy magazine, written by Paul Miller, a former White House and National Security advisor. Miller made the case for a Romney /Petraeus ticket with these arguments:
Petraeus has nearly universal name recognition and is one of the most well-respected figures in the country. A year ago only 11 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to Gallup, half that of (Gov. Chris) Christie. And as a non-partisan figure he has not been tarnished by the partisanship and mud-slinging of recent years. Additionally, Petraeus would bring foreign policy expertise to the ticket, balancing Romney’s focus on economic issues. If Obama really intends to claim that his foreign policy accomplishments should earn voters’ respect, there is no one in the country with more credibility than Petraeus to take Obama’s argument apart.
Petraeus’ name has not been in the news much lately because he has been busy quietly fighting the “War on Terror” that the Obama administration says is over. However, I agree with Miller and have long thought that Petraeus might be a good fit for Romney.
Here is an excerpt from a May 2011 piece I wrote with some early speculation about Romney’s VP choices, David Petraeus among them:
Romney’s selection of David Petraeus could possibly be a “game changer.”
Just imagine this scenario: General Petraeus is soon retiring from the Army to set up camp as director of the CIA, serving under President Obama.
So sometime in the middle of 2012, Director Petraeus has some “major policy disagreements” with the president and resigns his CIA post. Then he is suddenly available and Romney selects him as his surprise choice for VP.
Romney could definitely use the boost in the foreign policy area, especially when our nation might still be engaged in three unpopular wars. Petraeus would be a real asset to Romney and perhaps inject some positive energy into the ticket.
Now, a year later, we are engaged in only one very unpopular war, but there is still time for this scenario to unfold.
One could envision Petraeus resigning his post due to the recent revelation that White House operatives (ostensibly with the knowledge of the president) leaked for political gain classified information to the press about an al-Qaeda infiltrator who was working for Great Britain, not the CIA as was originally reported.
The entire operation about a new type of plane-threatening underwear bomb was exposed prematurely, threatening the life of the double-agent and damaging our nation’s relationships with the intelligence agencies of our allies.
Or there could be numerous other issues either known or unknown that might facilitate a decision by Director Petraeus to exit the Obama administration.
And if by chance Romney did choose Petraeus to be his running mate, one could only imagine that during the vice-presidential debate against Joe Biden a moderator might ask our sitting vice president the following question:
Recently captured documents revealed that Osama bin Laden wished to target airplanes carrying then General Petraeus and President Obama because he believed these assassinations would elevate an “utterly unprepared” Vice- President Joe Biden to the presidency and plunge the U.S. into crisis.
Mr. Vice-President, fortunately bin Laden’s wishful plans never went operational, but please comment on his thinking that you were “utterly unprepared” to be president of the United States.
OK, I admit it is highly unlikely that this question would ever be asked in the real vice-presidential debate, but it might make a great skit on Saturday Night Live.
With Biden being such a gaffe prone vice president, one forgets how in 2008 Senator Obama was widely applauded for choosing Senator Biden as his running mate because he needed Biden’s “foreign policy expertise” to balance the ticket.
Now in 2012, as the world grows increasingly dangerous, don’t completely rule out Romney tapping Petraeus for those exact same reasons.
There is even precedent for a former CIA director to be tapped as the vice-presidential candidate on a GOP ticket. Former President George H. W. Bush was CIA director in 1976 before Governor Ronald Reagan named Bush as his running mate in 1980.
Yet Petraeus, even with his action-packed “John Wayne”-like career and national name recognition, might still be characterized as an “incredibly boring white guy” with no fear of his overshadowing Romney.
But there also exists the possibility that Petraeus, as a bipartisan political newcomer, could be perceived as a welcome addition to Romney’s ticket with the potential of moving the excitement meter and gathering enough momentum to help carry some crucial swing state voters across the finish line for a Team Romney victory.
Related:
“Serving in that capacity does not necessarily label Mr. Petraeus a Democrat — for when Petraeus was asked by his Commander in Chief to serve his country without a uniform, he responded as a patriot.”
It avoided giving him the CJCS or COS, USA spot (which would have ticked off the Daily Kos-type base, since Petraeus allowed the evil Boooooosh to avoid disaster in the Middle East), while avoiding screwing Petraeus over entirely.
It used to be if you won a war in the United States you got the top slot. No longer. We have politicians to think for the military now….
Apparently you are not aware of the maneuvering around Generals during the Civil War. Fortunately McClellan was an incompetent, but he still ran for President anyway.
Leaders have been worrying about the political aspirations of victorious Generals since the dawn of recorded history and making often suicidal choices based on fears of varying legitimacy.
Expecting it to change is doing so in defiance of human nature.
Hmmmm. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower. Can’t think of any others, off hand.
