Personally I think this story is far from being ripe enough for the picking, at least absent some sort of public statement from the subject, but a certain high profile general seems to be planning a trip to Iowa in 2010. (Edit: Original version said Idaho.)
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General [David] Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.
Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.
Back in August of 2008, before the disastrous selection of Sarah Palin, I suggested that John McCain might do well to place a call to General Petraeus and find out if he was considering retirement. (And I wasn’t the only one.) If so, he could have made the ideal VP candidate for the GOP ticket. So is this move actually an indication that the general is considering a promotion all the up to Commander in Chief? Anything is possible, I’m sure, but it could also simply be a way for Petraeus to remain active in public service and contribute to the public discourse. After all, he is also going to be speaking at commencement addresses at Princeton, Harvard and M.I.T.
Our history with military commanders moving to the West Wing has been somewhat hit and miss. Eisenhower is still regarded as one of the greatest presidents of all time, though personally I feel that’s a bit too generous of a ranking. George Washington was a general, of course, but it fell on him to pretty much define the presidency so that’s something of an exceptional case. U.S. Grant was not just a general, but a hero of the American Civil War, but his tenure as President is widely viewed as nothing short of disastrous. Plenty of other presidents have military experience and they served with varying degrees of success. (Jimmy Carter, anyone?)
What sort of chance would Petraeus have in 2012 and what qualifications would he bring to the table? Popularity isn’t even a question as he has become a widely admired figure across the country. He can also lay claim to far more experience than just being a “grunt with a gun.” (Note: Yes… I’m aware of the colloquial meaning of “grunt” but the alliteration worked for me.) In his most recent positions, Petraeus has had to work with and organize coalitions of frequently adversarial forces and deal with the leaders of many nations. But will that translate into a prima facie resume of one who is “ready to lead” on day one in Washington?
There seems to be no question that we will still be at war in 2012, at least in Afghanistan. But the sense of a “nation at war” has been on the decline in the United States for some time. The voters are weary of our conflicts overseas and hawkish sentiments are in retreat. Proof of this can be found by looking no further than the election of President Obama. If the nation wanted a warrior in command, John McCain would currently be wrestling with the economic meltdown. So would the voters choose to send a general to lead the nation if the economy is still issue number one in three years? Barring another attack on our soil and the opening of a third front in the war, I think Petraeus could be looking at a long, tough primary fight.
Our exit question should be, is Petraeus even a Republican? I can’t find any published statements about the man’s politics anywhere. The general has wisely stayed out of the political fray, since dipping a toe in that pool could undermine his credibility and ability to lead the military. The default assumption, however, seems to be that he’d sign on with the GOP. Time alone will tell, but David Petraeus has certainly earned the type of respect and acclaim which should offer him many options once his military career is completely wrapped up.