David Petraeus: Return of the Warrior Scholar, part 2

Three men ultimately reversed the wanton disregard for tradition and
character in the Iraq invasion: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Gen.
David Petraeus and Adm. Bill McRaven. Like Eisenhower and Co., they did
not start the war and were not in place when the world fell apart, but
were called on in the interim to put it back together. It is not by
accident that all true historic periods end with a great leader and a
great general (Jefferson/Washington, Lincoln/Grant,
Roosevelt/Eisenhower). It is nature’s way of repealing the unraveling
and putting things back in place with structure and authority so the
world can start again at a new beginning. Petraeus is Mitt Romney’s man
for that and should be his choice for VP. It is the choice of strength
and American structure and karma today needs strengthening, if not
complete restructuring.

Worth repeating, “David Petraeus, The Return of the Warrior Scholar,” The Hill’s Pundits Blog, 2/03/09:

“Reports are that he got the most applause when he flipped the coin to start the Super Bowl on Sunday. I, for one, out of the 90 million who watched, was a little surprised to see him. But it didn’t seem a bad fit. The adults are in charge, my wife commented.

{mosads}“If Petraeus’s political stock rises in the next two years, and I expect it will, he can thank the Democrats. Because Petraeus [he has a Ph.D. from Princeton] represents the return of the warrior scholar to public policy. Warrior-scholar is a way big improvement over Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld or even Gen. William Westmoreland and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara of the Vietnam War. It is an ancient concept but new to our period. And it was first brought [back] to public service in our time by Wesley Clark [a Rhodes scholar] when he ran for president in 2004.

“Jim Webb, the intriguing Democratic senator and novelist from Virginia, is another warrior scholar and would have added some veritas and cojones to the unbearable lightness of being that characterizes the fledgling Obama administration. [Note: Obama might turn to him now.] Does this Obama team with its Wall Street refugees and lace-curtain tax cheats in funny glasses and Ivy League waifs and Harvard Law Review types have an aversion to warriors like Tammy Duckworth, Wes Clark, Jim Webb and Joe Sestak? Are they afraid of soldiers? Do they have a ‘veteran’s slot’ where they put their token soldier over in the corner in a small office without a window?”

And from Michael Brenner’s ”I Petraeus,” Huffington Post, 8/16/11:

“Petraeus, as CIA Director, is operating in a foreign policy environment that leaves much room for individual initiative. His counterpart at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta, is known less for his subtlety and bureaucratic skills than his heavy-handed use of the hammer. He has none of Robert Gates’ suave manner and gravitas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is vocal on a selective basis, travels relentlessly, but lacks both a coherent strategic vision and diplomatic finesse. As for the National Security Council apparatus, it is the marked by weak leadership, thin expertise and a view of the country’s external relations shaped by domestic political considerations. That leaves President Obama. His recent abject performance on the debt ceiling issue underscores the distinguishing traits of his person and his presidency. He is indecisive, yields to the pressure of those more willful than he, and has few pronounced views on any matter other than an all-consuming desire to occupy the White House until January 2017. Within 48 hours of the dramatic surrender to the Tea Party, and its profound consequences hitting home, he was prowling the moneyed precincts of Chicago and Hollywood on the hunt for big bucks from fat cat contributors. … For a man of ambition like Petraeus, it is a tempting — irresistible? — opportunity.”