Gen. David H. Petraeus — “King David,” the man behind the surge, the author of the new counter-insurgency strategy, the savior of Iraq, the photogenic Washington star — has been nominated to be the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. It is the expected and only sensible choice for the Pentagon: Petraeus had already been in line for a reward and promotion and there really isn’t anyone else who would want to take the job as head of Central Command.
Petraeus as the new Middle East commander is neither good news nor bad. I hope he is smart enough to get working on a “plan” for withdrawal for the new president. And I hope he will understand the folly of picking a fight with Iran (or Pakistan) at the end of an extremely unsuccessful administration.
But the truth is we never really know what these generals really think because to become a four-star and to become a regional commander, one has to be pretty polished and careful. And after 9/11, the power and role of the regional commanders has been weakened. It will be interesting to see whether King David changes that.
For those who don’t know, the regional combatant commanders, as they are called in the military, are supposed to be the supreme commanders with great power. In the Gulf War in 1991, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the CENTCOM commander at the time, was so hands-on he directly took on the role as the ground forces commander, brushing aside his subordinates. In Iraq in 2003, Gen. Tommy Franks did the same.
The point here is that the president and the secretary of defense might ultimately approve a war plan, but the theater commander is the ultimate decider of tactics, strategy, force size, etc.
Franks and Schwarzkopf might have had great old-boy qualities as leaders (well, at least Schwarzkopf did) but neither was a genius. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: sometimes the genius commander (e.g., Wesley Clarke in Kosovo) can believe he knows better than his civilian masters, an equally troublesome state of affairs.

blog.washingtonpost.com