Snap Analysis: Obama's choice: pros and cons of dumping general

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of his top general in Afghanistan on Wednesday, deciding to dump a respected military leader rather than risk being undermined as commander-in-chief.

Obama chose General David Petraeus to replace General Stanley McChrystal, whose disparaging remarks about administration officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article cost him his job.

Here are the pros and cons of the president's decision on several fronts:

* The optics. Obama's decision to relieve McChrystal of his command was meant to project strength. Holding on to him could have projected the opposite.

Obama praised the general for his service and said he made the decision with sadness. It was the right thing to do for the mission in Afghanistan and U.S. national security, he added.

The message: Obama is in charge. He may be slow to show anger, but he will not tolerate disrespectful conduct from those who report to him.

* The strategy. McChrystal's departure could be a setback to U.S. efforts to persuade Afghan President Hamid Karzai to improve governance and clamp down on corruption, which was key to the success of his counterinsurgency strategy.

McChrystal's strong relationship with Karzai was an important asset to the Obama administration in the region.

Obama chose to accept that "con" and put his confidence in Petraeus to fill the hole McChrystal will leave. He said the switch did not represent a change in policy, only in personnel. The message: U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is still on track even if the architect is gone.

* The troops. McChrystal is popular with his troops and his departure is likely to upset some of them. But the president chose that consequence over one that may have been worse: leaving a general in place whose actions and comments undermined the commander-in-chief.

Obama, in his remarks, referenced the importance of adhering to a "strict code of conduct."

The message: McChrystal did not follow that code and had to suffer the consequences. Obama may not have a military background, but he understands the need to enforce the same strict discipline of his top general as he expects of his troops.

- The politics. Obama has come under pressure for not exercising more discipline among fellow Democrats and not being quick or decisive enough on big issues from reacting to the oil spill to choosing to send more troops for the Afghan war. His actions on Wednesday would counter such criticism.

He made his decision quickly. He did not "dither," as some have accused him of doing before. He emphasized discipline within his civilian and military team and tried to show that, despite encouraging debate, he would not accept division.

That is likely to play well with the American electorate. U.S. voters prefer to see a strong commander-in-chief, and that strength could offset other perceived presidential weaknesses when voters go to the polls in November's congressional elections.

Even lawmakers from both political parties made clear that Obama's decision about McChrystal's future was his alone to make. Though it came with some pitfalls, his choice is likely to gain more political sympathy than critique.

(Editing by Patricia Wilson and Doina Chiacu)