3 out of how many Presidents? 43 or 44, depending on one’s view of certain birth certificates.
How many wars? A bit more than 3.
Doesn’t make for much of a trend, as far as I can see.
Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and B. Harrison were all generals before they were presidents. 12 out of 44; more than 1/4.
Different person: “COIN does not and has never worked.”
That’s an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Stupid, even, given the outcome in Iraq. Insurgencies *normally* fail.
While Johnson was technically a brigadier general during the ACW, that was paperwork to justify his appointment as military governor of Tennessee. If he ever actually led troops, or acted in any way as other than a politician under color of military occupation, I’m not aware of it.
I don’t think Petraeus would work as a vice-presidential candidate. All the bollocks about Biden and his experience aside, the modern usage of VP candidates is their utility on the trail as “attack dogs”; you pretty much need a partisan to operate in that capacity. Romney, as milquetoast in affect as he is, needs a rottweiler more than most. (Biden was a terrible VP candidate, btw – Obama pretty much carried all the weight in 2008.)
While I was a Perry supporter in the primaries, and he would probably satisfy the rottweiler quotient, it would bring back all that bushwalla about intelligence that I really would rather not revisit, and it seems like the base and the Right is rallying to the standard. If that seemed to be falling apart between now and the convention, the case for Perry or another heavy of the Right might be stronger.
No Gingrich, though, please.
It’s one thing to be a general. It’s quite another to win a war. I don’t recall any of those folks being credited with winning a war.
the good general had a great deal to do with turning iraq around. of course that was before the bumbler slunk into the wh.
A Romney/Petraeus ticket leaves me cold. I sincerely hope that this trial balloon quickly deflates.
AMEN! As a guy who’s been doing this military thing both in the active Army and in the National Guard since 1990, I can tell you the last thing I want anywhere near the White House is a career military man. Talk about someone who’s out of touch…
You’re talking about someone who never had to bust his ass to make payroll; never had to worry about losing his job when his company goes under; didn’t have to pay for his education; didn’t have to ever pay a mortgage if he didn’t want to; never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from, etc, etc.
Believe me, this is nothing personal against Patraeus, and I mean no disrespect or ingratitude for what he’s done for our country. It’s just that someone who’s spent his entire adult life in the military doesn’t have any clue whatsoever what life is like for hundreds of millions of regular ole’ American citizens.
Americans, on both sides, are sick to death of war and anyone associated thereto. Petraeus, would be a game loser, big time.
I like Ike.
Petraeus is a great man, but not knowing anything about his economic, fiscal or social policies, he’s not fully vetted and so isn’t veep material. I don’t trust Romney to make that determination behind closed doors, and so we have no idea what a President Petraeus would be like (an overriding consideration in a Veep).
The argument for Petraeus rests on the idea that Obama is strong on foreign policy and so Romney needs bolstering. Is anyone outside Obama’s most rabid inner circle taking that one seriously? Obama’s foreign policy has been a series of gaffes and blunders– his few successes stem from the times he embraced the Bush policies that he’d been elected to reverse.
The foreign policy hawks likely to be excited by this are already Romney supporters. The anti-war movement hates Petraeus. Everyone else is worried about the economy and the budget.
By all means, stick Petraeus in the cabinet. Chair of the Joint Chiefs, National Security Advisor, give him support to re-work the CIA from the ground up… even Secretary of State. Assuming his domestic views are fine, I’d support him in a heartbeat as a Senator or Governor.
We have some major budget battles coming up in January. Even assuming complete control of Congress and the Presidency, asking Congress to make serious cuts in the budget (even just to reverse Obama’s spending spree) is very rough sledding. In that battle, Petraeus isn’t very useful. Someone with budget-cutting cred and pull on the Hill is essential.
It should be someone with tea party support (policy) who appeals to moderates (personality). Someone you don’t pluck out of the House or Senate, where you need their vote. Petraeus simply isn’t that person. He’s spent his entire adult life defending federal budgets. If he’s a closet cost-cutter, it’ll be a stunning surprise to me.
Indeed.
Romney by himself is bad enough; and certainly a difficult enough pill to swallow. Add an enemy appeaser to the RINO campaign and Romney will get slaughtered at the ballot box.
I’m not entirely pleased with Romney as a rich, northeast RINO who wants more H-1B immmigrants, guaranteed to make things WORSE.
I have some severe questions about Petraeus’ military and political thoughts. He was better than some of the previous generals, but that is FAINT praise.
This might be a really, really bad idea.
When he retires honorably, a General is still addressed by the title “General”. The only way this changes would be if he gained a civilian title that outranked a General, say Senator, Vice-President, or President. Eisenhower was General Eisenhower, until he was elected President; ditto Grant and 1-2 other Presidents in the late 19th Century (don’t make me look it up).
