Second, if Gen. Petraeus *did* feel that Iraq was lost, it does not at all follow that he would be doing everything he could to get them out. That sort of effort would presumably entail making Pres. Bush and his associates aware that he felt Iraq was lost — and you and I both know what happens to generals who give Bush bad news. Perhaps he is not prepared to face the inevitable consequences of being the bearer of bad news.

You have just called Petraeus a coward. I met the man many years ago and he struck me as one of the most intelligent officers I had ever met. His criticism of the way the Iraq War was handled was known, but done respectfully…he’s not a coward about that. Why, Kathy, do you think they _picked_ Petraeus to lead a change in tactics that is strikingly different from “Stay the Course”?

Let me help you. Because he didn’t think that the way we were doing things would lead to victory. And his two hand picked assistants are of the same ilk. Smart and not afraid to critique the way thinks are run. Easting. One of those men is H.R. McMaster, the hero of 73 Easting.

Don’t know about 73 Easting, Kathy? Google it.

One would hope not. And neither you nor I really know what is in David Petraeus’ head. That said, your analysis overlooks several salient points.

First, with all due respect to Gen. Petraeus’ experience and expertise, just because he does not think Iraq is lost, does not mean he is right. Soldiers (and that includes Petraeus) have a vested interest in believing that the “cause” — whatever they conceive that to be — is not lost. How could they not? They have sacrificed so much, and they would not be human if they did not want to believe that their sacrifices have been in vain. I’m not saying here that their sacrifices *have* been in vain — just that the need to believe in the possibility of victory does not necessarily mean that belief is warranted.

Second, if Gen. Petraeus *did* feel that Iraq was lost, it does not at all follow that he would be doing everything he could to get them out. That sort of effort would presumably entail making Pres. Bush and his associates aware that he felt Iraq was lost — and you and I both know what happens to generals who give Bush bad news. Perhaps he is not prepared to face the inevitable consequences of being the bearer of bad news.

And third, your comment about Congress usurping constitutional powers and “micromanaging” a war are misinformed (to put it as politely as I can). Congress funds wars. The Iraq war — the Iraq war *alone* — has cost this country close to half a trillion dollars to date, which includes the $100 billion additional that Congress recently authorized. In the first six months of FY2007, the U.S. has been spending $12 billion a month on the Iraq war — a sharp increase from FY2006, when we were spending $8.7 billion a month. By 2017, the costs of the Iraq war could rise to as much as $1.4 trillion. And don’t tell me we won’t still be in Iraq 10 years from now. The Bush administration has clearly announced its plans to occupy Iraq for the next 50 years.

Point of the above: Congress is constitutionally mandated to account for how the money it’s allocating — money which comes from all of our pocketbooks — is being spent, and it has the obligation, not just the right, to ensure that that money is not being thrown away on a war that is an abject failure and has no chance of success.