In their book Benghazi: The Definitive Report the authors claim that Petraeus was betrayed by his security detail and high level CIA officials who resented how he was running the agency and who wanted him out at CIA. It was, in the author's words, a "palace coup."
Their research also shows that the Benghazi attack was likely a retaliation for a series of secret operations against radical groups that no one in the CIA or State Department, and maybe not even the president, knew about. They were operations run by the man who is President Obama's current pick to replace Petraeus at CIA, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan.
It's all very fascinating, particularly the insight it gives into the president's lackadaisical, hands-free management style and his insoucient approach to secret operations.
Here's an excerpt from the Daily Mail's article on the book:
Behind closed doors, President Obama had given his counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, carte blanche to run operations in North Africa and the Middle East, provided he didn’t do anything that ended up becoming an exposé in The New York Times and embarrassing the administration. In 2012, a secret war across North Africa was well underway.There's much more at the link. Anyone interested in the Petraeus scandal and the Benghazi attack will find several details there that have not previously come to light. The article's revelations helped me, at least, to understand why on the night of the embassy attack no one seems to have had any contact with the president. He's simply not interested in supervising such things, whether it's legislation, or special operations, or attacks on our embassies, he simply prefers to let others make the decisions. It's not just a matter of delegating authority. Rather, it's that he apparently doesn't even care to know what his delegates are doing with their authority.
If this is true then this is not merely an instance of "leading from behind." It's not leading at all.