As for whether Petraeus would run, you’re projecting a lot in terms of his political philosophy and inclinations. He’s a good soldier and a very pragmatic individual, and I’ll grant you that doesn’t sound like a typical Democrat, but he’s generally not typical much at all.
Until we know more about his political inclinations, I think it’s waaaaaay premature to start talking about him this way. Generals tend to be pretty exasperated with politicians just in general, so I wouldn’t expect him to say much of anything, frankly…which leads Romney’s people guessing, and probably moving down the list to someone else.
Bingo. We know NOTHING about this man’s politics.
NOTHING.
The fact that he is willing to work with Obama makes his loyalty to the principles on which this country was founded HIGHLY suspect.
No, don’t give me that “responded as a patriot” crap. When an evil man says “Come work for me”, good people don’t.
I call bullshit, cowboy.
Duty, honor, country.
Petraeus doesn’t have to prove a damned thing to you, sport.
Go back to the the Daily Kos, with your Move-On peers.
Are you TRYING to be that stupid? Or does it just come naturally?
He wears a uniform so he’s automatically a great American patriot? Are you REALLY that stupid?
He served his country in uniform for nearly 40 years, including wartime command at the highest levels of responsibility. He was severely injured in a training accident, and was separated from his family and deployed in combat zones for 6 of the last 9 years. I didn’t see YOU over there.
None of that means he’s be a good VP. But he has certainly earned the title “patriot.”
Two words, Ed: “Benedict Arnold”. General, war hero, traitor.
A uniform is not a halo. And Mark v has an excellent point. I’m sure the German General Staff loved their country too. When they went to work for an evil man, they ended up at Nuremburg.
Petreus is so nonpartisan that he doesn’t even vote, and you think I’m supposed to trust him with the Vice Presidency without inquiring where he stands on issues other than the war effort? What does the man believe in? He hasn’t said, and thus far hasn’t needed to, but if he’s running for Vice President, we need to know.
I dont hold it against Petreaus that he was willing to work for Obama. The military has a long tradition of working for presidents they dont like. They consider it as working for the country, not working for a president. I do agree with you though that we know nothing of Petreaus political philosophy. We know he is a good general, and prefers winning wars to losing them, but that tells us nothing about how he stands on other big issues, like cutting spendind and entitlements, or opposing tax hikes. I would prefer it if Petreaus served as a governor or senator first. Then he could have a real political record we could see.
We’ll agree to disagree on that, with me conceding that you have a point in the history of generals working for Presidents. However, I think that THIS particular President’s treachery is so obvious that it take the matter to another realm.
THAT said, I think you have said the BEST that CAN be said for Petraeus, and that does NOT make him a good choice for Veep.
Two words should kill this idea… “Colin Powell”.
Yes indeed! At one time, I considered him the most dangerous man in America, because the Republican nomination was his for the asking.
He’s poison.
If he is no longer to be addressed as “General”, perhaps “Doctor” would suffice. He holds a PhD from Princeton and is an engaging and brilliant gentleman. I think he would add a great deal to the ticket
Anyone who thinks COIN will work in muslim Afcrapistaan is dumber than a box of rocks.
So what, are you from the “Nuke ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!” crowd? Because that’s the only reasonable alternative. It would also alienate pretty much everyone outside the U.S., and a considerable number of people within the country, in addition to which, it *definitely* wouldn’t work. If it was viable, the Soviets would have been successful in Afghanistan back in the ’80s. Yes, their technology is weaker than ours, but their stomachs are a *LOT* stronger when it comes to doing things like executing civilian hostages, carpet bombing villages, and laying airborne mindfields into areas where children play. They never even came close to controlling the country, and the longer they stayed the worse the situation got.
I said when we started conducting operations in Afghanistan that it was going to be a 50-year operation, if not longer. Though President Obama has said we’re going to withdraw, I predict that even if he makes good on this, we’ll be returning, periodically, for a considerable length of time. The country is a hotbed of radicalism, and with the miniaturization of military technology that’s very destructive (shoulder-fired anti-tank and anti-air missiles, C-4, assault rifles, etc.) the potential for a disgruntled individual or small group of fanatics to do a lot of damage is much larger than it was even a generation ago. As long as the country remains ridiculously impoverished, ignorant, and superstitious, we’re going to be faced with this problem, and it will only get worse.
So we have to make COIN work. It may take a while, but there’s no realistic alternative…
You actually say: “I said when we started conducting operations in Afghanistan that it was going to be a 50-year operation, if not longer.”
That’s about the most un-American thing I have ever heard. No real American would ever put up with such a waste of American lives and limbs and treasure for such utter madness. Afcrapistan was and remains, The Ultimate Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere. Assuming it still exists in a thousand years, Islamic Afcrapistan will remain just that.
