Where will Petraeus go? Military analysts who have worked with the commander say he has long been interested in commanding U.S. forces in Europe--the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, SACEUR--a post currently held by Adm. John Stavridis. Some twenty-five years ago, Petraeus served as a speechwriter to then-SACEUR Gen. John Galvin, a defense analyst said, and Petraeus has been intrigued by the job since.Very few people have been discussing publicly that General Petraeus has been struggling with prostate cancer while Commander in Afghanistan. He has undergone radiation treatment and is in recovery, but it is one reason why many have described the General as tired.
Another military analyst who has recently interacted with Petraeus in Afghanistan said Petraeus is worn out, and still recovering from prostate cancer.
"Petraeus is tired, really exhausted," the defense analyst said on condition of anonymity. "He stepped into the breach, and I think the plan was for him to come in and serve out the remainder of McChrystal's time. But McChrystal was well rested when he took the job. Petraeus is still recovering from cancer. He went from one extremely high-stress position to another."
Petraeus' departure from Afghanistan--likely in the summer--"has been in the works," the analyst said.
Although some national security hands have heard a rumor that Petraeus might be tapped for CIA director if--as many expect--CIA Director Leon Panetta is nominated to succeed Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense analysts close to the commander say they have a hard time imagining it. Petraeus "has spent his whole career caring about the military as an institution," one source said. He doesn't have that relationship with the civilian intelligence agency. Then again, the admittedly "bizarre" rumor persists.
A spokesman for Petraeus did not respond to queries on the general's plans.
I don't buy the "General is tired" argument, because I note that most of the people who describe General Petraeus as being tired come from the political side, not the military side. It would appear the further you are from the General the more tired he apparently is, which also suggests to me the "tired, worn out General" line of thinking is simply a political tactic towards planting doubt about the Generals health.
There is a reason for this. Within the next few weeks the President is going to announce the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and begin the process of political shuffling that puts new faces in new places in the top military positions around the globe. Everything is riding on who takes the top position.
Until March 16, the top name in the hat was General Cartwright, but on March 16 two very prominent Senators went to the White House and warned the Obama administration that General Cartwright was political poison. The President was warned that the sexual harassment investigation that barely got any traction in the news cycle will become a major issue in the appointment process, and will result in no votes not only on the floor, but also in committee. The Obama administration was warned that this will become a major political issue, and the cost for the appointment of General Cartwright will be high.
I imagine this was a blow to the Obama administration, because General Cartwright was their guy. While General Cartwright is supremely qualified as a military leader, the key is that General Cartwright has been the face of so many major military policy decisions made by the Obama administration. He has been the President's man out front on the political issues related to the Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense, Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, and Guantanamo Bay to name just a few examples. General Cartwright has been nothing short of brilliant as Vice Chairman, and has proven to have the political savvy necessary to navigate the trenches in addressing several of the Obama administrations most controversial policies related to the DoD.
But everything I am hearing says General Cartwright is 100% out, and will be going home. The Obama administration will not defend the investigation findings and punishments (or lack of) assigned to General Cartwright following the conduct investigation. Apparently I know this and Laura Rozen didn't when she wrote the article, which is probably the first time I knew something she didn't on all this inside baseball.
In theory, that would make Admiral Stavridis the only choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but not so fast. In a recent turn of events, there is a hard push being made to recommend the appointment of General Petraeus Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the suggestion being he has earned it. It is impossible to argue he has not earned it, he is clearly the most important General in the United States since Eisenhower, and I don't think that is even in debate. That doesn't mean it is a done deal.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a political job as much as a military job, and perhaps more so. There is some evidence that the Obama administration is resistant to the suggested appointment of General Petraeus, and it has a lot to do with Colin Powell.
If you recall, Bill Clinton kept a very popular General named Colin Powell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had a hard time controlling him due to his indenpedent credibility. The problem any administration faces when appointing a remarkably very popular General like Petraeus is that their credibility is independent, so if the popular military leader publicly disagrees with the President on a military policy it creates a serious political problem that potentially undermines the President as Commander in Chief.
There is a lot of speculation that President Obama lacks the credibility with the DoD to take the chance in appointing General Petraeus to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm not sure what to make of that argument, because it begins with a premise that President Obama is too weak to appoint a strong, independently politically credible leader as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm not sure I believe that though, because it would not match the facts when looking at other appointments, like Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton, for example.
With that said, there is a lot of chatter going around that plants quiet, very subtle doubt about the ability of General Petraeus, and whenever I see it (like in the Laura Rozen article) I tend to think this is part of an effort to keep General Petraeus out of Washington, or at least not as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff until after the election... just in case.
Ultimately, I think the Obama administration is stuck either way. If General Petraeus is not appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and at some point someone asks him if he is interested in the job and he says yes, then President Obama is going to be exposed to remarkable criticism for the way he treats America's most popular General since Eisenhower, particularly after General Petraeus took over Afghanistan in what was at the time a political crisis. On the flip side, if General Petraeus does get the nomination, then the President does take some risk for facing a serious problem should at any point the two men seriously disagree on a big military issue in public. I don't think the risk on the second point is very high, but it can't be dismissed either.
So basically there are two scenarios coming, and I include the position of Chief of Naval Operations because it is bound to the decision. The first scenario is if General Petraeus gets the CJCS appointment:
CJCS - General Petraeus
VCJCS - Admiral Willard
CNO - Admiral Stavridis
The second scenario is if Admiral Stavridis gets the CJCS appointment:
CJCS - Admiral Stavridis
VCJCS - Unknown
CNO - Admiral Willard
EUCOM - General Petraeus
For the record, Admiral Walsh is heading to PACOM and Admiral Bird is heading to Pacific Fleet.
Speaking for myself, I think both Admiral Stavridis and Admiral Willard would be great for CNO. I have nothing but good things to say about Admiral Stavridis, and quite frankly I think he is the best Admiral of this generation.
My only concern about Admiral Willard is that if you look closely at the Navy Flag promotions from those in the Pacific, the Carrier Admirals get every single good position that prepares them for career advancement while the Amphib Admirals get sent to career ending places. A better mix at the high end would be smarter, and that record says a lot of things about Admiral Willard that I think creates a perception he should, and I believe ultimately can address.
No comments:
Post a Comment