So the drama continues, and by the AM it will be all Petraeus, all the time for the foreseeable future. Why? Because General Petraeus stated in an interview on Sunday that he does not support a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
More after the fold...
In an interview with McClatchy newspapers, General Patraeus stated in response to questions about the current debate over withdrawal timetables or time "horizons" that he would not:
"project out, and to then try to plant a flag on a particular date."
According to the newspaper
Petraeus said any timetable must have "a heck of a lot more granularity than the kind of very short-hand statements that have been put out."
"We occasionally have commanders who have so many good weeks, (they think) it's won. We've got this thing. Well we don't. We've had so many good weeks. Right now, for example we've had two-and-a-half months of levels of violence not since March 2004," he said from his office at Camp Victory.
"Well that's encouraging. It's heartening. It's very welcome. But let's keep our powder dry. . . .Let's not let our guard down."
The implications of General Petraeus statements are obvious and you guessed it, i.e. everything depends on "conditions on the ground." This plays neatly into McCain's narrative. The question, though is whether McCain will flip flop back from his most recent recent support for Sen. Obama's 16-month timetable back to General Petraeus's "no timetable" stance. Very much like Don Quixote's chasing of the windmills.
Remember that during the recent press conference of three-man congressional delegation comprising Senators Jack Reed, Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama in Jordan, Sen. Obama was hammered by the press to admit to the fact that the surge had worked and that the Generals on the ground needed to be listened to. Sen. Obama stated clearly that certainly violence had been reduced and that if he were in General Petraeus's shoes he would be arguing exactly as the latter was doing in order to retain as much "flexibility" to carry out their mission. However, Sen. Obama added, his job as C-in-C and president he would have to place the "strategic" decisions regarding military missions in a larger context of competing national interests. A clear case of differentiating between Policy and operational tactics.
Now, with Petraeus's latest statements, the Wingnut will pounce and blur those pertinent points about what the role of a President/Commander in Chief is supposed to be. The vapid MSM will resurrect the meme of abdicating all national strategic decisions to military generals in the way Bush has done. The meme will be played, rinsed, and repeated endlessly.
The politicization of the military and the Iraq war part two in the unfolding series begins. Here we go...!