Afghan-centric belief system:
1) All roads start in Afghanistan.
2) All roads end in Afghanistan.
3) The Sun revolves around Afghanistan.
4) The Moon revolves around Afghanistan.
5) The Stars revolve around Afghanistan.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficiently large troop mass in Afghanistan for the rest of eternity, the orbital stability of the Earth will become profoundly unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into the United States.
Please no! I’m having a had enough time stomaching Romney.
I don’t think that Mitt who is a good friend of Bibi would look to the General as a viable VP choice.
You got that right. “Blame Israel (the Jews)” would not be very appealing.
If you wager less than $300 that Petraeus will be the VP at the intrade website where you can wager on current events, a wager of $300 will win you $10,000 if he does in fact be the VP nominee.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=750232
Here is the chart for the prospects on Petraeus as VP. https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractId=750232&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com
He needs one of the Pauls to win this race, period.
Oh, please. Come join the real world. Outside of the Paulians, who are a minority, the Paul name is serious poison.
It doesn’t matter ONE BIT if that’s justified or right or anything else.
It’s true, and it’s not going to change any time soon.
Grow up! Name calling is for leftist and mentally slow, and retarded!
=:O
WOW!
Washington76 actually posted something relevant to the discussion at hand, instead of a link to something completely off topic!
I’m speechless!
yup, someone that tightened McChrystal already killing rules of engagement is someone I will support.
way to hand obama a win GOP.
Lets be very clear on this, McCain’s selection of Palin for VP is not what caused his defeat. It was McCain’s atrocious campaign that caused his defeat. Nearly everyone I know who voted for McCain in 2008 told me they voted because of Palin, not in spite of Palin.
As for Petraeus as VP, count me out. We need someone who won’t overshadow Romney. Perhaps Bozo the clown or Mickey Mouse would accept.
Palin was and still is an insufferable, self-obsessed, unaccomplished ditz. McCain was the far better candidate on that ticket.
Brian-and you are an insufferable ignoramus! Palin excelled in conducting affairs of state with Canada, Big Oil, and the overweening federal authority of the US Department of INterior. In other words, Palin, with about the same nine years political experience, far excelled any accomplishments President Zero had in 2008.
I am always amazed at the vitriol that Palin inspires.
Let’s just pick one of your well thought out, and, I’m sure, well researched and founded conclusions.
What WOULD count as “accomplished” for you?
Without even getting into whether she kept McCain from winning or got him even close (despite a bizarre campaign strategy), do you use the same criteria for every Presidential and VP candidate?
many moderates left McCain behind when he picked the ultimate . whiner and victim Palin .She inspire a few with rabid devotion but even the GOP didn’t want her or let me assure you she would have run .
David “Holy Qur’an” Petraeus? You have got to be kidding me!
Petraeus should be serving a life sentence in Leavenworth.
“I condemn the action of the individual in the United States who burned a copy of the Holy Qur’an. That action was hateful. It was intolerant, and it was extremely disrespectful. I condemn the actions of a small number of individuals who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qur’an. Together with our Afghan partners [when they are not too busy shooting our troops in the back and raping little girls and little boys], we must secure and serve [by paying lots of bribes] the people of Afghanistan [the hell with the American people and their crappy outdated Constitution].”
- from David “In: Holy Qur’an, Out: First Amendment and his oath to the United States Constitution” Petraeus
Petraeus also blames Israel (the Jews!) for all the “problems” in the middle east. See his 56 page staff report to congress from a couple of years ago.
Cat: I agree that Petraeus has severe First Amendment problems. Like so many life-long government employees and Washington insiders, he seems quite willing to toss over the Constitution to ‘make his job easier’, no matter what sort of oaths he may have taken.
Yahweh, David Petraeus
Would never okay the way you do your thing
Ding ding ding, ding, ding, ding
And you’ll get yours, David Petraeus
Coddlin’ and even sidin’ with that Islam stuff like you do
Boo hoo hoo, boo hoo hoo
Where have you gone, General George S. Patton?
Our nation turns its longing eyes to you
What’s that you say, David Petraeus?
You have banished ‘ol Blood and Guts far away
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
Coo coo ca-choo, David Petraeus
Mohammad appreciates you more than you will know
Woo woo woo, woo woo woo
Allah uses you, yes, David Petraeus
He may grant a short reprieve to those who their country and humanity betray
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey
Ann Barnhardt on Petraeus:
iOTW- What do you think of General Petreus and his assertion that inciting Islam puts our soldiers in harm’s way?
