Is there anybody in Washington that really cares about the American people. As if there are not 1000 better qualified people to head up the CIA. Tell these jokes of presidents we have been electing what they want to hear and you get a top job, regardless of qualifications. I understand that the postmaster general is in line to head up the wars in AFPAK - hey.. he's a general right!

Isn't Petraeus getting the CIA post because Obama owes him for taking the demotion to the Afghan War command? The general wanted the Joint Chiefs job but did himself in with his constant self-promotion. Yes, the guy is smart. But the public is smarter and has begun to see his urging Obama to extend the war as a career builder (for Petraeus), this on the backs of the soldiers he "supported" and blowing billions on his nation-building pipe dream. The slick general has fooled the D.C. insiders, media and some military wonks, but his relentless, flashy image-building is undignified and obvious.The People are tired of him and sick of his war(s).Once again, David Petraeus will get a pass from his admirers, though - the old boys' club in Washington. Hopefully, we will see and hear less of this annoying little show-off when he is engaged in the "secret" work of the CIA.

Petraeus has always been on the public dole - probably one more reason his war efforts could suck up the taxpayers' billions and he didn't blink - but what about his wife's Federal job? Is this a conflict of interest, or just the Feds doing biz as usual to let Mrs. P. retain her federally funded position? Is their son still on the government (Army) payroll, too.

Would not be wise for Gen. P. to run for president in 2016. He may be the savvy keeper of secrets, but many of his will spill forth if he runs in '16. Apparently, some of them would be humiliating to a man who had carefully crafted his image as a compassionate commander, super patriot and family man.

USA is gaining nothing but ridicule all across the world by following such war-mongering, neocon and zionist policies. pls end these wars already to save USA from any further embarrassment.

"arguing that the key to success in counterinsurgency is the ability to make the government legitimate in the eyes of the people. This is an increasingly controversial position, not least because it requires an enormous long-term investment in the political and economic development of war-torn countries".

I don't think that making "government legitimate in the eyes of the people" is a controversial position of counterinsurgency. That may be a controversial fact because of the enormous long-term investment, but not because its centrality in successful counterinsurgency operations is in question. In this sense, the question is not whether we want to build legitimate governments while practicing counterinsurgency but rather whether we want to practice counterinsurgency at all.

"Petraeus will be in charge of the same analysts who will implicitly judge the results of his strategy. Suppose they judge it is failing. Will he faithfully transmit their conclusions to the president, or will he stifle dissent? Will he create an environment at the agency that is open to debate and disagreement, or will he pressure analysts to toe the line?"

I also think this is off base. Now Petraeus has proven himself to be the consumate poltical general. Yet I doubt this will preclude him from being an effective CIA Director. Personal characteristics aside, Petraeus does not need Afghanistan or Iraq to succeed to maintain his standing. Petraeus's fame, deservedly so, stems from pulling Iraq back from the brink post 2006.

“The key to success in counterinsurgency is the ability to make the government legitimate in the eyes of the people.” - Gen. David Petraeus

Even Gen. Petraeus realizes that any ‘government’ taken over power of a country by force and falsifying elections would not be able to stop strikes of militant groups without working civil institutions and participating citizens.

Is David Petraeus an exceptionally successful military executive, or one who was lucky to get a near-free ride from flattering brief mentions in a book read at the White House and written by Tom Ricks of CNAS?

Is skill at military leadership an indicator of success at leading the CIA? There have been many former military officers in that position, and those do not seem to stick out as the Agency's golden years.

The problem that exists (and will exists probably forever, or at least until there is a major change in the system) is that there are political pressures on almost anyone. There can be political pressure on a bank employee who can give or not give a loan to someone who has used a house payment calculator at home and figured out what he can get from the bank. If he is "our guy" there will be no problem. If he is not, well, there may be some difficulties. And don't laugh, I've seen it with my own eyes.
Then there are local levels of politics, where someone gets a building permit and someone else does not.
And if there is political pressure at such low levels, just imagine how much pressure is there at the top.
So yes, there is a whole lot of pressure and if gen. Petraeus (or anyone else) wants to keep a job, he has to cope with it. Let's just hope the pressure (or the politics) won't ruin everything there is still standing.

Petraeus is very well regarded internationally and these contacts are likely to be helpful in his new role surely?. He also was in effect a customer of the CIA so has a very good perspective on the quality of their work without being an insider with all the baggage that might bring. Conflicts of interest? Yes but I suspect less than would exist for a CIA or or Washington insider - past favours, skeletons and all that. So he has sharp elbows - so what I suspect you need them there? Let review at Christmas . One thing is for sure and that is he is first rate and does not mind rocking the boat that cannot be bad.