Ahmed Rashid piece in FT. Naturally, he argues for a negotiated endgame that includes the Taliban. So Petraeus is seen as a dangerous man:
For weeks there has been a spectre haunting European corridors of power. That spectre is David Petraeus. Since he stepped in last month as head of combined US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, many European governments have feared the US general would try and extend the time and scope of the military surge to give US forces a better chance of winning over the Pashtun population in the south and delivering a knock-out blow to the Taliban.
This is exactly what he is signalling . . .
What I hear again and again in many circles: the realist Petraeus is prepping the political battlefield with the idealist Obama, with the hard news to be delivered after the November election. Suitably chastened by a new GOP House, Petraeus will be a hard man to turn down--without empowering him as a possible 2012 opponent.
I still consider Petraeus more of a 2016 possibility, but I would drop my support for Obama in a heartbeat if this scenario came to pass.
Don't get me wrong: I see Obama as the avatar of a slew of philosopher-kings we're likely to elect over the next couple of decades. I just Petraeus being a more full-up package, with my dream ticket complete with Bloomberg as Veep.
Do I expect Petraeus would do anything to serve his own political interests before that of his command? Absolutely not. He's not that dumb.
But the Obama White House?
Hmmm. It's one thing to seek such power; quite another to lose it.