If General Petraeus would run...

[Farnan]

If General Petraeus would retire in 2011 and launch a bid for the Presidency, would you vote for him?

Now this is hypothetical, as General Petraeus stated he will not run.

Note, besides his military background he will be the first President in at least 50 years to possess an earned (rather than honorary) doctorate, having one in International Relations from Princeton. He has stated that politically he is a Rockefeller Republican which means he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[hellheaven1987]

He needs to at least finish Afghanistan before he even tries to run election; from now, I don't see the war over before 2012, however.

[Haldred]

I don't know anything about him, is there a place I can read about his political ideologies? I wouldn't just vote for someone for having being cool.

[Hotspur]

Retiring to run for the presidency while his troops are still engaged in active combat operations in Afghanistan would destroy any chance of even winning the primaries. So no, I would not vote for him in those circumstances. Ask me again in 2016.

[Farnan]

Retiring to run for the presidency while his troops are still engaged in active combat operations in Afghanistan would destroy any chance of even winning the primaries. So no, I would not vote for him in those circumstances. Ask me again in 2016.

Ok, how about the circumstance in his retirement is a major disagreement on Afghanistan policy (only way I can see the hypothetical situation happening).

[Hotspur]

Ok, how about the circumstance in his retirement is a major disagreement on Afghanistan policy (only way I can see the hypothetical situation happening).

His job is to salute smartly and accomplish his mission. I cannot see any scenario is which he is no longer in uniform, troops are still in Afghanistan and he has even a shred of political viability.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

His job is to salute smartly and accomplish his mission. I cannot see any scenario is which he is no longer in uniform, troops are still in Afghanistan and he has even a shred of political viability.

Think "MacArthur". He was relieved of command and had very strong public backing.



That dude was a BAMF

[Corvis]

That dude was a BAMF

If by BAMF you mean ridiculously unstable and the closest America was to initiating a massive nuclear war on another country during the Korean War, yeah he was pretty cool.

(Dr. Strangelove's General Ripper wasn't just a fictional character)

If Petraeus ran as an independent, I'd vote for him. If he ran as a Republican, and somehow managed to keep his dignity, I'd vote for him. If he ran as a Democrat... Well, it would depend on how useless the party still is.

[hellheaven1987]

Ok, how about the circumstance in his retirement is a major disagreement on Afghanistan policy (only way I can see the hypothetical situation happening).

That just shows his incompetent to cooperate with his boss, and I don't have confidence with this type of person.

[skh1]

Ok, how about the circumstance in his retirement is a major disagreement on Afghanistan policy (only way I can see the hypothetical situation happening).

This brings George B. McClellan to mind.

Who, one might ask?

Exactly.

[Marechal Ney]

Hmm...

If there was no Democratic Candidate, and it was Petraeus vs, for instance, Sarah Palin or another Tea Party leader...well...I would actually spend dozens of hours of my time and hundreds of dollars to campaign for Petraeus...

Of course, all hypothetical. Firstly, he won't run. Secondly, if he did I would prefer a Democratic candidate to him (unless it was an ULTRA Blue Dog, very socially conservative but slightly economically liberal Democrat...Reagen era Republicans are better than those guys).

[Phier]

Actually I don't see him retiring while there is still combat to be a problem as he is retiring to become the CIC, not to shill for Brill Cream.

It would be basically saying 'I need to be higher up to do this right.'

[Fluttershy]

I would describe myself as independent but slightly left leaning... If Petraeus ran on a socially liberal fiscally conservative platform he would get my vote...

[SinerAthin]

Not until the conflict in the East is won.

[Farnan]

Umm... Any American who knows even an overview of our history knows who George B. McClellan is.

Difference is McClellan was a bad general.

[skh1]

But not everyone here is from America.

The historical parallel suggested is a military commander running against his current commander. It's the only example in American history that comes my to mind.

General Petraeus has already ruled out a run in 2012 as you've noted and so has never explained his position on any of the pressing issues of the day. On what are we to base our decision to vote for him? Because he is an effective military commander?

A good bet in Eisenhower's case, less so in Grant's.

To answer your question then, tell me your views on foreign and domestic policy, General Petraeus, and will see.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

This scenario would indeed beg the McClellan comparison.

Umm... Any American who knows even an overview of our history knows who George B. McClellan is.

Difference is McClellan was a bad general.

McClellan wasn't a bad General, he was just very cautious and indecisive. His specialty was logistics; while this would help the Union war effort a lot, he had no business commanding an entire army.

[Col. Tartleton]

This scenario would indeed beg the McClellan comparison.



McClellan wasn't a bad General, he was just very cautious and indecisive. His specialty was logistics; while this would help the Union war effort a lot, he had no business commanding an entire army.

Exactly. The Union should have had McClellan as Secretary of War or simply left as General in Chief. He never should have had a field command. Any given blood and guts colonel like Sherman could have held things down better (and Sherman was not right in the head for much of the war.) What they needed was someone with balls. Lee had the balls to throw meager amounts of troops against much larger formations. McClellan could hardly be convinced to use superior forces against inferior ones when he had then on the run. McClellan thought way too highly of southern commanders to be effective. He thought everything was a ruse. He was a good man and an effective commander, but you can't have an Eisenhower who doesn't have the spine to win the war.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

This scenario would indeed beg the McClellan comparison.



McClellan wasn't a bad General, he was just very cautious and indecisive. His specialty was logistics; while this would help the Union war effort a lot, he had no business commanding an entire army.

My impression of McClellan, and I could be wrong, was that he really did not believe in the war, and was basically digging his heels in yelling STOP! In other words, he did not like to see his men die, or like to kill his fellow americans (csa), which made him indecisive and cautious. And ironically, that lead to even more americans dieing in the end. Now I want to go watch Gods and Generals and Gettysburg....

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

My impression of McClellan, and I could be wrong, was that he really did not believe in the war, and was basically digging his heels in yelling STOP! In other words, he did not like to see his men die, or like to kill his fellow americans (csa), which made him indecisive and cautious. And ironically, that lead to even more americans dieing in the end. Now I want to go watch Gods and Generals and Gettysburg....

To an extend that is true. Keep in mind that in the North there were various factions that were aganist the war for various reasons.

Many hated the draft, as it was pretty terrible then. The rich could easily dodge it by paying for replacements; many famous industrialists like JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie did so. As you probably know newly arrived immigrants were frequent targets of conscription...this caused a ton of strife. There were also the Copperheads, northern Democrats who were openly pro-southern. Also, there were peace Democrats, who had some overlap with the Copperheads, but there were many that did not go as far as to openly sympathize with the south. They were just dreaming of a return to a Jacksonian era that was gone forever.

McClellan ran as a "war Democrat" while his VP pick was George H. Pendleton, who represented peace Democrats. By 1864 though, it was clear that the North was winning the war and their ticket was doomed.