When Petraeus states, as he no doubt will, that we need to excercise strategic patience in Iraq and wait this thing out for another two years (minimum), we would all do well to remember that his mission and report is confined to the borders of the country that he is in charge of - Iraq.

Petraeus is not charged with shepharding the course of US middle-east policy, or global strategy. Thus, issues such as Iran's rise to power in the wake of the war, Al Qaida's growing presence in Pakistan, or the political issues of Israel\Palestine\Lebanon (which have global consequences) are not part of whether he is doing his job or not. Thus, the issue of progress in Iraq will induce tunnel-vision unless we stand back and look at our presence in that country within the framework of the entire region.

Another thing to remember is that no general could possibly ever recommend drawing down troops if they did not have to. So long as our army can walk, their generals will not consider the mission uncompletable. So regardless of whether it is a good idea to continue fighting, we will.

All the calls for withdrawal\redeployment hinge on the notion that Iraq is one part (or perhaps a distraction from) our global operation against terrorism. My view is that it has occupied far too much of our effort without producing anything but more terrorists, and that we need to shift our forces elsewhere to be effective against terrorism. Most arguements in favor of staying focus on Iraq as a monolithic, isolated struggle in which need not consider the external consequences of our fighting there. If this were true, then of course there would be no reason to leave or redeploy.

However, this is Petraeus' job. Iraq, Surge, Iraq. He can only report on the progress theoroff. The real person who should be reporting to congress for questioning are the joint chiefs, who are charged with looking at the big picture. Them and Cheney, who's giving them their marching orders.