Ann – I have an offer for General Petreus. I’ll GIVE him one of my balls. Then I’d still have two, and he would have one. He is a politicking coward who cares only about his pension and cashing in on his rank after he retires. The suicidal, defeatist Rules of Engagement he oversees are the unequivocal proof of that. He should resign in disgrace – yesterday, and then present himself to each and every family of our war dead and BEG their forgiveness for failing in his duty as their son or daughter’s commanding officer.
Thanks for that. I’m with Ann.
Also, this is all nonsense. Romney will take no risks whatsoever.
I have nothing against Gen Petraeus. However, the fact that hes willing to work for the SLEZEBAGS associated with the Barockhead Insane admin makes me wonder how much sense he has. Want a military man with forgein policy credentials? Try Gen Tommy Franks.
Along with Allen West, a Red Leg.
For it’s hi, hi, hee, in the Field Artillery!
Petraeus’s idea of a foreign policy is “to win the hearts and minds” of primitive tribes who hate us by sending them advanced technology with tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid, and when they still hate us to blame it on Israel. No thanks.
Thought-provoking piece, Ms. Adams. Yes, picking the good General could be a game-changer for Romney. Ignore the yokels who are criticizing the concept. Let them stew in their juices with their de facto radical soulmates at Moveon.org who slandered General P. as “General Betrayus.”
General Patton would call him General Betrayus and slap him into the next century.
Perhaps, but Patton earned the right to mouth off like that; MoveOn.org hasn’t. Therefore, they were way out of line doing that.
Patton would probably have shot him.
I’m serious.
Moveon got a hardon for Petraeus when he blamed Israel for the “problems” in the ME.
The reason for the ‘boring white guy’ search is to find someone who will not be a distraction. Romney knows he must stay on message, that being the economy. The press would have a field day resurrecting the ‘Betray Us Petraeus’ meme.
I don’t think the American people want to be reminded of Iraq, Iran’s new ally, and Afcrapistan either, nor the trillions we flushed down those muslim rat holes.
The following is from AtlasShrugs. Some of you may recognize the name Andrew McCarthy.
Petraeus’s Israel Problem
His policy is to turn our back on a staunch ally.
Andrew McCarthy NRO
Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, and drew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.
More from Andrew McCarthy on Petraeus -
The upshot of this could not be clearer: Petraeus is echoing the narrative peddled incessantly by leftists in the government he serves and by Islamists in the countries where he works. According to that narrative, Israel’s plight is not a struggle for survival against immovable foes spurred by an Islamist ideology that must be discredited and defeated. To the contrary, this view holds, it is the result of a mere political conflict. It could be resolved, so the theory goes, if only Israel weren’t so intransigent — i.e., if it would just stop taking so seriously its need to secure its citizens against enemies pledged to its destruction. Israel’s stubbornness (which is to say, its insistence on existing as a Jewish state in what Muslims regard as Islamic land) creates tensions that “flare into violence” (Palestinian terrorist attacks undertaken with the approval and encouragement of the region’s most influential Islamic authorities).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7482356/General-David-Petraeus-tipped-as-Republican-2012-presidential-candidate.html
Petraeus is an extraordinary soldier. Even the Washington Compost, as the peerless Mark Levin refers to the WaPo, published a virtually hagiographic article about him some years ago.
But apparently he considers himself to be a [Nelson] Rockefeller Republican, see above link, Google Petraeus and Rockefeller if you prefer.
On the battlefield, there is none better. One heartbeat from the Presidency? No thanks.
On the battlefield there is none better? God help us.
The Washingtonian Post probably likes Petraeues bowing and scraping to islam and blaming Israel.
More from Andrew McCarthy on Petraeus, the hero of the left and anti-Semites and Islam lovers everywhere -
And that’s what Petraeus’s counter-insurgency theory is: a civil-society strategy for an America that no longer believes we have to defeat our enemies first, that pretends most of our enemies are actually our friends, and that thinks we not only owe the world another Marshall Plan but one that starts in 1944 instead of 1947. Bowden notes that Petraeus “called for more reconstruction projects, more cultural sensitivity, and more partnership with the State Department and other civilian agencies.” In his approach, Islam is not a daunting challenge to us but a valuable asset. The State Department with which he anxiously partners is the institution of government foremost dedicated to the view that we must be absolute neutrals in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. No material distinction is to be drawn between one side’s construction of housing and the other’s suicide bombings.
I would be absolutely astounded if Romney picked Petraeus for his VP running mate. Although not likely, I think the odds are far higher that Obama will drop Biden and replace him on his ticket with Petraeus.
Obama/Petraeus (we see eye to eye on Islam and Israel) in 2012!!!
