WaPo's Greg Jaffe, a terrific reporter, mentions three possible replacements. His reporting is consistent with what I've heard. I'm not sure I'm qualified to make a judgment. (In fact, I'm sure I'm not.) But I've heard concerns that Rodriguez is not the Big Personality that winning in Afghanistan -- and in Washington -- will require. John Allen has the right kind of experience and good relationships in the military hierarchy. Jim Mattis is highly-respected and while it's true that he's blunt-to-the-point-of-controversial, as Jaffe writes, that's a positive in my view. The problem, of course, is the transition to a new leader on the eve of what could be the decisive front in the escalating battle.

None of these options are very good. And it might be the case, as a practical matter at least and without regard to precedent, that keeping a weakened McChrystal would be better than elevating, say, Rodriguez. But I remain skeptical. Choosing Petraeus would make the best of a very unfortunate situation, in particular because it would send a signal that Obama is as committed as his flacks keep telling us.

Not surprisingly, Peter's questions are good ones.

In order:

1. I do not think there's much chance President Obama would ask General Petraeus to leave for Afghanistan. That's too bad. If we believe what Obama has said about Afghanistan since, well, 2002, he believes it's critical to US national security interests. (Yes, there are reasons to doubt his sincerity -- chiefly the withdrawal date.) Picking Petraeus would erase any doubts about his commitment to the mission and his seriousness about winning it.

If Obama asked, Petraeus would not -- and could not -- turn him down. I don't think the general would be eager to go, but he'd do it if his Commander-in-Chief asked.

2. An even more difficult question. I don't like our options. But it's important to remember that we're not comparing McChrystal of two weeks ago to these possible replacements. We're comparing them to a badly damaged McChrystal -- the McChrystal that would be leading troops and making internal arguments following a humiliating trip back to Washington for his comeuppance and after a public spanking from the president (and seemingly everyone in the administration, including Robert Gibbs.)

Continued below...

Over at TWS, I ever-so-politely disagree with Peter Robinson and a growing number conservatives on the fate of General Stanley McChrystal.

McChrystal is an American hero. And it's certainly true that the problems we're having in Afghanistan are not McChrystal's fault. As the New York times story on Obama's Afghanistan policy makes clear, the administration is in disarray, with internecine fighting on the rise and constructive dialogue on the wane.

It's precisely because of this infighting that McChrystal is no longer the right man for the job. After the Rolling Stone article and its aftermath -- including the trip to the Woodshed/White House today -- McChrystal will be too weakened internally to shape administration policy. In order to succeed, the US commander in Afghanistan has to be someone who has the respect of President Obama and can speak forcefully to the president and his advisers about the changes that must happen.

Peter, when I wrote: "It's true that there remain serious problems with the US intelligence community's structure," I meant precisely what you're saying about the DNI job. (I can't possibly understand how that wasn't clear!)

So the answer might be eliminating that position and the redundant bureaucracy underneath it and once again making the CIA director the top intelligence official in the country.

But the answer is not, in my view, leaving the DNI position open indefinitely. One of the most significant problems with the US intelligence community is the lack of definition and direct accountability -- and that's true with a DNI in place. The lines of responsibility would be even less clear with a prolonged vacancy or an acting DNI.

So either eliminate it altogether (my preference) or fill it with dispatch and make it a real job.