GREAT MEN. As Fallows and Yglesias note, Petraeus is the New Jesus. Indeed, a few months ago I was involved in a conversation with pro-occupation friend of mine (John Noonan of Op-For), who said, jokingly, "He walks on water, you know." I think that the Jesus syndrome has been taken to the height of absurdity in this case for a couple of reasons. While the New Jesus phenomenon may be common in offices everywhere, modern conservatives take very seriously the idea that a single tough individual (almost always a man) can cut through the bureaucracy and solve problems simply by force of his indomitable will. They had no difficulty whatsoever transforming George W. Bush into a flightsuit-wearing action hero in May 2003. The worship of tough male icons is part of the project. Moreover, even among conservatives George Bush himself seems to have a particular affinity for the idea that one tough "sheriff" can ride into town and make things right. Bernie Kerik, who was supposed to have "fixed" New York, was sent to fix Baghdad, then offered up to the Department of Homeland Security. It's a perfect storm of stupidity. Does Bill Kristol buy this? I find Ezra's thinking on this question compelling; when I first read the op-ed, I thought "he can't possibly be the stupid, so what's his angle?" I'm not certain, though, that Kristol's motivation is careerist in the sense that Ezra suggests. If there's anything we've learned about punditry, it's that being wrong never results in tenure being revoked. Bill Kristol is always going to be a go-to guy on the Right, in no small part because he's already built the relationships he needs to stay relevant in Washington media circles. Rather, I suspect that Kristol is carving out a place for himself in what, ten years down the road, will be the conservative narrative of the Iraq War. We already know that "stab in the back" will be the explanation for failure, and that no honest accounting of how the disaster came about will penetrate the conservative narrative. Kristol, I think, is positioning himself as the True Loyalist, never wavering from the idea that a wartime President should be supported, even if that President makes missteps. This puts him in a position to act as the grand arbiter of what's left of the conservative foreign policy establishment. Or maybe not. We'll see. --Robert Farley
