From McChrystal to Petraeus....Obama goes from the fying pan to the fire with his eyes, as usual, wide shut.

As Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent writes: "by placing Petraeus at the helm, it means that 2012 will probably look more like right now, in terms of troop levels and U.S. troops fighting..."

Afghanistan is definitely Obama's Vietnam, especially now with Petraeus at the helm.  It is senseless debacle driven by a military consortium of Westmorelands dominating this president.

It is a catastrophe that is bleeding the US of trillions of dollars needed in this country for economic recovery and full employment, such as rebuilding aging infrastructure and countless other crucial projects, killing and wounding more and more American military, and killing and wounding increasing numbers of civilians earning us the enmity of the Afghan people.

And Petraeus is supposed to provide the military leadership, just like he did in Iraq. 

As Patrick Cockburn wrote about Petraeus in 2007:

"It is a measure of Petraeus's political skills that he was promoted to his present position despite being responsible in part for two of the greatest debacles of the Iraq war. In 2003/4 it was Petraeus who was in charge of securing Mosul, the third largest Iraqi city, from the insurgents, and his strategy of conciliating the Sunni and former Baath party members was lauded by the US media. But nine months after he left, the insurgents captured Mosul; the police appointed by Petraeus fled or changed sides, and $41m worth of weapons were lost.

"In the same year Petraeus was given the crucial job of overseeing the training and expansion of Iraq's new army, and again he produced glowing reports of progress. But three years later the army he was charged with turning into an effective fighting force is notoriously incapable and corrupt. In addition, Petraeus failed to observe that almost the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was being embezzled, and Iraqi soldiers were forced to rely on obsolete and inadequate weaponry.

"It is the discrepancy between General Petraeus's performance as a general in Iraq (he had seen no combat before 2003) and his rapid elevation to overall US commander that has led his critics to portray him as a courtier-soldier whose victories are won in TV interviews or in Washington."

Obama can sure pick 'em; but then leadership and historical lessons don't seem to be his strong characteristics.