Petraeus' war

David Ignatius:

...

Petraeus won plaudits yesterday from nearly every member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, continuing the celebratory tone that greeted his nomination by President Bush. Even Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of the sharpest critics of the war, had good things to say about the new commander. It was a momentary honeymoon from acrimonious debate.

The accolades for Petraeus symbolize a deeper change, one that carries benefits and risks for the general and the troops he will lead. Bush and his senior advisers have been wrong so many times on Iraq that the public no longer trusts them to frame a successful strategy. So now the public face of the war passes to a bright, ambitious general. It is an intensely political role, and it puts Petraeus in a hot seat that many military officers try to avoid.

Petraeus doesn't want to play politics. He tells friends that he doesn't vote in presidential elections, to maintain his political independence. In that, he emulates Gen. George Marshall, the architect of the Allied victory in World War II. But this is an inherently political command. As Petraeus answered questions yesterday from Sen. John McCain -- who is building his presidential campaign on the need for a troop surge and ultimate victory in Iraq -- it was clear just how charged the commander's job will be. As the publicly anointed "last, best hope" of a failing war, his actions will shape the key issue of the 2008 campaign.

Petraeus has embraced this kind of high-risk mission before. Indeed, he seems to thrive on the public role that many military officers shun. When he took command of the training of Iraqi forces in mid-2004, Newsweek featured Petraeus on its cover and asked, "Can This Man Save Iraq?" That prominence engendered some ill will among other officers, who saw him as too eager for publicity. But, at this point, I sense that senior officers wish him well. He's taking on a supremely demanding job that most know they couldn't do. And he's betting his carefully groomed reputation on the relatively small chance that he can salvage an American victory.

The smartest thing Petraeus has done is to draw Congress into his confidence, as co-manager of the new strategy. In his testimony yesterday, he promised regular progress reports and pledged to tell Congress if he decides that the new strategy can't succeed. The flip side is that Petraeus will tell Congress whether he needs more troops, which may prove to be the case. Petraeus helped draft the new counterinsurgency field manual, which warns that successful operations "often require a high ratio of security forces to the protected population." It's hard to believe that 21,500 more troops will be enough to protect an Iraqi population in the midst of a civil war.

...

It seem typical of Washington reporters that when Bush followed Gen Abizaid's and Gen Casey's advise it is described as "Bush and his senior advisers have been wrong so many times on Iraq that the public no longer trusts them...." Because they have so much invested in Petraeus, the media must now accept responsibility for the actions of their man and quit blaming the President when the military's plans do not work. Critics of this war have gotten away with politicizing the war rather than directly challenging the military's advise to the President. That time is over. A general is taking command and he is also taking responsibility for the strategy. We should all hope he is successful. My biggest doubts are not about him, but whether the Democrats who want to lose the war can afford to give him the time to be successful.