More from Andrew McCarthy on Petraeus -
As night follows day, Islamist sympathizers leapt on a statement from CENTCOM’s commander that Israel causes America’s problems. Stephen Walt, the Kennedy School’s reliable Israel-basher (and, many years ago, Petraeus’s faculty adviser at Princeton), quoted the general’s testimony to bolster Walt’s argument that Israel’s policies threaten American security and interests. Rami Khouri, a renowned Palestinian-American progressive who blames Ariel Sharon for the existence of Hamas and Hezbollah, could barely contain his delight that Petraeus had “openly criticized Israel.” “The top military leadership speaking out in public with such clarity,” he proclaimed in Middle East Online, “is about as serious as it gets in terms of credible criticisms in Washington.” His views were amplified elsewhere: “By now General David Petraeus’s warning that U.S. policy with Israel is negatively affecting the Middle East has spread far and wide,” wrote James Gundun in the Palestinian Chronicle. “Petraeus believed that Israel hadn’t gotten the message yet and so lit a fire under the White House, hoping it too would learn a lesson.” In the Jordan Times, Hassa A. Barari celebrated Petraeus for “stating the obvious,” and expressed his hope that Petraeus’s prestige would give President Obama the cover he “needs to step up his diplomatic pressure on Tel Aviv in a way that can raise the cost of [Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s obstructionist policies.” For Uri Avnery, an Israeli leftist and founder of Gush Shalom, a self-described “peace movement,” such testimony by a man of Petraeus’s stature signals that “the U.S. must give up its one-sided support for the Israeli government and impose the two-state solution.
Yikes! This brings back memories of Cronkite effectively declaring the Vietnam War lost in the wake of the Tet Offensive, even though Tet was a huge military defeat for the North Vietnamese and Vietcong….
Stephen Walt, the Kennedy School’s reliable Israel-basher (and, many years ago, Petraeus’s faculty adviser at Princeton)…
omg. thanks.
this has turned into quite a thread.
Enough reasons why Petraeus as VP wouldn’t mean any changes from Barack Hussein on foreign policy:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/fitzgerald-arabia-petraea-or-general-petraeus-middle-east-part-iv-twenty-seven-articles-revised-edit.html
All four parts of Hugh Fitzgetald’s “Arabia Petraea, or General Petraeus’ Middle East” can easily show anyone why David Petraeus is not qualified to be an American VP (but almost qualified enough to be an Iranian VP, except that he hasn’t formally converted to islam.)
He hasn’t formally said the vows, but it’s like a common law marriage.
Good line!
FeralCat, I’m curious about your expertise on counterinsurgency matters. Obviously, you seem very eager to claim that the General is horridly incompetent, a traitor, and the worst thing that could possibly happen to the ticket, so you must have a winning strategy for the war on islamic supremacists.
No particular expertise is required to recognize the results of the Petraeus Doctrine, or the horrendous – no CRIMINAL – insanity of his rules of engagement, or to know a sniveling, obsequious yes-man when one is right in front of us.
His anti-Semitic stances and his double-talk on that issue are also plainly visible for anyone with a modicum of sense.
All muslims want islam to be supreme by whatever means it takes. If someone does not want islam to be supreme, and by whatever means it takes, then they are not really muslim. This is why COIN and all the grovelling Patraeus does towards islam will never work. I am quite sure they regard him as a useful idiot.
What do we know of Petraeus’ politics?
That’s all we need; a Colon Bowell redux in the executive branch (G-d forbid).
I admire the soldier in Petraeus and his careful and deliberate manner of speaking.
However, FERAL CAT and SEFTON have the right of it.
Look no further than Col. West.
Does Romney have the imagination to pick him? Do the preppie campaign elites?
Does Romney have the managerial skills to delegate foreign policy to a West?
I think not on all counts.
Obama can’t lose. We’re long lost. Go Galt.
Gen. Petraeus a very loud NO, Col. West a very loud YES!
Romney can’t beat Obama on nat security no mater whom he selects. Romney needs Nicky Haley. Unlike Palin, Haley is genuinely hot. She’s also qualified, but who cares
1. Col West wrecks his career to save his men = war hero.
2. Gen. McChrystal publicly calls attention to Obama ignoring making surge decision in Afghanistan, then doing only half, thus wrecking his career for his men and their mission = war hero.
3. Petraeus snaps his heals, ties the men’s hands tighter behind their backs thus advancing his career = ???????
COIN does not and has never worked. Petraeus’ updated version of “winning hearts and minds” is a recipe for disaster in warfare. Reconstruction can’t start until the enemy is put into submission or killed.
Um, no.
almost as stupid as mccain palin
Please! They are not the “mainstream” media. If they represented the mainstream of America we would have become a communist, totalitarian state 50 years ago. They are, pick one: the left stream media; the liberal media; the Demo-media (as in Democrats trying to demolish the Constitution; the union media (as many of them are AFTRA, SAG, SEIU, Communications union workers. But they are NOT mainstream by any stretch. If you doubt it check out this presidential electoral map by county: http://jutiagroup.com/20090122-2008-presidential-election-maps/
Here is an even clearer image of why the media is NOT main stream:
http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg
Media is blue. We are red. Get it?
