http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2008040502476

Today's WP story on the close relation between Bush and Petraeus raises a number of important questions for students of civil-military relations, a number of which have been debated on this forum on other occasions. Of particular importance to me it seems to discuss whether there is anything wrong, as some people quoted in this piece imply, with civilian leaders going down the chain of command and relying more on the advice a particular military leader as opposed to a more formal decision-making process. My gut feeling is that the president ought to be able to select among competing advice from various military leaders to the best of his judgement. As long as all parties have a chance to make their case, I don't see a big problem with it. But I look forward to hearing good counter-arguments...

Here are a few good paragraphs from the piece:
In the waning months of his administration, Bush has hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, according to current and former administration officials and retired officers. In so doing, Bush's working relationship with his field commander has taken on an intensity that is rare in the history of the nation's wartime presidents...
Bush's reliance on Petraeus has made other military officials uneasy, has rankled congressional Democrats and has created friction that helped spur the departure last month of Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, who, while Petraeus's boss as chief of U.S. Central Command, found his voice eclipsed on Iraq...
Bush's relationship with Petraeus marks a departure for modern war presidencies. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton left it largely to their military advisers in Washington to communicate with field commanders, according to scholars of civilian-military relations...