Of Course! It's Petraeus in 2012!

[Puppycow]

I think that there was a thread a while back asking about who would take over GOP leadership in the future. I can't seem to find that thread now, but I seem to recall discussion centered around Palin, Jindal and Gingrich. At the time it didn't occur to me, but once it does, he is the obvious frontrunner if he wants the job.

I predict that David Petraeus will be the next GOP nominee for president.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/David_H._Petraeus_2008_2.jpg/250px-David_H._Petraeus_2008_2.jpg

[Oliver]

He won't. As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician
in several occasions, including the testimonies - indicating that he doesn't
feel that it would be the right job for him to be one.

[Undesired Walrus]

Seems unlikely if the economy remains the way it is. Perhaps during a dangerous war, but I can't see how Iraq will remain relevant in 2012.

[Ysidro]

Only a politician would say he's not a politician! Look, I found his shoe!

[Puppycow]

He won't. As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician
in several occasions, including the testimonies - indicating that he doesn't
feel that it would be the right job for him to be one.

That could just be to fend off the press. He basically has to say flat-out that he won't run to get them to stop pestering him about it. OTOH, he might really mean it.

Seems unlikely if the economy remains the way it is. Perhaps during a dangerous war, but I can't see how Iraq will remain relevant in 2012.
Why would the economy "remain the way it is"? Four years is a long time. When was the last time we had a 4-year recession?
Recessions in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessions#United_States_recessions)

[Puppycow]

Only a politician would say he's not a politician! Look, I found his shoe!

What he said! :D

[Damien Evans]

Wow, that's a long honours list, even for a 4 star general.

[gdnp]

I can see 2 scenerios where Petreus emerges as a candidate. One is that the US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan with victories and Petreus is given the credit. The other is that he clashes with Obama over strategy, is replaced/resigned, and the situation bogs down in one place or the other and Obama takes the blame. I think the second scenario is more likely, as here the war issue would be pushed to the forefront and he could be brought in as a potential savior.

If, on the other hand, the US "wins" in Afghanistan and Iraq, then bringing back the conquering general to lead the country would only be likely if national security issues were felt the defining issues of the election, which would require the rise of another national security threat such as Russia or Iran that eclipses things like jobs, energy, global warming, health care, etc. I can't predict the future, but I see this as less likely.

[chipmunk stew]

Just curious: Is Petraeus a Republican? Or are you just assuming he is? I'm not asking that to be snarky. I really don't know the answer.

[Cain]

I recall reading this article over a year ago:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09132007.html

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

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser and spokesman at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, says that Gen Petraeus discussed with him his long term ambition to be president when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-5.

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

[Oliver]

I'm not kidding, folks:

http://petraeus2012.com/

[Earthborn]

As far I remember his words, he stated that he isn't a politician in several occasionsAll politicians in the United States like to claim that they are not politicians. It's as if they are ashamed of their chosen profession.

[Oliver]

Just curious: Is Petraeus a Republican? Or are you just assuming he is? I'm not asking that to be snarky. I really don't know the answer.



It seems as if he's a Republican:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002317.php

Keep Eyes On Petraeus: Could Be the Republican's Wesley Clark of 2012
There is informal discussion among some in the military set -- and increasingly among some pols -- that General David Petraeus (http://usacac.army.mil/cac/commander.asp) could be an interesting presidential prospect on the Republican side of the line a few years from now.

[tomwaits]

I recall reading this article over a year ago:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09132007.html

Counterpunch is hardly a reliable news source.

[R.Mackey]

Petraeus is a damned good general.

Historically speaking, good generals have made mediocre presidents.

I'd rather see him in a position that speaks to his strengths -- superintendant of West Point, National Security Advisor, NATO Permanent Representative, that kind of thing. I wonder what he wants to do?

[Puppycow]

Petraeus is a damned good general.

Historically speaking, good generals have made mediocre presidents.
Are you suggesting that George Washington was a mediocre president?
Anyway, I think you have to look at him as an individual, not judge him based on what other generals have done.
I'd rather see him in a position that speaks to his strengths -- superintendant of West Point, National Security Advisor, NATO Permanent Representative, that kind of thing. I wonder what he wants to do?
That is the question I guess.

If I was a republican, the following are reasons why I would want Petraeus as a nominee:

1) Not a "Washington insider"
2) Competant, intellectual
3) While the republican brand is at low ebb, he is not personally associated with any of its failures (he even turned around a failing Iraq war).
4) Who else is there?

[R.Mackey]

Are you suggesting that George Washington was a mediocre president?
Anyway, I think you have to look at him as an individual, not judge him based on what other generals have done.

Fair enough. The same could be said for Washington, though -- to call him simply "a general" is to ignore his other involvement and contribution during the formative years of the Colonies, the Revolution, and the Confederation. I am unaware of any comparable achievements that General Petraeus has to his credit, though I would commend him for his focus.


That is the question I guess.

If I was a republican, the following are reasons why I would want Petraeus as a nominee:

1) Not a "Washington insider"
2) Competant, intellectual
3) While the republican brand is at low ebb, he is not personally associated with any of its failures (he even turned around a failing Iraq war).
4) Who else is there?

Why is there such stigma at being "an insider?" Apart from there being a longer paper trail on you, experience is generally a benefit.

