The Risky Bet on Petraeus
President Obama was aware that the removal of McChrystal was risky. The insolent general has been the architect and executor of the new military strategy in Afghanistan, developed last autumn. Although it is true that the strategy has not yet produced the expected results, Obama has faith in it and believes that there is, at present, no alternative.
For this reason, and to minimize the destabilization that could mean a relay in the military leadership at a delicate time, the president opted for the military man with a profile more similar to McChrystal: Gen. David Petraeus. The prize-winning officer is not only considered the mentor of McChrystal, but he also participated actively in the design of the new strategy, inspired by his success in decapitating the Iraqi insurgency.
Therefore, the bet on Petraeus is the best decision that the Obama administration could have made in the short term. In addition, the popularity of the general will be good to silence, or at least to weaken, the criticism on the Afghan adventure that is starting to resonate between the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party and those who would like to speed up the withdrawal.
However, at the same time, the choice of Petraeus also entails long-term risks given the fact that his popularity may boomerang for the White House if in the future Obama and the general disagree on the direction of the strategy to follow in the Afghanistan mess.
As a matter of fact, during his last appearance with Congress, Petraeus offered lukewarm support for the withdrawal plan for next summer. Although he did not say it explicitly, it was possible to read between the lines that, as in Iraq, the general prefers that the conditions on the ground determine when to initiate the withdrawal — not a predetermined plan.
The bet is dangerous not only for Obama, but also for Petraeus. After delivering a 180 degree turn on the situation in Iraq, saving Bush's furnishings, Petraeus is expected to do the same with Obama in another mess in Afghanistan. If everything goes well, Petraeus will go down in history as one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the USA. However, if he is not able to win in the Asian country, his golden image of a great strategist will be ruined.
Therefore, Petraeus has great interest in the Afghan campaign continuing as long as needed to succeed; while Obama, by electoral convenience and in view of the pressures from Democrats, is rumored to begin withdrawing troops if not in the summer of 2011, before the elections of 2012. An evaluation of the strategy in Afghanistan is predicted for next December. Will the Petraeus-Obama marriage last until 2011?
For this reason, and to minimize the destabilization that could mean a relay in the military leadership at a delicate time, the president opted for the military man with a profile more similar to McChrystal: Gen. David Petraeus. The prize-winning officer is not only considered the mentor of McChrystal, but he also participated actively in the design of the new strategy, inspired by his success in decapitating the Iraqi insurgency.
Therefore, the bet on Petraeus is the best decision that the Obama administration could have made in the short term. In addition, the popularity of the general will be good to silence, or at least to weaken, the criticism on the Afghan adventure that is starting to resonate between the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party and those who would like to speed up the withdrawal.
However, at the same time, the choice of Petraeus also entails long-term risks given the fact that his popularity may boomerang for the White House if in the future Obama and the general disagree on the direction of the strategy to follow in the Afghanistan mess.
As a matter of fact, during his last appearance with Congress, Petraeus offered lukewarm support for the withdrawal plan for next summer. Although he did not say it explicitly, it was possible to read between the lines that, as in Iraq, the general prefers that the conditions on the ground determine when to initiate the withdrawal — not a predetermined plan.
The bet is dangerous not only for Obama, but also for Petraeus. After delivering a 180 degree turn on the situation in Iraq, saving Bush's furnishings, Petraeus is expected to do the same with Obama in another mess in Afghanistan. If everything goes well, Petraeus will go down in history as one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the USA. However, if he is not able to win in the Asian country, his golden image of a great strategist will be ruined.
Therefore, Petraeus has great interest in the Afghan campaign continuing as long as needed to succeed; while Obama, by electoral convenience and in view of the pressures from Democrats, is rumored to begin withdrawing troops if not in the summer of 2011, before the elections of 2012. An evaluation of the strategy in Afghanistan is predicted for next December. Will the Petraeus-Obama marriage last until 2011?