Wednesday, June 23, 2010


Allahpundit at Hot Air on the Petraeus appointment:

Most of all, though, he's the perfect political cover. If Petraeus can turn things around in a year, wonderful; if he can't, the White House can use the fact that even Iraq's miracle worker is flailing as proof that Afghanistan is hopeless and that we shouldn't dump any more resources into it. Politically, for The One, it's all upside and very little downside whereas retaining McChrystal would have been the opposite. If he had kept Mac on and things didn't turn around, any decision down the road to withdraw would be challenged by hawks on grounds that McChrystal was too weak from this incident to stand up to Obama and make the case for extending the mission. That's gone now. Petraeus is the face of the mission going forward, which makes it hard for anyone ... to object to whatever happens down the road.

How did you figure that, A.P.?

I say it's just the opposite: if Petraeus, who walks on water according to all informed Beltway sources, can't make this work, that's even more evidence that hippie America-hater Obama's timetable and hatred for the military are the real problems, not the strategy or its execution. McChrystal could have shared some of the blame if he'd stayed on; Petraeus, by definition, can't, because, well, he's God, isn't he? I say that with the Petraeus appointment, Obama's putting himself at risk of looking even worse when the withdrawal deadline comes around. (Then again, I assume he'll just punt and extend the deadline, to avoid trouble.)

But I'll tell you this: my ideal president is someone who actually is as brilliant a schemer and conniver as every Republican believes every Democrat is.


(And yeah, I used "fiendishly clever" in two post titles today. So sue me.)

No comments: