Petraeus For President in 2012?

Tom Engelhardt of The Nation magazine’s Nation Institute is writing for CBS news that the White House-Pentagon split on Afghanistan could provide a “Petraeus moment” that could usher Gen. David Petraeus into a 2012 bid for the presidency.

Engelhardt, a hard leftist, reads the split and its potential with trepidation, fearing an unrestrained military overriding what should be civilian decisions. Surely it’s possible for differences of opinion to be aired between military and civilian authorities without the fall of the Republic, some might argue in response.

Nevertheless, Engelhardt’s analysis is interesting because he articulates the political dynamics of the Afghanistan situation and how it might hurt President Obama if he were to leave from or scale back Afghanistan.

Admittedly, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 51% of Americans are against sending in more troops. (Who knows how they would react to a president who went on TV to announce that he had genuinely reconsidered?) Official Washington is another matter. For General Petraeus, who claims to have no political ambitions but is periodically mentioned as the Eisenhower of 2012, how potentially peachy to launch your campaign against the president who lost you the war.

Engelhardt continues,

Now, it looks as if we are about to have a civilian-military encounter of the first order in which Obama will indeed need to take responsibility for difficult actions (or the lack thereof). If a genuine clash heats up, expect more discussion of “MacArthur moments,” but this will not be Truman versus MacArthur redux, and not just because Petraeus seems to be a subtler political player than MacArthur ever was.

As Engelhardt notes, the political situation is complicated because Americans are tiring of the war. But even Engelhardt, the hard leftist, admits the situation could play in Petraeus’ favor by making Obama look weak. What is also worth noting is Engelhardt’s palpable fear of a Petraeus bid. Is his fear strictly of the dangers of military overreach, or does he fear how effective a Petraeus bid would be in contrast to the feckless political class most citizens loathe?