This is the best idea I’ve heard yet.
Brains, integrity, got the job done, gravitas, respectable.
The Democrat slime machine wouldn’t touch him.
Please let it happen.
“The Democrat slime machine wouldn’t touch him.”
You haven’t read this comment thread.
43 Catholic Organizations bring lawsuit against Obamacare. 19 seconds of Press Coverage
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2012/05/43-catholic-organizations-lawsuit.html
Not gonna happen. Simple reason: no way to vet his political skills before he is picked, so the danger of a Palin repeat is too high.
Military officers receive great deference when interviewed or testifying. He has no experience in a verbal knife fight, and the VP has to be the designated knife fighter for the campaign.
“danger of Palin repeat”? Many, like me voted for Palin hoping the excitement of the win would make her President from day one.
Romney/Petraeus vs. Obama/Clinton
Petraeus and Clinton could debate topics such as ‘The willful suspension of disbelief’.
He made a couple of pretty good, self depreciating jokes about that encounter when he first spoke to my unit in 2008.
BTW, the haters sure came out…. doesn’t quite sound like the man I worked for in Iraq – but I suppose these folks would know better than I!
I would rather he not run – just to be spared the silliness that the VP position has come to be (or, perhaps, always has been).
“as a non-partisan figure he has not been tarnished by the partisanship and mud-slinging of recent years” … huh?? i seem to recall a big kerfuffle over a full-page ‘general betray us” ad. if that wasn’t some partisan mud-slinging, then i don’t know what is.
For the last time:
Petraeus was nothing more than a paper-pusher who’s only utility in the final stages of the Iraq War was to appear before Congress and show them powerpoint slides (Enough with the frickin’ PP slides!); he received credit for the victory and he literally did nothing. He made no decisions of any material importance whatsoever. He didn’t even have a say in the final battle of Basra!
Anybody with even a passing semblance of experience in the Iraq War knows this. To a man, we can name names like Mattis, Sanchez and Hamm while bottlecap and bird colonels like McMaster, West, Steele and the like – field officers who risked their careers doing the dirty work and backing up their troops. Unlike Petraeus who’s expertise was in keeping his hands and nose clean.
Even when their deployments ended in success, these colonels STILL couldn’t get promoted without battling the paper-pushers, and more than a few had their rank insignias stripped by the same. The best that can be said is that they ended their careers but retained their Honor in the face of lesser men like Petraeus.
The Kurds and the Shiite militias, over-zealous sometimes but understandably so, were HUGE factors in this war and officially or not, they had more than a few blessings from us to do their worst. And Iraq is better for it.
As for the Iranian Shiites? Guys like Huggins and De”Olivera” (I think that’s how it was spelled) took the risks of shaping Iraq’s first real NCO corps, INTF, but it got renamed a dozen times and its elements were grafted to form the backbone of multiple units. The ENTIRE Iraqi Army had its embryonic beginnings in this “Iraqi 1st Division”, renamed the Iraqi QRF in 2008 when these same units were retaking Basra even while British-trained units like the 42nd were deserting wholesale.
Petraeus had NOTHING of substance to do with ANY of this – not in Mosul, not in Tal Afar, not in Fallujah, not anywhere in Anbar or a hundred other places where the rat-lines were being severed before they could get to the interior of Iraq like Baghdad and cause mayhem in front of their eager accomplices, CNN. Eventually, the insurgency snuffed itself out from lack of oxygen after being choked off from all the aforementioned rat-lines.
THAT – in a very small nut-shell is why the insurgency died – NOT because of the ridiculous military parades (they were certainly not “security patrols”) that Petraeus set up in Baghdad for the buffoonish media and their credulous civilian audience.
And you wonder why someone like Obama would keep someone like Petraeus on?
Do you understand the words “civilian boobs”?
Whoever wrote this article, YOU are the people who allow people like David Petraeus and Teresa King to be elevated into positions of power above better men – to the detriment of all involved.
Go back to commenting about hairstyles and Ipads.
Thanks for this post.
I might offer a few words about how the system needs the political officers too, but need them or not, it’s too common that they lose track of the realities on the ground, and at that point they serve no good purpose at all. In Greyhawks post @ 50 Petraeus notes the troopers don’t get to quit. That cuts both ways, and it seems to me Petraeus ends up failing at both.
I will even give you undeserved courtesy:
I respectfully request that you refrain from promoting the idiocy that is the “Petraeus for Vice-President” campaign.
This is an interesting thought, and would indeed be a game changer in the election. He was there when every major foreign policy decision was under discussion involving national security. A nightmare scenario for the Obama camp.
