I have been following Gen. Petraeus’s career with concern and dismay ever since he became the most recognizable face of the U.S. military late in the Bush administration. His role in the “surge,” his supposedly amazing doctrine of “counterinsurgency,” his appearance on the Daily Show (where Jon Stewart was absolutely fawning) — all this resulted in presidential speculation among our media elites. For reasons of general anti-militarism, I did not find the prospect of a President Petraeus appealling, especially when he appeared to be inappropriately opposing Obama’s foreign policy early in the term.
Thus I was relieved when Obama appointed him to head the CIA — i.e., pushing him out of the military and into a role where a public profile was obviously inappropriate, tainting him in the eyes of maniacal Republican primary voters, and basically making a 2012 presidential run impossible. My assumption is that the plan was to keep him around until they could find some bullshit reason to get rid of him altogether, and lo and behold, mere days after the election we find out that Petraeus has committed a heinous crime almost unheard-of among powerful men: marital infidelity! Surely he must resign in disgrace!
What do you think, dear readers? Am I reading too much 11-dimensional chess into this series of events? Does it smack of the “Chicago-style politics” that — in our heart of hearts — we can only wish Obama were actually capable of?