Redstate

We're not aware of. Would putting him in this position be better if NATO came together for an attack on Iran? Though I know that won't be easy to put together if thats the case.

The premise underlying Pejman's post is faulty: the assumption that the Army officer corp is impervious to facts on the ground. General Petraeus' presence was vital when he was implementing an untested strategy, but now that it has been proven on the battlefield, what general would be stupid enough to alter it?

Commanders and staff officers change roles so much it's crazy, but that's the culture. Platoon leaders stay in their role for a year, maybe a little longer. Company and battalion commanders are for about 1.5 to 2 years. Given that this war is fought at the lowest levels Petraeus should be as interchangeable as the company grade officers. He is not winning the war, the strategy is.

This low-level fungability of the officer corps is one of the characteristics that makes the United States Army possibly the best organization of any kind in the World. That said, I share your concern that we're changing out Grant for McClellan. Petraeus' recommendation for a replacement is critical, and will likely mitigate all the risk.

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

is run for President! or be Fred's Veep!

Bush is making sure Petraeus gets the promotion and most important job before President Hillary takes over. Do you think she will give him the job after calling him a liar.

The NATO assignment is not a reward to Petraeus (though of course he deserves it) but a recognition of two facts:

1 The war in Iraq is won.

2 NATO forces (other than our troops) are failing in Aghanistan.

To take the second point first -- the problem with all those who would like to expand the military role to our allies, NATO, UN forces, whatever -- is simply that our forces are the only ones who are capable of fighting and winning in various ground wars in the WOT.

This has been discussed in some controversial remarks by SecDEF Gates in which he criticized NATO forces in Afghanistan. The reason is partly that NATO members are lagging in their commitment for domestic political reasons, partly that they have failed to keep up their force development, etc, in the post Cold War era.

Mostly, however, it is simply because they don't know how to fight and win counterinsurgency wars. In this regard, the surge in Iraq will be the new model for fighting COIN wars (previously the model was the ten-year war in Malaysia waged sucessfully by the UK). It will be studied for decades to come.

Gen Petraeus is, of course, the most prominent figure in the US military associated with COIN -- he wrote the manual and argued successfully that it should and could be applied to Iraq (the surge), going on to reverse the loss there into a victory. As such, he is uniquely suited to guide NATO into a bigger role in the WOT, which will involve developing their COIN capabilities.

Additionally, Gen Petraeus -- almost alone among American military and political figures in the Iraq war -- is widely admired in Europe for his brilliance and leadership. Simply put, we lost credibility with our allies for the failure in Iraq, and are regaining it with Petraeus.

As to point 1, we have won the war in Iraq, as I am sure the media will be admitting any day now....and while Gen Petraeus was key in that victory, we have a large number of tested and brilliant officers there, none more important to the victory than Gen Ray Odierno, commander of ground forces in Iraq. Hopefully he will be given Petraeus' position (commander MNF Iraq).

What we need to do now is apply the lessons of Iraq to other conflicts, it is in this way that Gen Petraeus can bring us victory in other fronts. It's possible our next conflict will be a more conventional type war, for example Iran, which would be a naval and air attack. To me it's far more likely that the next front will be Pakistan, along the border with Afghanista, where we will be fighting another COIN war.

So, this would be a very good development.

Let me add my usual wish here -- when Gen Petraeus returns to Washington in March to give his report on progress in Iraq, could we possibly treat him with the respect and gratitude he deserves? I can well understand that Democrats will try to play down his message -- in their alternate universe, their Presidential candidates are fighting over who will end combat and pull troops out first -- but perhaps Republicans and a few Democrats could get together and allow a more dignified and appropriate presentation.

This, after all, is the greatest American general since World War II reporting on a crucial victory. Could we perhaps dispense with the attacks, the hostility, the antiwar rants? I would suggest a report to a joint session of Congress, or failing that, a more dignified hearing before the Senate Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations.

You should never withhold a promotion from somebody because they are doing their job too well. Yes Iraq is important. Yes we are turning it around. But the General has shown more than deserving of additional opportunities. If the problem is finding a suitable replacement, then that problem needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't prevent the General from moving up the ladder.

What we need to do is nominate him for President. I think he could easily win and he could bridge the divide in the party caused by Huckabee and his evangelicals against Romney. Nominate him and make Romney his Vice President. Romney has the economic experience and Patraes has the military and defense experience. What more could we ask for. I do not think the Democrats would stand a change. Or, we could nominate him with Condi as his Vice President.

One question is if Petraeus wants to extend beyond 12/08, which is when I think his tour in Iraq ends. If he doesn't, and he could have a range of excellent reasons not to, it would be foolish of the President and SECDEF to try to coerce him into another tour.

My guess is the choice is his--and if this sort of rumor is being floated it is not because anyone is trying to push him out of Iraq against his wishes.

He's also being considered to lead Centcom, where he'd then run everything the US is doing over in the Middle East. Hopefully this can push the Next pres to make him the head of the Joint Chiefs and then He can run for Pres in 2012 if we get a Dem in.

Cleaning up Bagdad is gonna look easy to cleaning up the shambles Obama and Clinton will create. We'll need F-16 to take out the Entitlement Province, Carrier Fleets for Nanny State Island, and brigage upon brigade to clear up the white christian reprograming camps the ACLU and HuffPo will push to create.