"Who else is there" is damning with faint praise, but it is a good question. I don't have an answer for it. There might still be time to pass an Amendment and try to draft the Governator (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-arnoldgovernator.htm), I say only partly in jest...

[Puppycow]

Why is there such stigma at being "an insider?" Apart from there being a longer paper trail on you, experience is generally a benefit.

Most people seem to have a low opinion of career politicians.
Data (http://www.gallup.com/poll/103123/Lobbyists-Debut-Bottom-Honesty-Ethics-List.aspx)
Compare "military officers" to "congressmen" for example.

Ted Stevens is one of the most experienced Washington insiders.

[R.Mackey]

Most people also believe in UFO's. I understand Petraeus's disconnect from Washington may play in campaign commercials, but I don't see it as a legitimate quality, neutral at best.

And a major "campaign issue" in our recent election was over "lack of experience," in effect painting one contestant as unreliable because he wasn't an "insider." This can be spun either way.

[Puppycow]

Most people also believe in UFO's. I understand Petraeus's disconnect from Washington may play in campaign commercials, but I don't see it as a legitimate quality, neutral at best.

And a major "campaign issue" in our recent election was over "lack of experience," in effect painting one contestant as unreliable because he wasn't an "insider." This can be spun either way.

We could have a separate discussion about whether or not Petraeus would actually make a good president, but that wasn't really the point of the OP. I'm considering him as a candidate for president. You certainly could try argue that Petraeus doesn't have the right experience, but I doubt you would get much political traction. The "experience" issue certainly didn't work for McCain.

Of course, it could be that the next election is basically a referendum on Obama's first term, as is usually the case when one candidate is the sitting president.

[R.Mackey]

We could have a separate discussion about whether or not Petraeus would actually make a good president, but that wasn't really the point of the OP. I'm considering him as a candidate for president. You certainly could try argue that Petraeus doesn't have the right experience, but I doubt you would get much political traction. The "experience" issue certainly didn't work for McCain.

Oh, I understand, and I'm not discounting the possibility entirely.

Think of my comments as a "red team" review, or "Devil's Advocate." These are the kinds of things the opposition will bring up. A candidate does have to be palatable in personality and background, but there also does (generally) have to be some substance.

Is there any?

[SezMe]

I can see 2 scenerios where Petreus emerges as a candidate. One is that the US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan with victories and Petreus is given the credit. The other is that he clashes with Obama over strategy, is replaced/resigned, and the situation bogs down in one place or the other and Obama takes the blame. I think the second scenario is more likely, as here the war issue would be pushed to the forefront and he could be brought in as a potential savior.

If, on the other hand, the US "wins" in Afghanistan and Iraq, then bringing back the conquering general to lead the country would only be likely if national security issues were felt the defining issues of the election, which would require the rise of another national security threat such as Russia or Iran that eclipses things like jobs, energy, global warming, health care, etc. I can't predict the future, but I see this as less likely.
I see a third scenario. Obama pulls out of Iraq and it descends into a hell hole....a possibility that I consider quite likely. This provides a major campaign point, namely that Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. If only Obama had followed the Bush/McCain strategy the mess would not have happened. But Obama has shamed America by causing a defeat in Iraq.

Enter Petraeus. He advocated for remaining in Iraq so was "right". He's thus an American hero.

The potency of this scenario depends entirely on the importance of Iraq in the years ahead. If domestic issues (read, the economy) dominate, it won't matter. If, however ironically, the Obama Administration is successful at home, foreign issues might come back into play.

Fun stuff, politics, eh?

[gdnp]

I see a third scenario. Obama pulls out of Iraq and it descends into a hell hole....a possibility that I consider quite likely. This provides a major campaign point, namely that Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. If only Obama had followed the Bush/McCain strategy the mess would not have happened. But Obama has shamed America by causing a defeat in Iraq.

This is, essentially, my second scenario. Iraq ends poorly and Obama takes the blame. This is most likely to benefit Petreus if he can claim that his advice was not followed, which works best if he resigns.

The potency of this scenario depends entirely on the importance of Iraq in the years ahead. If domestic issues (read, the economy) dominate, it won't matter. If, however ironically, the Obama Administration is successful at home, foreign issues might come back into play.
If the economy is doing well in 4 years, Obama will be reelected in a landslide. It is hard to imagine a pure foreign policy issue that would trump the economy. Energy issues might, but only because of their domestic effects.

Fun stuff, politics, eh?
No doubt.

[Darth Rotor]

Would I vote for him?

I can't rightly say.

I'd like to see his platform on anything other than defense. His defense policy I get, or can almost predict.

The rest? That is very important.

DR

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I think that there was a thread a while back asking about who would take over GOP leadership in the future. I can't seem to find that thread now, but I seem to recall discussion centered around Palin, Jindal and Gingrich. At the time it didn't occur to me, but once it does, he is the obvious frontrunner if he wants the job.

I predict that David Petraeus will be the next GOP nominee for president.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/David_H._Petraeus_2008_2.jpg/250px-David_H._Petraeus_2008_2.jpg

Petraeus!! :eye-poppi :eye-poppi Jeez, what a horrible thought.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Counterpunch is hardly a reliable news source.

Why not?

What news sources are reliable? None of the mainstream one's can be relied upon. I think you have to read a lot of sources from both the mainstream and the non-mainstream to get anywhere close.