Asked by Rick Warren to name "the three wisest people you would rely on heavily in an administration," John McCain led off with David Petraeus, which raises the question of why not have the general at his side as a running mate?
Since, in McCain's judgment, the Iraq war has been won, wouldn't Petraeus' wisdom be useful in a broader role? After presiding over victory in World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, with no previous political experience, went straight to the White House, so the vice-presidency for a newcomer would not be a radical departure.
Aside from that, Gen. Petraeus has been deeply involved in the politics of Iraq, sometimes to the dismay of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and just last week went to Beirut to meet with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Fuad Siniora on the military-political situation there.
Since the US military has been drawn so deeply into politics by the Bush Administration, Petraeus as VP might be the logical next stop.
According to an editor of US News & World Report, Petraeus has already helped save the US economy with the success of the Surge allowing Iraq to pump 2.4 million barrels of petroleum a day and prevent "$200-a-barrel oil--or maybe twice that."
With all this success on America's foreign and domestic fronts, doesn't Petraeus qualify as a VP choice for McCain?
With all this success on America's foreign and domestic fronts, doesn't Petraeus qualify as a VP choice for McCain?
ReplyDeletePetraeus' qualifications aside, if he did run for VP, he'd take a big financial hit. He'd have to forego the lucrative post-retirement book-and-lecture tour if he zipped right into politics.
How about Pervez Musharraf? He is out of work.
ReplyDeleteBut I would still put money on Willard Romney.