Conspiracy Theory of the Day

I'm a huge admirer of General David Petraeus. Isn't everybody? The man turned Iraq from an unmitigated disaster to a (near?) victory. He's a modern American hero.

Now that he's in charge of Afghanistan, most people expect similar success. In fact, if he does succeed in making order out of the perpetually ungovernable 'Stan, some have suggested that Petraeus should be given a fifth star, which hasn't happened in 60 years, a la Eisenhower.

Warning: Paranoia starts here.

Which begs the question: Why would the President do this? Is General Petraeus truly the only option to replace Gen. McChrystal? Is it really necessary to remove Petraeus from his job atop CentCom to run Afghanistan? Or does Petraeus work for himself now?

The Army tends to be a conveyor belt of leadership, i.e. the next guy in line is expected to be able to do the same job. Surely the Army has dozens of capable young(er) generals, many of whom have been staff officers and proteges of Petraeus. So if the President needs to fire "loose lips" McChrystal, why couldn't he tap any number of young, eager generals who are waiting in line?

My concern stems from the following five points:

1. Afghanistan is getting worse. Casualties are up. Fighting is worse. The enemy (militant, fundamentalist Islam) lost in Iraq and is now focusing on Afghanistan. Along the same lines…
2. History is against us. The US military has done something remarkable since 2001 in Afghanistan, something that the Soviets, the British, and everybody since Alexander the Great couldn't really do. But we haven't exactly turned this into a functional, self-sustaining state yet. And unlike Iraq, which has has a history of a strong, centralized government, it may not be possible here.
3. I didn't believe President Obama when he said Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan is where it's at. First, I believe they are different theaters of the same conflict. Second, I think President (then candidate) Obama was seizing the political opportunity of disagreeing with an unpopular President Bush: Bush was focused on Iraq, therefore Obama was "for" Afghanistan. But now Iraq is cooling down while Afghanistan is heating up. Will Afghanistan now be Bush's war, too?
4. Senator Obama lectured and scolded General Petraeus before the surge in Iraq. Obama's side called him "General Betray-us." I think people like the President are embarrassed that our military asserts itself around the globe. Since when is the President a fan?
   
5. I don't believe President Obama would purposefully launch the political career of Petraeus, making him the next Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Grant, or Washington, or any of the other 30+ Presidents who formerly served in the military, several of whom capitalized on their service to run for office. How could a politically savvy Obama hope for Petraeus to be successful?
   

Second Warning: Conspiratorial Paranoia is now in full bloom…

Therefore, if President Obama is not really pulling for either General Petraeus or the War on Terror in Afghanistan… does he believe that we are going to lose in Afghanistan? Does he plan to accept failure and pin the blame on Petraeus as a way of knocking him down a peg or two?

Surely those kind of political calculations don't actually happen, do they?