Implications of the Obama/McChrystal flap

[Rabelais]

This Rolling Stone article was seemingly the tipping point for Obama's tolerance:
_http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

Never let a crisis go to waste, in fact did Rolling Stone publish this story to give the administration the opportunity to kill two birds with one rolling stone? Obama gets to sack McChrystal... and better yet, he gets to send his biggest threat for the 2012 elections, Petraeus, to the political equivalent of Siberia; Afghanistan.

My facebook page is generating some comments:

The political implications have so far been ignored. Betrayus was beginning to look like a Repug frontrunner draft for POTUS in 2012. Obama's sending him back in country moves him away from the 2012 presidential candidate hoopla and bogs him down in negative Afghanistan press. Score one for Barry.

To which Tammy responded:

It was the most politically brilliant move I have ever seen - with deeper implications. DP literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency. He IS the COIN mafia. So now the guy who came up with it has to prove it works or fail trying. In a year. No run in '12, no run EVER.

I had forgotten that COIN (counterinsurgency)was Petraeus' baby (lifted straight from the Secret Team). McChrystal had pretty much usurped it for himself. Sending Petraeus back to Afghanistan was a classic game theory move for the Obama camp. Obama must surely prefer a run against Palin and the teabaggers in 2012 than a head-to-head with a by gawd gen-u-wine war hero.

Since we know that in politics, nothing happens by accident, I have to wonder about the timing and intent of the Rolling Stone article. It certainly was convenient for the current administration, eh? It was also incredible that McChrystal would give RS this much access. Hoisted on his own petard of narcissism, it seems.