General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Petraeus v Obama [View all]H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Petraeus was 100% for counterinsurgency; the CIA's big program involved drones. Neither one, of course, could possibly change the realities in Afghanistan. President Obama's focus on drones is something I'm uncomfortable with, but I do appreciate that it is done with the full understanding that drones cannot defeat the opposition ....they can only, with other actions, degrade the opposition's force and momentum.
Putting Petraeus at CI was, in a real sense, a demotion, despite claims to the opposite. It was also an attempt to get him invested in President Obama'a policies. This includes reducing the chances to drag his feet as he had been doing in the previous position.
Also, I think it's important to consider Pakistan. A real counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan would require more involvement in the mountains between these two countries. One need only remember Vietnam, as VP Biden repeatedly told Obama, to see what that path leads to. Add to that the time Cheney-Bush had sent a special operations team into Pakistan, to target a high-value "camp." (I know that I'm rambling on and on here, but put Obama's sending the exact same type of group after Usama bin Laden.) This mission, still largely not discussed by our media, failed violently and miserably. It raised tensions in the region. If I remember correctly, it was on 9-3-08. Had the Obama "raid" failed in a similar fashion, he'd have been done.
Also, keep in mind that by 2010, the neoconservative branch of the republican party was promoting Petraeus as the best possible 2012 candidate to challenge President Obama. He enjoyed having reporters ask him if he was considering running. In fact, he seemed to encourage such speculation.