±«Óãtv

It was a tricky moment but President Obama has got this one right.

Sacking McChrystal looked tough. But on its own it would have been a move fraught with danger.

The risk was great. He could have been accused of sacrificing the best man for the job, undermining the war effort because of a few ill-chosen remarks.  

Picking Petraeus was smart and neutralised that threat. Even the . Leading Republican John Boehner said he was the right man for the job.

The man nicknamed "Peaches" when he was a cadet at West Point is something of a darling of the politicians on the Hill, the hero of the Iraq surge, which allowed America to pull itself out of the maelstrom. 

By choosing McChrystal's boss he has avoided charges that he's sacked the most senior man available. He's actually found somebody with more experience.

The strategy at risk? The president's plan is pretty close to  McChrystal's enthusiastic six-page document outlining a counter terrorism strategy for Afghanistan.

So what? Petraeus wrote the book. Literally. Or at least the which says "Soldiers and Marines are expected to be nation builders as well as warriors. They must be prepared to help re-establish institutions and local security forces and assist in rebuilding infrastructure and basic services. They must be able to facilitate establishing local governance and the rule of law."

Petreaus is also judged to be a very good politician, although he constantly denies he has ambitions to actually become one and run for president as a Republican. 

I suspect that part of the reason that the decision to fire McChrystal was because Obama felt pushed around and manipulated by the Pentagon in the past, and he wasn't going to let a general get away with it again. 

In the book I mentioned yesterday, , Jonathan Alter argues Obama forgave McChrystal for , because he thought he was being used as a pawn by Petreaus to box him in to sending more troops to Afghanistan. 

If that is the case at least now he'll be dealing with the organ grinder, not the monkey.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?