Petraeus For President in 2012?

Things are getting mighty interesting!

What does the high profile conflict between President Obama and the Pentagon over Afghanistan mean for Petraeus’ potential 2012 bid for the presidency?

Well, the Intrade prediction markets doubled at the news. Does that tell you anything?

Simply put, Obama’s hesitance to provide the needed troops in Afghanistan is big potential trouble for the young, inexperienced president. To make matters worse for Obama, the Pentagon is leaking shocking documents that paint the picture for the media and everyone else.

What’s so interesting about this development is not just that Obama could look weak on foreign affairs, but that the battle could turn personal, if Petraeus is seen to be advocating more troops in Afghanistan.

Let me back up a second, first, to explain my analysis of Obama’s actions.

President Obama is preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Sept. 1 – Mike Allen writes “White House fears liberal war pressure”.

White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources.

Bear in mind, the White House put this issue on the map, by saying it fears the Left on the issue. I’m sure there were liberals in the Democratic party clamoring for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan, but the White House created the political pressure from liberals in the public sphere by telling Mike Allen, an extremely influential reporter, about its “fears.”

But the Pentagon was of a different mind. No sooner had we heard about White House fears than comes the news: “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan”.

Then, the bombshell! Someone, somewhere, gave Bob Woodward a classified 66-page report laying out the Pentagon case for more troops in Afghanistan. Giving Bob Woodward that report is like the last round of the Texas Hold ‘em  World Series — the stakes are huge!

Meanwhile, Obama is giving the cold shoulder. There’s no “pending decision,” he told us.

Before I go any further, you may be asking yourself what this has to do with Petraeus, since McChrystal is the main man in this situation. While it’s true that McChrystal is the Pentagon’s point man on Afghanistan, Petraeus is basically his boss. Just because the skirmish is publicly between McChrystal and Obama at this point doesn’t mean Petraeus doesn’t come in at some point to play a major role. I mean, it’s ain’t his first rodeo, know what I mean?

Ok, so how does it all turn out? I can’t tell you for sure. The public is souring on Afghanistan, but premature evacuation could be politically deadly for Obama, who isn’t exactly looking like Mr. Tough Guy these days in foreign affairs. Americans want a strong leader.

I’ll leave you with this: who leaked Woodward the report? Politico reports,

A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why?

Bob Woodward’s Monday-morning exclusive on a 66-page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration.

[snip]

…inside the White House and out, the leak touched off another familiar Washington ritual: speculation about the leaker’s identity and motives.

In 2000, his parachute failed.

In 2000, Petraeus suffered his second major injury, when, during a civilian skydiving jump, his parachute collapsed at low altitude due to a hook turn, resulting in a hard landing that broke his pelvis.

Source: Wikipedia.

Two years ago tomorrow, we learned what many of us had suspected: Gen. David Petraeus has expressed interest in running for president. On Sept. 13, 2007, the London Independent reported that a senior Iraqi official recounted Petraeus discussing the matter with him,

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

In retrospect, the article is interesting because it notes that,

“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, ‘No, that would be too soon’,” Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

The author has himself wondered if 2012 is also “too soon.” Readers, any thoughts on 2012 vs. 2016?

Coming soon: an analysis of the withering Obama poll numbers and their import for a Petraeus 2012 run…

The American Conservative blog has a snide, snarky post on their “Post Right” blog by Jack Ross arguing Joe Scarborough — not Gen. David Petraeus — is the better and more probable candidate of the two. If you recall, a recent Politico article featured both as potential 2012 candidates.

Ross argues that Petraeus was once favored by neo-cons, but no longer,

[T]hey also talk up the tragic David Petraeus, not even as a sop to the neocons, who are totally over him, but to one-foot-in-the-graver Bob Dole.

To substantiate his point that the “tragic” Petraeus was a candidate favored by the neocons, Ross links to an old American Conservative article, “Sycophant Savior,” that looks rather shabby in retrospect.

Essentially, Andrew Bacevich argues in “Sycophant Savior” that not only was the situation in Iraq (in October 2007) not improving, but that Petraeus had squandered a major chance to build on any political momentum there was at the time to ask for more troops, who could have successfully pacified Iraq.

We know now that Petraeus largely did pacify Iraq. We know now that Petraeus is the Ben Bernanke of the Iraq war — the perfect man for the job who was able to rely on his unique training to turn the situation around. It’s not that Petraeus turned Iraq into a glistening modern liberal democracy — that was always a pipe dream. But he took his counterinsurgency training — which he literally wrote the book for — and dramatically decreased sectarian violence in that country.

Read more…

Found this in on the Internets today:

Open Letter to General Petraeus

Sir,

You have served your country with great honor and dignity as a career officer in the United States Army. We ask you to consider a new career as our next President.

As the Commander of MNF-I, you prevented America’s defeat in the Middle East against all odds. As the Commander of CENTCOM, we are confident you will ensure American troops leave the Middle East with victory and honor. The Middle East will be a more stable region as a direct result of your leadership and the actions of our troops, and America’s interests will be more secure.

