Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PETRAEUS FOR PREZ?
I tend to be less afraid of a future Petraeus presidential candidacy than Spencer is. It's not merely that I don't think it's likely to happen (his moment is now, not four years from now), but I don't think it's likely to succeed. Petraeus isn't Eisenhower. He's a popular war general of a basically small war. People like him, but unless they write for The Weekly Standard, they don't have much invested in him. So he won't get a pass by virtue of our psychological dependence on his presence (as Eisenhower did). Moreover, unlike Ike, he'd have to drop into the modern campaign, a grueling, seemingly endless, process. What happens the first time he's grilled about health care? About ethanol? About global warming? About taxes? About his wife, his kids, some stuff he said 20 years ago? If we've learned nothing else over the past 12 months, it's that the endless campaign takes the sheen off even the most gleaming candidates. America's Mayor is polling fourth in Florida and its District Attorney just dropped out of the race. The frontrunners are the two who could best be described as career politicians. It's what the process selects for.
COMMENTS (11)
"Basically a small war" seems a rather callous statement. maybe "small" cos it aint touching US soil or occupying column inches any more, but i am pretty sure that the long-term damage done to American credibility can hardly be counted as "small."
Posted by: europhobe | January 23, 2008 7:20 AM
Petreaus is not a commanding, Eisenhower- or McArthur-like presence. There is an air of the Princeton/Woodrow Wilson school policy wonk about him.
The best you can say about him is that he postponed for a year the inevitable defeat in a war that should never have been fought.
Posted by: bob h | January 23, 2008 7:56 AM
war? ..there is no war to be lost. We won the war. What we have now is something different.
He is presiding over an occupation. His job is to reduce the cost of that occupation to make it less of a political burden.
There are no military objectives to obtain, no more territory to claim from the enemy. Its an excercise in turning our combat troops into policeman.
He doesnt reach that pinnacle of public fame because Iraq doesnt. Likeable and successful as he may be, you can only jump so high when your springboard (Iraq) is so low in public opinion.
Posted by: david b | January 23, 2008 10:35 AM
Given that most Americans are not engaged in the war on Iraq like they were during WWII (working in defense plants, military service, rationing, etc) they don't really know who the players are - all we see is Bush, Saddam, some Shite & Sunni guys, flavor of the month US general.
And no one except Bush believes we are "winning" the war, so Petraus is going to have to sell himself extra hard.
Posted by: CParis | January 23, 2008 10:40 AM
perhaps he will be content to have "the petraeus report" on fox news like oliver north...and be a guest with wolf blitzer like haig and schwarzkopf (sp) have been.
has he written a book yet?
Posted by: jacqueline | January 23, 2008 11:22 AM
Petraeus is a less well qualified Wesley Clark. A marginally successful leader in a disastrous and unpopular war. That's why we had President Creighton Adams in the 1970s.
Posted by: Sir Charles | January 23, 2008 11:43 AM
Less well qualified than Wesley Clark? The conqueror of Bosnia Herzegovina? That shallow pretty boy Clinton suckup? Petraeus is brave, stunningly intelligent, competent and modest to boot. Wesley Clark is not fit to carry his toupe box!
Posted by: Yan D. Kamecki | January 23, 2008 9:23 PM
How can a big helping of "led the Irag occupation" on the resume possibly be attractive in 2012? By then it will be clear even to the 30 percenters of the 30 percenters that the Surge was a con.
The only thing I can figure is that the same ability for serious suspension of disbelief necessary to have accepted this assignment 12 months ago is driving him to think he'll ever be President
Posted by: stuck in 200 | January 23, 2008 11:18 PM
"led the IRAQ occupation" won't be a big selling point either.
Posted by: stuck in 200 | January 23, 2008 11:19 PM
The thing to remember is that being a successful politician at the national level actually takes a lot of skill. Now, this may not precisely be the skill-set we desire most in our leaders, but in general the people running the country are pretty good at getting elected.
It's not easy for people-- even formidable, likable people-- to come in from other walks of life and compete at that level. Wes Clark had the perfect bio, but he flat out lacked the political chops to mount a serious candidacy. Petraeus may be likewise.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | January 23, 2008 11:54 PM
If Clinton wins this year, Republicans might go for a Rice/Boykin ticket in 2012 but not Petraeus.
Posted by: realist | January 24, 2008 2:41 AM