This whole business of having Patraeus testify before congress is an interesting example of American style militarism in action. The president has been very skillfully using the military as a shield against criticism that would otherwise be directed at him, and as a prop for his own lack of direction and the public's lack of trust in him. In other words, the military is being used as a PR machine and a foil for the commander in chief -- as opposed to a warfighting role. Note the careful phrasing of the CinC, who has repeatedly said things like "the military's strategy" and "we'll le the military decide" and "soldiers and not politicians should decide" --- as though the CinC/President were somehow divorced from the military he runs and not accountable for it. The military is being pawned off as an independant (and exalted) entity, when in reality it is merely an arm of the executive.

I have to give Patraeus credit, he is in a tough spot. He's trying to be loyal to a boss who ultimately wants him to step beyond his role. As the article properly notes, when Patraeus was asked if fighting in Iraq is "making us safer" he basically answered that it was beyond his ken, and that he was simply doing the mission he had been assigned (tame Iraq) as best he could. I can't find a handy cite, but I seem to recall an incident during WWI when "Blackjack" Pershing was about to head to France to head the American army in the field. A reporter asked him "Why are American boys going to be fighting in France?" To paraphrase, Pershing replied "Why? Don't ask me why. If you want to know WHY ask the president. My commander has issued me orders, and I have a duty to follow them." Back then it was a lot more clear - the military was a tool of politicians (president and congress), who were then accountable to the American people for the strategies and polices put in place. President Wilson didn't expect his general to serve as a mouthpiece for his (the president's) policy and strategy choices. And Pershing felt that arguments over the "why" of the war were for politicians and their constituents, not the military.

Simply, we don't need Patraeus being grilled. We need the President being grilled. And every time the president tries to distance himself from military decisions or prognostication he should be pointedly asked "Hey, aren't these YOUR people? Don't they do what YOU tell them?"

want to ask a General "Do you think X can be accomplished." Given the distrust of the administration, there is no one left for many politicians to ask and get an answer they might accept. If there is anything to salvage in Iraq, Congress has to be able to listen to someone in charge to make the best policy decisions...but with the current rancor, I don't think many will take Petreus as honest anyway. At least they won't unless he agrees with their own notions.

The problem is when they ask the General "Should X be accomplished." That is where we start having the military advocate policy, rather than execute. Petreus' job should be to provide various courses of action with data and predictions on outcome, and leave the decisions to Congress and the President.

Well said. That is exactly how it should be. Bush the Younger has continually made a point of shifting responsibility to the military, which is engaged in operations far beyond its normal scope. It disgusts me every time I hear him do it.

One noteworthy president made it known that the buck stopped with him. Bush deflects said buck at every opportunity to draw attention away from his own myriad failures.

My guess, though, is that Petraeus was chosen at least partly for his ability to accept and articulate the Bush adminstration position on Iraq, and do just what he did yesterday.

Whether he SHOULD be doing that, well, as you say...that's another question.