Lefty blogs are making a huge deal of the fact that Petraeus didn't have an opinion on the wisdom of fighting a war in Iraq. Here, from DailyKos:
The one most important thing Petraeus has been doing for the last two days, as far as the administration is concerned, is making the case for the criticality to our national security of keeping this the long war. He blew that today in a remarkable display of unbridled honesty, when Sen. Warner asked him if success in Iraq would make the U.S. safer. Petraeus responded, "I don't know."
And here's Andrew Sullivan:
He's fighting a war that he hasn't even decided is vital or even beneficial to the security of the United States. That's how lost we are in mission creep. That's the depth of the hole in which Petraeus has been ordered to keep digging.
But the key point for these folks prior to the hearings was that Petraeus was merely a White House stooge, a politicized general spewing the administration's talking points. Now that he shows up and behaves exactly as a general should--no opinion on the policy, serious analysis of tactics and strategy--they act as though Petraeus has admitted he doesn't believe in this war.
You can't have it both ways. Which is exactly what Fred Kagan explained over the weekend at NRO--commanders in the field have one job: win the war. Their job is not to question the policy and its broader implications, just to win the war.
And how would these folks respond if Petraeus had given some impassioned speech about how Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, etc. etc.? Instead he acts like a professional, and responds to the question from Warner:
"I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
The left should be lauding him for this--he diplomatically extricated himself from a question that would have required him to sell the policy of war in Iraq. He balks, and he gets attacked anyway--now he's not a true believer. Petraeus responded to this question exactly as he should have.
Update: From QandO, we get a subsequent exchange between Petraeus and Senator Bayh:
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): "I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question and that was - he asked you - going forward the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer? And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your - beyond the scope of your responsibilities."
PETRAEUS: "Well, I thank you actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly. Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise.
"But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests - achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer really, to come back to it is yes. But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down, that was something that really on first glance is something that I would let others - "
BAYH: "I judge by your response to Senator Graham, that you have given that a little additional thought."
PETRAEUS: "Immediately afterwards actually."
BAYH: "That happens to all of us, including those of us on this side of the table."
I liked his first answer better. But the point remains, he's not there to defend the war--despite what the left is saying--he's there to defend the strategy.