As the current President withdraws American troops from the Middle East, your mission will come to a close. As your mission comes to a close, we implore you to return home and lead a new mission to become the next President of the United States.

Americans troops needed you in the Middle East to them to victory against all odds. Now, the American people need you to return home and lead America to victory domestically, as corrupt politicians in Congress and the White House are leading us into domestic disasters.

When your work in the Middle East is done, please retire your Army uniform and run for President in 2012!

God Bless America and her troops.

Sincerely,

Americans for Petraeus 2012

Is this a chain letter spreading rapidly in the email forward wild? Is there an actual organization called “Americans For Petraeus 2012″?

Interesting the “open letter” was on a Ron Paul website — I would think Ron Paul supporters would be the last to support a Petraeus presidency because they are isolationist.

AllahPundit at Hot Air cites a Gen. Petraeus interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News as a “rather definitive[]” answer from Petraeus about whether he would ever run for President.

In the interview, Wallace asks Petraeus if he has any interest running for president. Petraeus responds,

None Chris at all, thank you. I have great respect for those who do choose to serve our country that way. I’ve chosen to serve our country in uniform, and I think that Gen. Sherman had it right when he gave what is now commonly referred to as a Sherman-esque response when asked a similar question.

Then Wallace asks if Petraeus means to say that he is giving a Sherman-esque response, to which Petraeus says,

[Laughs] I am Chris and I don’t think it would ever get to that point anyway.

For those who don’t know, Gen. William Sherman, a famous Civil War general notable for his “scorched earth” tactics against the South, said of running for office that “If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”

A few observations:

1. Petraeus only references Sherman’s response at first, rather than saying he is offering the same response. Why? When pressed, he does admit that he is making the same response, but it’s notable that he would have only reference it had he not been pressed.

2. Petraeus seems more nervous about his response to this question than other questions.

3. He also has clearly rehearsed his answer to the question, which means he has considered his response. Although it is possible that he could have planned his response even without interest for eventually running, it’s at least on his mind. And if he weren’t interested in running at all, would he need to rehearse his answer?

So is Petraeus’ answer as “definitive” as AllahPundit would have us believe? Readers, do you have any thoughts?

Senior Republican party mainstay and one-time presidential nominee Bob Dole is urging Gen. David Petraeus to run for president in 2012, Politico reports.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas . . . told POLITICO that he would like to see Army four-star Gen. David Petraeus — the head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan — run for president as a latter-day Ike.

The interest of such a senior Republican is breathtaking for long-time watchers of Petraeus’ possible political future, because until now speculation was limited to the media rather than any major political players.

The article continues,

“Well, I’d like to see Gen. Petraeus warm up,” Dole said. “I don’t know anything about his politics, whether he has an interest. It’s kind of a time for another Eisenhower, in my view.”

This isn’t the first time the popular general’s name has been floated as a possible GOP savior — and it won’t be the last. Petraeus has political impulses but hasn’t revealed if they are conservative ones, and he might not even be a Republican.

Dole’s lack of knowledge of Petraeus’ political leanings is intriguing. Presumably, such a veteran pol would have inquired about the matter, but it appears that quest has been fruitless.

Petraeus could be keeping his cards so close to the vest because he wants to avoid even the hint of impropriety, especially as he has been criticized for how politically adept he is as a general.

But Petraeus followers this author has spoken with doubt he’s a Democrat.

The article continues,

[Dan Senor, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Bush administration veteran] is skeptical, even though Petraeus would be an appealing candidate. “He has to be focused like a laser beam on Afghanistan,” Senor said. “If he is as successful in Afghanistan as he was in Iraq, nothing else matters, and he will instantly be considered a top-tier candidate for president.

Timing is crucial for Petraeus. His record will always include rescuing Iraq from the precipice, but it is still being shaped by his actions abroad. He cannot leave the situation in Afghanistan prematurely for what appear to be political reasons. To do so would be to sacrifice that which makes him so attractive politically – his supreme competence and success militarily.

Interestingly, the Politico article forwards another name, Joe Scarborough,

MSNBC’s Scarborough has been told by some big donors that he should make a run in 2012.

“I think he does have aspirations. That is half of it: You got to want it,” said CNBC’s Donny Deutsche, a regular guest on Scarborough’s morning show, who recently raised the idea with him off-camera. “In this day and age, it would almost make sense for [a presidential candidate] to come from media.”

Scarborough, unlike Petraeus, has successfully run for office – as a class-of-1994 Republican representing Florida’s 1st District.

But Scarborough is Petraeus’ diametric opposite. Whereas Petraeus is cool and in control, Scarborough is emotional and unrestrained.

For instance, Scarborough has had repeated meltdowns on his MSNBC appearances that would likely make for great negative advertising. And who can forget him dropping an “F bomb” on television?

Nonetheless, major news for Petraeus watchers to see Dole so openly maneuvering behind Gen. Petraeus.

A graph of the Intrade futures market price for the prediction that Gen. David Petraeus will be the Republican Nominee in 2012:

You can buy Petraeus 2012 stickers here:

Petraeus 2012 Sticker

Kind of an ugly design if you ask me. Also, that picture makes the General look a bit geeky.