Keep Eyes On Petraeus: Could Be the Republicans' Wesley Clark of 2012

There is informal discussion among some in the military set -- and increasingly among some pols -- that General David Petraeus could be an interesting presidential prospect on the Republican side of the line a few years from now.

This is all speculation -- very little grounded in anything serious -- but the prospects of a "draft Petraeus" plan, though embryonic, triggered a Chatham House rules discussion today that I participated in in Chicago after I brought up Bill Gertz's "Draft Tommy Franks for VP in 2008" article that appeared today.

To get a sense of how "not" viable the Gertz proposal is, re-read Spencer Ackerman's article on General Franks from August 2004 titled "Vision Impaired."

But the same is not true of US Commander in Iraq David Petraeus -- no matter what the outcome of his testimony before Congress in September on the results of the surge or the long-term outcome of the Iraq War.

In fact, Petraeus may actually be helped in any hidden presidential aspirations he may hold if things continue to deteriorate in Iraq and the Dems take the White House in November 2008.

The scenario runs something like this.

Petraeus -- who both Dems and Republicans liked when he was perceived to be a highly competent, underappreciated expert on counter-insurgency and who was punished by Rumsfeld and exiled far from the front line action to do his work in Leavenworth, Kansas -- won't be blamed for the deteriorating mess in Iraq.

Things continue to go badly. Petraeus holds his finger in the dyke preventing total breakdown in Iraq and convulsing violence, but the Dems win the White House in 2008. Let's just say Hillary Clinton wins, but I think the scenario holds for either Edwards or Obama.

Hillary Clinton and two chambers of Congress are now fully responsible for unwinding the Iraq War and managing America's position in the Middle East. No matter how one looks at the problem, there is no silver bullet solution to preserve America's interests where they were. There will be costs. Some Sunni governments in the region could fall. A regional conflagration could begin to heat up. A high-level assassination of a moderate Sunni Arab leader in Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia could start a raging new regional, if not global, war.

But not even considering the more nasty, sensational scenarios -- Clinton or Obama or Edwards and their Democratic partners in Congress are going to have a terrible mess that will likely deteriorate further before some equilibrium is found.

There will be "plenty" by that time to blame on Hillary and the Dems in the Middle East -- and thus, a new balanced, more pragmatic and judicious voice is needed -- someone who understands how to deploy power and understands the evolving contours of non-state, radicalized, Islamic extremist violence.

He may be earning his political chits with Bush and company now.

Petraeus would be the Republican's version of a Wesley Clark -- a new Eisenhower. . .perhaps (though one senior retired military friend of mine nearly tossed it up when the comparison to Eisenhower whom he admires came up).

There are lots of problems with this scenario, but some folks are beginning to chew on it. Watch for David Petraeus in 2012. And watch for him to tell reporters who ask him about this, "I have no intentions to run for president at this time. . . "

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[Superfelo]

We so desperately love to grasp at straws.
Let's build bricks without straws.
Or is this a plant of his publicist?
As for Wesley Clark he reminds me of Roger Rabbit.
But you paint a nice frame.

[ajax2]

I'm a Democrat who never liked Gen. Betrayus. If Bush picked him to promote a never ending presence in Iraq what values could he possibly have. I'd take any recently fired General over him.

[Ladyrantsalot]

The major problem with this scenario is that if Iraq and/or parts of the Middle East get even worse than they are now, Petraeus will be strongly identified with that failure. Loser generals don't get elected president; only winner generals get elected president. So, Iraq would have to end well for Petraeus to be considered for the top job. And, if Iraq ends well by 2012, that is likely to result in reelection for whoever is in office at the time. Them's my 2 bits.

[InFRAUDweTRUST]

He may be annointed by the GOP to lead the coup against the activist white house.

[GenericBlogger]

General Petraeus' accomplishments are modest at best.

Labeling as a "new Eisenhower" is a spin even some spin doctors would balk at. This is something Rove would concoct.

More time is needed before Petraeus earns sufficient success and viability as a credible future presidential candidate.

[MordechaiShiblikov]

You couldn't be more right. Petraeus is the classic military ticket puncher. He knows the occupation is a disaster of historic proportions. However, wanting to be a five star general and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he must fashion some web of lies that that the pimps in the MSM will then sell to a largely uninformed public, claiming yet again that The Surge is successful, we are winning, we are victorious. No General Westmoreland he. After he accomplishes these personal career ambitions, he will retire and go into politics. He will start at the top, the presidency. A Republican, naturally. In the meantime, the troops he commands are dying for nothing; so are the Iraqis. In reality, the man is beneath contempt.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think he's the poor sap that got sent in to clean up everyone else's screw-ups, he'll probably end up writing a book, and they'll find someone else to send in after him...but Iraq will go on and on and on until the Rich People get their oil wells...

[studioh!]

well, he would fit right in with the republican process - lockstep and all, take marching orders from the safe-at-home base, and lie and fudge to give sound bites of what is expected.
whatever happened to political backbone?
bring back the draft and we'll see how much trouble the military is able to get into.

[wayoutleft]

since chimpler is still waiting for the westmoreland report, to say nothing of the petraeus report, the actual course of events in the world at large shouldn't be any impediment to general-president. but watch the growing stable of gop ex-jocks for a left-field (sic) guy.

[TheDoomed]

Petraeus will be too linked to Iraq to run for a thing a that will be the new 4-letter word from now on. I'm sure you all noticed no generals made political hay off their involvement in Vietnam.

[TXfemmom]

What a stupid scenario. General Betrayus for President? He is a traitor to the country and the troops.

[cktirumalai]

The first President was of course the General of the Revolution, and after him Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and several other Presidents had been successful military leaders. But the only General-President of the last half century was Eisenhower (1953-61). This suggests to me that the modern American voter is wary of military leaders in the White House. It seems to depend too on how the public viewed the war with which a Presidential candidate was associated.

[win2kpro]

Screw Patraeus, he's just another bush lap dog that will say what the "decider" tells him to say.

Future Presidential or Vice Presidential material, NO WAY.


EDWARDS/CLARK IN '08

[aperson]

or sec. of defence ? cjcs ?

[aperson]

what about schwatzkoff for pres. ? just asking. i liked him.