Anybody who changes their mind about voting for a candidate because of his running mate is a fool.
I should know, because I was one in 2008. Never again.
Think of the contrast created by Romney and Petraeus. A clueless community agitator and a hopeless buffoon versus a serious and successful businessman and our latest military hero.
A clear choice, no?
Bad idea. Need proof, two words: Colin Powell. Once one makes the pinacle of military rank he becomes hostage to politicians and no longer thinks like a Field Grade leader.
Petreaus may be the exception, but I would not like to bet on it.
Senator LEVIN. I want to pick up the question of Afghanistan, the decision the President made last night. You gave a number of reasons here today for why you—as I read you, that you are comfortable implementing the decision that the President made, whether or not it was precisely following your recommendation or not, that you do feel comfortable implementing it and supporting it. Is that an accurate reading?
General PETRAEUS. I would be a bit more qualified, Mr. Chairman…
Senator LEVIN. Would you also agree with Admiral Mullen, as he put it to the Committee, that the truth is that we would have run other kinds of risks by keeping more forces in Afghanistan longer— that’s his exact words—and we would have made it easier for the Karzai administration to increase their dependency on us. Those were his words today as well.
We would have denied the Afghan security forces who’ve grown in capability opportunities to further exercise that capability and to lead. And that, in terms of risks, we would have signaled to the enemy and to our regional partners that the Taliban still possessed strength enough to warrant the full measure of our presence. They do not.
Would you agree with Admiral Mullen on that?
General PETRAEUS. I’m not sure I buy every bit of that characterization, Chairman…
General PETRAEUS I obviously support the ultimate decision of the commander in chief. That is, we take an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States, and we indeed do that.
Senator LEVIN. And if you couldn’t do that consistent with that oath, you would resign?
General PETRAEUS. Well, I’m not a quitter, Chairman.
I think that—I’ve actually had people e-mail me and say that. And I actually—this is something that I have thought a bit about.
Senator LEVIN. I’m sure you have.
General PETRAEUS. And I don’t think that it is the place for a commander actually to consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation.
Senator LEVIN. You don’t think——
General PETRAEUS. This is an important decision. It is, again, a more aggressive approach than the Chairman, General Mattis and I would have indeed certainly put forward. But this is not something I think where one hangs up the uniform in protest or something like that.
Senator LEVIN. Just a final part of this——
General PETRAEUS. You know, if I could continue, though, Chairman, I feel actually quite strongly about this. Our troopers don’t get to quit.
Me: Several of the commenters above remind me of John Stuart Mill’s “miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” I thought the same of the moveon.org crowd in 2007.
“General PETRAEUS. And I don’t think that it is the place for a commander actually to consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation.”
So, playing “whack a mole” by sending enough troops to secure one part of Afghanistan while the enemy moves to another since CiC didn’t allow both areas to be secured at once. And the inevitable increase in US causalities and protraction of the conflict don’t qualify as “very dire situation”? It was sure as hell “dire” for the men who died.
Indeed, “our troopers don’t get to quit” so why should a commander take it past the line to protect them by quitting?
Rationalizations of a career prolonging decision. Meanwhile, there were some weeks that food didn’t get to my son’s COP but the brass made damned sure training materials and detailed instructions on not pissing on dead enemy got there. . . priorities.
I have written about Mr. Petraeus running before, but he has said he, like Mr. Powell before him, that he would not do so. If he is serious, I suggest Mr. John Bolton as VP. I have not heard his name mentioned, but he would give Mr. Romney the international expertise he needs to have in his ticket/administration.
Ed wrote
And if he’s been doing all of that with the intent of achieving high office so that he can help to implement the Marxist agenda, we are still supposed to call him a patriot?
I don’t know if that’s his intent or not, but just the fact that he’s been Obama’s lickspittle disqualifies him for that title, even if we knew NOTHING else about his politics.
Bad idea. Right now we need a VP choice that convinces reluctant conservatives that Romney will govern like a republican and not a RINO. If voters see no difference between the two, Obama and ObamaLITE, Romney loses. He needs someone whose Conservative bona fides in fiscal responsibility are impeccable, preferably someone who hasn’t been in ‘government’ his whole life. Sorry, but the military falls under that.
Our market system has been under siege by the current regime and in January 2013 its all hands on deck dismantling all the anti-business, anti-American executive order or czarist time bombs.
We need a level-headed fiscon, who has balanced more than one budget, made a payroll, and can stand the heat of the scrutiny of 1000 suns that the media will give him.
Brian
Palin was and still is an insufferable, self-obsessed, unaccomplished ditz. McCain was the far better candidate on that ticket.
were you looking in the mirror when you said that?